If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BusinessWeek)   Time Warner Cable offers free rabbit ears so customers can again enjoy 1966 CBS quality programming   (businessweek.com) divider line 240
    More: Asinine, Time Warner Cable, Time Warner, CBS, cable operators, BBY, hold down  
•       •       •

6911 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Aug 2013 at 8:07 AM (47 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



240 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-27 07:26:13 AM
What?  This shiat hasn't been resolved yet?
 
2013-08-27 08:09:50 AM
Al Bundy falling off roof comes to mind.
 
2013-08-27 08:10:00 AM

TheMaskedArmadillo: What?  This shiat hasn't been resolved yet?


Nope, not that I'm too torn up about losing CBS, but time warner is a piece of shiat in general.  Thankfully, the fios is getting hooked up in my building this month.

I'll be first on the list for install.
 
2013-08-27 08:10:19 AM
Time Warner loses as soon as football starts.
 
2013-08-27 08:11:01 AM
I only have antenna tv and the picture rivals that of cable and it's free
 
2013-08-27 08:11:11 AM

TheMaskedArmadillo: What?  This shiat hasn't been resolved yet?


That's what I was going to say.  These things usually resolve themselves in a week, at most.
 
2013-08-27 08:11:26 AM
People get pissed at the cable company but if they take a higher programming price then they are just going to pass cost on to the customer.
 
2013-08-27 08:13:05 AM

baufan2005: People get pissed at the cable company but if they take a higher programming price then they are just going to pass cost on to the customer.


Or, you know, they could ditch the home shopping crap to cover the cost.
 
2013-08-27 08:14:46 AM

Vodka Zombie: Or, you know, they could ditch the home shopping crap to cover the cost.


You do realize cable companies don't *pay* for home shopping channels but are paid to carry them?

If they drop the home shopping channel then the price will go up elsewhere.
 
2013-08-27 08:15:26 AM

Waldo Pepper: I only have antenna tv and the picture rivals that of cable and it's free


The article also says this. OTA doesn't suffer from compression. Subby's trollin'.

/welcometofark.jpg
 
2013-08-27 08:17:37 AM

Waldo Pepper: I only have antenna tv and the picture rivals that of cable and it's free


I think the headline was referring to the actual programs on CBS not the quality of the picture. And the over the air (OTA) picture should be as good as cable or better. OTA is coming straight from the source and if the show is in HD the signal should be 1080i (high quality). Cable could be degrading the signal to a lower quality such as 720p (middling quality) and passing it off as HD. There's a big difference in picture quality between the two.
 
2013-08-27 08:18:24 AM
FTA: likely causing more than one subscriber to wonder why she pays a monthly cable bill.

forum.sportsmogul.com
 
2013-08-27 08:21:00 AM
Pretty risky for a cable company to offer OTA antennas. We use one for broadcast television and it eliminated any need or desire for their service. Between that and cheap online sunday ticket there is no real need for cable.
 
2013-08-27 08:21:07 AM
I love it.  Cable is dying a slow death.  They farked us over for years and now they're paying the price.  I can get this shiat over the internet.
 
2013-08-27 08:21:16 AM
clever ploy. most people don't live in a area that gets many channels over the air. i know we are only talking one channel here but even having to hook up the rabbit ears and switching between rabbit ear and cable tv is too much work or confuses some people. my parents are in their 80's and could get many channels over the air but they can't deal with using rabbit ears and readjusting them every time they change channels. it isn't so much the cable company is saying they are great but that rabbit ears can really suck but our company is doing its best to serve you in this difficult time.
 
2013-08-27 08:23:18 AM

gfid: I love it.  Cable is dying a slow death.  They farked us over for years and now they're paying the price. still ridiculously wealthy and successful and can continue to do business.  I can get this shiat over the internet.

 
2013-08-27 08:24:03 AM
I'd have completely cut cable by now if I didn't get a discount on Internet service greater than the cost of basic cable.  Installing an antenna on my roof (which ya really need to do to get the best OTA signal) and wiring it throughout the house seems like a colossal pain in the ass as well.
 
2013-08-27 08:24:27 AM

starlost: clever ploy. most people don't live in a area that gets many channels over the air. i know we are only talking one channel here but even having to hook up the rabbit ears and switching between rabbit ear and cable tv is too much work or confuses some people. my parents are in their 80's and could get many channels over the air but they can't deal with using rabbit ears and readjusting them every time they change channels. it isn't so much the cable company is saying they are great but that rabbit ears can really suck but our company is doing its best to serve you in this difficult time.


Maybe old antennas. I get 42 channels OTA and don't ever have to adjust it since it is omnidirectional.
 
2013-08-27 08:24:40 AM
Ah, TWC.  "This is what we charge, this is what you'll get, kiss my ass."  We don't just rip you off, we insult you sh*tless.  Had a 30/5 TWC roadrunner feed.  Never even came close to 4/1mbps.  Add a sh*tty VoIP phone with no UPS and 72 channels of utter sh*t and you're oinking up 180.00 a month for whatever the hell they feel like capping you at.  If this company falls into the ocean, maybe the .gov crews will get off their ass and start a WPA type program blowing 100/10 fiber to every house in America.  You know, like the civilized countries.
 
2013-08-27 08:27:13 AM
tripleseven: Thankfully, the fios is getting hooked up in my building this month.

I'll be first on the list for install.


Lucky bastard... We could use a little healthy competition among the telecoms out here in flyover country.
 
2013-08-27 08:28:53 AM

tripleseven: TheMaskedArmadillo: What?  This shiat hasn't been resolved yet?

Nope, not that I'm too torn up about losing CBS, but time warner is a piece of shiat in general.  Thankfully, the fios is getting hooked up in my building this month.

I'll be first on the list for install.


They just hooked up FIOS on our street. I was amazed how much more expensive it is than Comcast for internet. Like double the price expensive and there is a $360 early termination fee if you cancel before 2 years.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-27 08:29:02 AM

clkeagle: tripleseven: Thankfully, the fios is getting hooked up in my building this month.

I'll be first on the list for install.

Lucky bastard... We could use a little healthy competition among the telecoms out here in flyover country.


FIOS is coming to my town and I did a "pre-sign up" with them just yesterday.  I am leaving Comcast behind.  They DESPERATELY need the competition.
 
2013-08-27 08:30:11 AM

Carth: Like double the price expensive and there is a $360 early termination fee if you cancel before 2 years


I will never understand why we let companies get away with this.  "Uh, if you fire us, you have to give us money".  Try that at McDonald's.
 
2013-08-27 08:30:33 AM
Hammer down
Rabbit ears
Hammer down
 
2013-08-27 08:32:32 AM

bunner: Ah, TWC.  "This is what we charge, this is what you'll get, kiss my ass."  We don't just rip you off, we insult you sh*tless.  Had a 30/5 TWC roadrunner feed.  Never even came close to 4/1mbps.  Add a sh*tty VoIP phone with no UPS and 72 channels of utter sh*t and you're oinking up 180.00 a month for whatever the hell they feel like capping you at.  If this company falls into the ocean, maybe the .gov crews will get off their ass and start a WPA type program blowing 100/10 fiber to every house in America.  You know, like the civilized countries.


My city floated bonds to build its own fiberoptic network. When other towns around us realized how popular this was, Slime-Warner bought off several members of the NC legislature to pass a law effectively prohibiting cities from using bonds to build the same network. Then TWC quit putting any money into improving the infrastructure in this state.

I really hope the slimeballs running the company rot in jail with those legislators one day, but I'm not holding my breath.
 
2013-08-27 08:33:48 AM

Carth: tripleseven: TheMaskedArmadillo: What?  This shiat hasn't been resolved yet?

Nope, not that I'm too torn up about losing CBS, but time warner is a piece of shiat in general.  Thankfully, the fios is getting hooked up in my building this month.

I'll be first on the list for install.

They just hooked up FIOS on our street. I was amazed how much more expensive it is than Comcast for internet. Like double the price expensive and there is a $360 early termination fee if you cancel before 2 years.


The price is negotiable if you don't bundle and don't sign a contract.
 
2013-08-27 08:33:57 AM
"enjoy 1966 CBS quality programming "

CBS did have quality programing back then.

The Jackie Gleason Show
The Ed Sullivan Show
TheSmothers Brothers
Mission Impossible

Hell,  They even had Lost in space!
 
2013-08-27 08:35:56 AM

sonofslacker: Waldo Pepper: I only have antenna tv and the picture rivals that of cable and it's free

I think the headline was referring to the actual programs on CBS not the quality of the picture. And the over the air (OTA) picture should be as good as cable or better. OTA is coming straight from the source and if the show is in HD the signal should be 1080i (high quality). Cable could be degrading the signal to a lower quality such as 720p (middling quality) and passing it off as HD. There's a big difference in picture quality between the two.


The compression spoken of is not a reduction of resolution, but rather of the data rate of the transmission. You can still retain the same resolution while having a drop in video quality, same as photographic or audio. Less data used for the each pixel even when there are the same number of pixels results in lower quality pixels. The OTA broadcasts come down at full data rate, whereas many cable companies do feed shows at lower data rates to save on bandwidth costs.
 
2013-08-27 08:36:14 AM

UsikFark: Carth: tripleseven: TheMaskedArmadillo: What?  This shiat hasn't been resolved yet?

Nope, not that I'm too torn up about losing CBS, but time warner is a piece of shiat in general.  Thankfully, the fios is getting hooked up in my building this month.

I'll be first on the list for install.

They just hooked up FIOS on our street. I was amazed how much more expensive it is than Comcast for internet. Like double the price expensive and there is a $360 early termination fee if you cancel before 2 years.

The price is negotiable if you don't bundle and don't sign a contract.


That's what I'm hoping. They sent us the flyer on friday and said a Rep is going door to door this week. I'm just going to show him my Comcast bill and ask if they can match it. Their price of 50 Mbps down for $89 a month with no contract is double what I'm paying.

Although the 500 Mbps service would be nice if it weren't $300 a month.
 
2013-08-27 08:36:36 AM

d23: FIOS is coming to my town and I did a "pre-sign up" with them just yesterday. I am leaving Comcast behind. They DESPERATELY need the competition.


FIOS came to my town and was every bit as expensive as Comcast.  Grab your ankles.
 
2013-08-27 08:38:06 AM

bunner: Ah, TWC.  "This is what we charge, this is what you'll get, kiss my ass."  We don't just rip you off, we insult you sh*tless.  Had a 30/5 TWC roadrunner feed.  Never even came close to 4/1mbps.  Add a sh*tty VoIP phone with no UPS and 72 channels of utter sh*t and you're oinking up 180.00 a month for whatever the hell they feel like capping you at.  If this company falls into the ocean, maybe the .gov crews will get off their ass and start a WPA type program blowing 100/10 fiber to every house in America.  You know, like the civilized countries.


I have TWC cable's 30/5megabit service, no cable or phone. I get consistent 24/7/365 3.83 MegaByte download speed.
 
2013-08-27 08:38:43 AM

Vodka Zombie: TheMaskedArmadillo: What?  This shiat hasn't been resolved yet?

That's what I was going to say.  These things usually resolve themselves in a week, at most.


I think the cable companies are realizing that we've finally reached the point where people are going to cancel their service because of the high prices.  So they're trying to fight back.
 
2013-08-27 08:42:45 AM

Carth: UsikFark: Carth: tripleseven: TheMaskedArmadillo: What?  This shiat hasn't been resolved yet?

Nope, not that I'm too torn up about losing CBS, but time warner is a piece of shiat in general.  Thankfully, the fios is getting hooked up in my building this month.

I'll be first on the list for install.

They just hooked up FIOS on our street. I was amazed how much more expensive it is than Comcast for internet. Like double the price expensive and there is a $360 early termination fee if you cancel before 2 years.

The price is negotiable if you don't bundle and don't sign a contract.

That's what I'm hoping. They sent us the flyer on friday and said a Rep is going door to door this week. I'm just going to show him my Comcast bill and ask if they can match it. Their price of 50 Mbps down for $89 a month with no contract is double what I'm paying.

Although the 500 Mbps service would be nice if it weren't $300 a month.


Remember their base price is before fees and taxes, which are substantial. Let them know you will be comparing final prices.
 
2013-08-27 08:43:14 AM
You're halfway there, people with digital antennas. Now get rid of cable and get a Roku or something else with lots of TV apps. Time Warner was nice enough to do half the work for you.
 
2013-08-27 08:43:49 AM
There are plenty of a-holes here.  But number one on my list is actually the content providers.  They are the reason we don't have a la carte pricing.  The cable companies would go for it.  But these content providers like to bundle their channels and force the cable and satellite companies to carry the shiat if they want the cream.

Then the increase the carriage fees because they have the hot programs, i.e. Dexter on Showtime or NFL sports on CBS (Hence the dropping of the CBS stations in NY, Dallas, etc).   In CBS case, Dexter is going off the air, and they want to lock in a higher rate as a hedge against ratings drop.  But, you say, I pay separate for Showtime! Yes and no.  You pay for Showtime, but the right to carry Showtime is bundled with other properties, i.e.  Smithsonian, CBS College sports.  Sports networks account for 19.5% of costs of your cable bill yet only have about 4% of the viewership (source)  If this was a la carte you potentially could see a drop of ~$14 a month of your cable bill or more (provided that the other a-holes in the story, the cable providers, passed the savings along.  This is a BIG if, IMO)

tl;dr version: you end up paying for the most expensive programming even if you don't watch it thanks to CBS et al.
 
2013-08-27 08:44:30 AM

George Babbitt: sonofslacker: Waldo Pepper: I only have antenna tv and the picture rivals that of cable and it's free

I think the headline was referring to the actual programs on CBS not the quality of the picture. And the over the air (OTA) picture should be as good as cable or better. OTA is coming straight from the source and if the show is in HD the signal should be 1080i (high quality). Cable could be degrading the signal to a lower quality such as 720p (middling quality) and passing it off as HD. There's a big difference in picture quality between the two.

The compression spoken of is not a reduction of resolution, but rather of the data rate of the transmission. You can still retain the same resolution while having a drop in video quality, same as photographic or audio. Less data used for the each pixel even when there are the same number of pixels results in lower quality pixels. The OTA broadcasts come down at full data rate, whereas many cable companies do feed shows at lower data rates to save on bandwidth costs.


Yep. It's the compression artifacts. I have a friend who had me over to watch a game, and the cable company had throttled down ESPN for some other big premiers that night. On his 60" TV, there were compression artifacts as big as a nickel (pretty much just a two-color gradient square). High definition my ass.

PBS's nature stuff OTA is breathtaking. Much lower compression on all OTA channels makes a huge difference.
 
2013-08-27 08:45:05 AM

sonofslacker: Waldo Pepper: I only have antenna tv and the picture rivals that of cable and it's free

I think the headline was referring to the actual programs on CBS not the quality of the picture. And the over the air (OTA) picture should be as good as cable or better. OTA is coming straight from the source and if the show is in HD the signal should be 1080i (high quality). Cable could be degrading the signal to a lower quality such as 720p (middling quality) and passing it off as HD. There's a big difference in picture quality between the two.


Not really.  I dropped cable about 10 years ago (I'm not "principled", just cheap!).  In bad weather, local stations might get a little snowy, but you could still watch them.  Since they went to digital signals, if the weather is bad, the picture gets pixilated and the audio has lots of interruptions-- enough to make it impossible to follow the story at times.  I'd go back to cable, but I hate Time-Warner with a passion.  And I really don't want to pay huge amounts of money for the same crap I get now, but on 300 stations.
 
2013-08-27 08:46:07 AM

George Babbitt: I get consistent 24/7/365 3.83 MegaByte download speed.


Bless you, yo.  I got crap.
 
2013-08-27 08:47:36 AM
The biggest problem with this, for someone who has only had TWC internet is that CBS is blocking that from accessing the videos on their site, which is really just doublely shooting themselves in the foot. If I dont pay for cable tv then they are losing ad revenue by blocking me from their site.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-27 08:48:08 AM

GoldSpider: d23: FIOS is coming to my town and I did a "pre-sign up" with them just yesterday. I am leaving Comcast behind. They DESPERATELY need the competition.

FIOS came to my town and was every bit as expensive as Comcast.  Grab your ankles.


Actually, here I am getting a faster internet service and it will be $25 less.
 
2013-08-27 08:50:14 AM
Stuck with TWC at the house. Their Internet service sucks, I won't give them money for TV programming. Sprint's 3G makes up for their slack when the bandwidth randomly goes to crap.
 
2013-08-27 08:50:46 AM
Teevee is largely sh*t, IMHO, so all I really want is 100/10 fiber, a 42" plasma HDMI monitor jacked into my 5.1 rig and a way to get BBC programming here.
 
2013-08-27 08:51:52 AM
I use charter and their tv service is hit or miss. I am happy with their internet though. I am supposed to get 35 mbps download speeds but it usually runs near 50.
 
2013-08-27 08:52:09 AM

George Babbitt: bunner: Ah, TWC.  "This is what we charge, this is what you'll get, kiss my ass."  We don't just rip you off, we insult you sh*tless.  Had a 30/5 TWC roadrunner feed.  Never even came close to 4/1mbps.  Add a sh*tty VoIP phone with no UPS and 72 channels of utter sh*t and you're oinking up 180.00 a month for whatever the hell they feel like capping you at.  If this company falls into the ocean, maybe the .gov crews will get off their ass and start a WPA type program blowing 100/10 fiber to every house in America.  You know, like the civilized countries.

I have TWC cable's 30/5megabit service, no cable or phone. I get consistent 24/7/365 3.83 MegaByte download speed.


We had similar problems until upgrading our router. Apparently after a few years the signal degrades? Who knew.  Of course if you get crappy speeds even when plugged in to the modem that TWC just sucks.
 
2013-08-27 08:53:54 AM
farm4.static.flickr.com
 
2013-08-27 08:55:19 AM
Any good links to watch streaming TV? free of course
 
2013-08-27 08:55:44 AM
We bought Mohu Leaf Antenna's for the whole house and ditched cable. Mom is happy with old school tv.  I stream my favorites from the Internet. The kids and ex-hubby are so deep into Netflix they can't get out. We all watch a lot more PBS which has definitely improved the quality of conversation around the house.

I still keep trying to figure out why the hell we spent over $100 bucks a month for cable.
 
2013-08-27 08:56:54 AM

bunner: I will never understand why we let companies get away with this. "Uh, if you fire us, you have to give us money". Try that at McDonald's.


That's a terrible analogy.  That is, unless you have some sort of contract with McDonalds to get food at a discounted rate based on your committment to spend a preset amount each year.
 
2013-08-27 08:58:00 AM
Got rabbit ears back in early 2000, since HDTV broadcasts were just starting and wanted to get local stations as they came on line.  Worked well, even could pick up 60 miles away (lived on top of a hill in the hill country).

Funny thing, the Hypesters at Best Buy, who had never tried to get local HDTV at home and probably had never seen an HDTV tuner, said rabbit ears would never be sold at their high class establishment and besides, rabbit ears all have a virus and you'd need to buy the special $100 virus protection.
 
2013-08-27 08:58:34 AM

DrBrownCow: bunner: I will never understand why we let companies get away with this. "Uh, if you fire us, you have to give us money". Try that at McDonald's.

That's a terrible analogy.  That is, unless you have some sort of contract with McDonalds to get food at a discounted rate based on your committment to spend a preset amount each year.


Not the most astute analogy, I suppose, but then again, it's the same construct.  I provide you with something and if I don't provide what I agreed to provide, you have to pay me to get rid of me.
 
2013-08-27 09:00:19 AM

UsikFark: Carth: UsikFark: Carth: tripleseven: TheMaskedArmadillo: What?  This shiat hasn't been resolved yet?

Nope, not that I'm too torn up about losing CBS, but time warner is a piece of shiat in general.  Thankfully, the fios is getting hooked up in my building this month.

I'll be first on the list for install.

They just hooked up FIOS on our street. I was amazed how much more expensive it is than Comcast for internet. Like double the price expensive and there is a $360 early termination fee if you cancel before 2 years.

The price is negotiable if you don't bundle and don't sign a contract.

That's what I'm hoping. They sent us the flyer on friday and said a Rep is going door to door this week. I'm just going to show him my Comcast bill and ask if they can match it. Their price of 50 Mbps down for $89 a month with no contract is double what I'm paying.

Although the 500 Mbps service would be nice if it weren't $300 a month.

Remember their base price is before fees and taxes, which are substantial. Let them know you will be comparing final prices.


As an FYI - Recently moved and got the ATT Uverse.  Bundled internet, 2 home phones (separate line), and every channel possible for around $200.  I am actually pretty happy with it!
 
2013-08-27 09:00:45 AM

BitwiseShift:  rabbit ears all have a virus and you'd need to buy the special $100 virus protection.


See, nah, see, that there is funny cause, see, analogue?  Analogue is just electrons doing what they do in hardware, see?  They ain't piggybackin' none of them packets.  Did you laugh in his face and pee on his shoe?
 
2013-08-27 09:01:15 AM
Don't worry, the FCC will fix that soon when they shut down OTA broadcasts in the name of needing the bandwidth for emergencies or whatever the lie was when they pulled off that BS a couple years ago and moved OTA tv to short-range digital transmission.  There's a pretty penny to be made putting that spectrum up for auction.
 
2013-08-27 09:03:22 AM
archives.evergreen.edu
Approves
 
2013-08-27 09:04:10 AM

pag1107: There's a pretty penny to be made putting that spectrum up for auction.


"Well, we're all moved in now and the resources have been stripped, manufactured and sold.  Now what do we do?"

"Take everything left, gut it like a fish, whore it out to the highest bidders and move the rest overseas."

"Can we bleed them dry for less stuff every year?"

"This is America, sir.  Of course we can.  I'll have none of that commie libtard talk interrupting my profit enjoyment."
 
SH
2013-08-27 09:04:15 AM
OTA HDTV via antenna is much better looking than the compressed version the cable company sends. Assuming, of course, you are in a decent reception area.
 
2013-08-27 09:04:59 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Time Warner loses as soon as football starts.


CBS still does major PGA events, and that's still going on.
 
2013-08-27 09:05:48 AM
There was an article on DSLreports a year or so ago where the dinosaurs at TWC poked fun at Google Fiber, saying they welcome the challenge. Yeah, good luck with that! Google is in a three-way fight with Apple and Microsoft ... and those two companies actually change with the times.
 
hej
2013-08-27 09:06:07 AM

Vodka Zombie: baufan2005: People get pissed at the cable company but if they take a higher programming price then they are just going to pass cost on to the customer.

Or, you know, they could ditch the home shopping crap to cover the cost.


I'm no cable company CEO, but I'm guessing channels that are nothing more than 24/7 advertisements are actually paying the cable company, not the other way around.
 
2013-08-27 09:06:37 AM

GrymRpr: "enjoy 1966 CBS quality programming "

CBS did have quality programing back then.

The Jackie Gleason Show
The Ed Sullivan Show
TheSmothers Brothers
Mission Impossible

Hell,  They even had Lost in space!


Hell, Andy Griffith!  The Wild Wild West!  Of course, they also had Hogan's Heroes in their red column, but no one's perfect.
 
2013-08-27 09:07:23 AM

starlost: clever ploy. most people don't live in a area that gets many channels over the air. i know we are only talking one channel here but even having to hook up the rabbit ears and switching between rabbit ear and cable tv is too much work or confuses some people. my parents are in their 80's and could get many channels over the air but they can't deal with using rabbit ears and readjusting them every time they change channels. it isn't so much the cable company is saying they are great but that rabbit ears can really suck but our company is doing its best to serve you in this difficult time.


The house I grew up in had a big farking antenna on the roof.  We got all the channels.  When I moved out on my own I had rabbit ears in apartments and I could get every channel even if meant turning them just the right way.  That was in a big city though,

Most people live in big cities, so most people could get most of the shiat on TV with just a simple antenna.

It's really not hard to do.  You set up your TV once and you're done.  Maybe you have to walk up to it and mess with the rabbit ears for certain channels.

Most people over 50 are well acquainted with using antennas to get TV.  I would actually think it was younger people who couldn't understand that you have to assume Fox viewing positions to watch the TV.
 
2013-08-27 09:07:57 AM
Found it. LINK

"We're prepared to compete head to head with Google."

OK, so not as brazen as I recalled, but still ... lulz.  GOOD LUCK!
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-27 09:11:18 AM

lecavalier: Found it. LINK

"We're prepared to compete head to head with Google."

OK, so not as brazen as I recalled, but still ... lulz.  GOOD LUCK!


that's stupid, even for a corporate press release.
 
2013-08-27 09:12:13 AM

Carth: tripleseven: TheMaskedArmadillo: What?  This shiat hasn't been resolved yet?

Nope, not that I'm too torn up about losing CBS, but time warner is a piece of shiat in general.  Thankfully, the fios is getting hooked up in my building this month.

I'll be first on the list for install.

They just hooked up FIOS on our street. I was amazed how much more expensive it is than Comcast for internet. Like double the price expensive and there is a $360 early termination fee if you cancel before 2 years.


How much is time warner paying you per post?
 
2013-08-27 09:12:40 AM
The thing with TeeVee is the same thing with pop music.  It's not new anymore and there's about 2947598279847 avenues of content distribution begging for content.  It's not as easy to monetize and pay for actual writer, actors, quality production methods and garner enough ad revenue to make it profitable.  So you just essentially turn the hose on from the septic tank and blast whatever schadenfreude will keep the people eating popcorn.  Lowest common denominator TeeVee and music that's about making money and not music or TeeVee.  Stay tuned for Ow My Balls after this 2 hour presentation of a loop of Miley Cyrus shaking her ass like a meth addled alley whore.If you want actual, interesting shows with writers, panel shows, production values and sitcoms that are actually funny, you might need to move to England.  2¢
 
2013-08-27 09:12:58 AM

poot_rootbeer: Hammer down
Rabbit ears
Hammer down


Boat of car?
 
2013-08-27 09:13:15 AM

GoldSpider: I'd have completely cut cable by now if I didn't get a discount on Internet service greater than the cost of basic cable.  Installing an antenna on my roof (which ya really need to do to get the best OTA signal) and wiring it throughout the house seems like a colossal pain in the ass as well.


Try the attic if you have one.  I have a 30 dollar antenna in my attic and get 90%+ signal strength on all channels without having to adjust it.   You still have to fish a wire through your walls, but not having to install an antenna on the roof is a plus.
 
2013-08-27 09:14:23 AM

tripleseven: Carth: tripleseven: TheMaskedArmadillo: What?  This shiat hasn't been resolved yet?

Nope, not that I'm too torn up about losing CBS, but time warner is a piece of shiat in general.  Thankfully, the fios is getting hooked up in my building this month.

I'll be first on the list for install.

They just hooked up FIOS on our street. I was amazed how much more expensive it is than Comcast for internet. Like double the price expensive and there is a $360 early termination fee if you cancel before 2 years.

How much is time warner paying you per post?


I've never used Time Warner do they make the OTA antenna's I've been advocating or set Comcast's prices lower than FIOS?
 
2013-08-27 09:14:42 AM

d23: lecavalier: Found it. LINK

"We're prepared to compete head to head with Google."

OK, so not as brazen as I recalled, but still ... lulz.  GOOD LUCK!

that's stupid, even for a corporate press release.


"If there is demand for [1 Gbps] service we will provide it," Time Warner Cable chief operating officer Rob Marcus told attendees of a conference this week*

*
actual speeds may vary, shut off completely or suck to the point where you set your modem on fire and buy books.
 
2013-08-27 09:15:11 AM

bunner: George Babbitt: I get consistent 24/7/365 3.83 MegaByte download speed.

Bless you, yo.  I got crap.


That speed level is one step off from their premium top tier. You deserve better service. Call and complain, make them get tech after tech out there till you get what you paid for. I call over every drop in quality or quantity of service.
 
2013-08-27 09:18:23 AM
Still don't have cable ...

but I live in NYC, so I get like a bajillion Tv stations anyhow
 
2013-08-27 09:19:16 AM

George Babbitt: You deserve better service. Call and complain,


I did.  I went around the roses with their II about 30 times in 3 years.  I handed the usual scripted malarkey, they tried to sell me the "bad first cop" crap which, oddly, didn't seem to affect my Leopard 10.8 Mac, just my Wix 86 machine, they sent techs, they whargarbled, got snooty, prevaricated and blew hard and nothing changed.  I got AT&T Uverse VoIP and net, atm, and it's speeds are sh*t, too but it's about, yeah, 1/3 the price.  I just unplugged everything but the DVD rig from the TeeVee.  Don't miss it.
 
2013-08-27 09:20:20 AM
Tier III rather.  Tiers  I and  II are useless as norks on a carp.
 
2013-08-27 09:20:32 AM
1966 CBS programming also included Green Acres, probably the best sitcom of all time.3.bp.blogspot.com
Can you hear me now?
 
2013-08-27 09:22:11 AM

Vodka Zombie: baufan2005: People get pissed at the cable company but if they take a higher programming price then they are just going to pass cost on to the customer.

Or, you know, they could ditch the home shopping crap to cover the cost.


We'd love to! However, the content providers won't let us thanks to the wonders of content bundling.  If cable company wants to distribute Channel A, the content provider says "Ok, you can get Channel A but only if you pay us $X and also carry Channel B,C,D"

The power is almost entirely in the content provider's court.
 
2013-08-27 09:24:31 AM

gfid: You set up your TV once and you're done. Maybe you have to walk up to it and mess with the rabbit ears for certain channels.


Sure, but as somebody else mentioned, the bigger problem is that the audio/video signal goes in and out entirely when the signal is weak or interrupted.   Folks who didn't have cable back in the day were used to still being able to see and hear what was happening even through the snow and ghosting.
 
2013-08-27 09:24:37 AM

Matthew Keene: 1966 CBS programming also included Green Acres, probably the best sitcom of all time.  [img Green Acres]
Can you hear me now?


If you have a region free DVD player, order the episodes of Miranda from BBC.  Miranda Hart is the funniest thing on TeeVee, atm.  She is adorable.
 
2013-08-27 09:25:50 AM

pag1107: Don't worry, the FCC will fix that soon when they shut down OTA broadcasts in the name of needing the bandwidth for emergencies or whatever the lie was when they pulled off that BS a couple years ago and moved OTA tv to short-range digital transmission.  There's a pretty penny to be made putting that spectrum up for auction.


SH: OTA HDTV via antenna is much better looking than the compressed version the cable company sends. Assuming, of course, you are in a decent reception area.


The antenna that we use now is the size of a VHS tape, granted we live in the city, and  is miniscule in comparison to what used to be needed for consistent signal reception, but if you need more than that for living in a more rural setting, they still have the bigger options and this place is the best to learn how to get the what you need to enjoy it.

Also, there are three times as many channels now OTA as their were before the analog to digital switch. Many of them are great channels. Our local affiliates of NBC, ABC, CBS, and FOX all have secondary back channels dedicated to retroTV, movies, a combination of the two and one with a music video channel. There are also a number of local stations that have sprung up with local focus. And our local PBS affiliate has two back channels, one showing 24/7 CSPAN like coverage of the state and the other like a food/craft/home channel.
 
2013-08-27 09:26:13 AM

gfid: starlost: clever ploy. most people don't live in a area that gets many channels over the air. i know we are only talking one channel here but even having to hook up the rabbit ears and switching between rabbit ear and cable tv is too much work or confuses some people. my parents are in their 80's and could get many channels over the air but they can't deal with using rabbit ears and readjusting them every time they change channels. it isn't so much the cable company is saying they are great but that rabbit ears can really suck but our company is doing its best to serve you in this difficult time.

The house I grew up in had a big farking antenna on the roof.  We got all the channels.  When I moved out on my own I had rabbit ears in apartments and I could get every channel even if meant turning them just the right way.  That was in a big city though,

Most people live in big cities, so most people could get most of the shiat on TV with just a simple antenna.

It's really not hard to do.  You set up your TV once and you're done.  Maybe you have to walk up to it and mess with the rabbit ears for certain channels.

Most people over 50 are well acquainted with using antennas to get TV.  I would actually think it was younger people who couldn't understand that you have to assume Fox viewing positions to watch the TV.


heck don't even need to live in a big city, I live in a rural area and I get great reception
 
2013-08-27 09:26:58 AM

Matthew Keene: 1966 CBS programming also included Green Acres, probably the best sitcom of all time.[400x300 from http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-CYdUKUGdlpE/TfGKbQrAAdI/AAAAAAAABmA/uIlNOxSD yLU/s640/GreenAcres132.jpg image 400x300]
Can you hear me now?


Damn his head touches that wire and hes done./
 
2013-08-27 09:28:37 AM

DrBrownCow: gfid: You set up your TV once and you're done. Maybe you have to walk up to it and mess with the rabbit ears for certain channels.

Sure, but as somebody else mentioned, the bigger problem is that the audio/video signal goes in and out entirely when the signal is weak or interrupted.   Folks who didn't have cable back in the day were used to still being able to see and hear what was happening even through the snow and ghosting.


I do hate losing the audio when the signal gets weak.  Also with the old system you could buy one of those radios that also received TV signals which was great.
 
2013-08-27 09:31:31 AM
Find a product that used to me free and monopolize it's access.

Find a product that is cheap to buy, is necessary or addictive and destroyed in use.

Find a method of billing that offers direct access to the buyer's bank.

We not only got greedy, we got lazy.  Everybody's looking for the best con, nobody is building better mousetraps.
 
2013-08-27 09:32:59 AM
BE free...
 
2013-08-27 09:34:06 AM

bunner: Don't miss it.


No doubt. We watch it occasionally when we stay at hotels and that more than anything drives us out of the room to see the stuff we are traveling for in the first place.
 
2013-08-27 09:35:42 AM

bunner: BE free...


BEOS?
 
2013-08-27 09:36:46 AM

d23: lecavalier: Found it. LINK

"We're prepared to compete head to head with Google."

OK, so not as brazen as I recalled, but still ... lulz.  GOOD LUCK!

that's stupid, even for a corporate press release.


"We'll tell you what you want, citizen, and when we've decided what you want, WE will sell it to you." Niiiiice.
 
2013-08-27 09:38:55 AM

George Babbitt: bunner: BE free...

BEOS?


No, typo correction.  :  )  The whole "oh, no, see MY O/S is teh 1337!" thing is a bit like people arguing over the best car, to me.
 
2013-08-27 09:39:37 AM

Waldo Pepper: I only have antenna tv and the picture rivals that of cable and it's free


^^^^
 
2013-08-27 09:39:55 AM
I am not understanding this at all, but maybe my service is different.

We have Bright House cable here, which gets its content from Time Warner somehow I think.

Showtime and CBS Sports channels are dropped but our local CBS channel 10 still works and we see prime time TV, morning and evening news and everything.

So...Looks like we will have NFL on CBS as well.


Anyone else in this same situation, or understand why this is how it works for me and not others?
 
2013-08-27 09:40:38 AM
I love my OTA. I get my PBS channels (Oregon Public Broadcasting is GREAT, BTW), including NPR, the "Big Three" channels, including the secondary channels showing retro TV and movies, local news and more. Between that and the 'net, I get almost everything I care to watch.
 
2013-08-27 09:40:51 AM

pag1107: Don't worry, the FCC will fix that soon when they shut down OTA broadcasts in the name of needing the bandwidth for emergencies or whatever the lie was when they pulled off that BS a couple years ago and moved OTA tv to short-range digital transmission.  There's a pretty penny to be made putting that spectrum up for auction.


They auctioned part of it to the cell phone companies who are using it for LTE.  They allocated the rest for public safety, but didn't require public safety entities to move to it or even those that setup on it to give back the VHF or UHF spectrum they were using before.  The FCC has had no problem requiring rebanding in the 800mhz band (moving operations to a different portion of the band) or narrowbanding (requiring emissions to occupy less space). I would like to see a requirement that all new public safety builds use the 700mhz space and set some kind of 15 year requirement that all operations on 800 and the 450-512 bands move to the 700.

I'm still at a loss as to why taking away this 100mhz block also necessitated requiring all analog stations to convert to digital.

This isn't the first time they took TV spectrum away.  The 800mhz band used to belong to TV before they reallocated it for cellular and LMR in the early 80s.
 
2013-08-27 09:44:23 AM

tshetter: I am not understanding this at all, but maybe my service is different.

We have Bright House cable here, which gets its content from Time Warner somehow I think.

Showtime and CBS Sports channels are dropped but our local CBS channel 10 still works and we see prime time TV, morning and evening news and everything.

So...Looks like we will have NFL on CBS as well.


Anyone else in this same situation, or understand why this is how it works for me and not others?


IIRC, only the largest cities have had their local CBS channels removed. NYC, Chicago, etc.
 
2013-08-27 09:46:15 AM

Carth: tripleseven: TheMaskedArmadillo: What?  This shiat hasn't been resolved yet?

Nope, not that I'm too torn up about losing CBS, but time warner is a piece of shiat in general.  Thankfully, the fios is getting hooked up in my building this month.

I'll be first on the list for install.

They just hooked up FIOS on our street. I was amazed how much more expensive it is than Comcast for internet. Like double the price expensive and there is a $360 early termination fee if you cancel before 2 years.


Really? Here FIOS is less than half the price of Comcast, three times as fast on a bad day, and there is no contract. They do guarantee the price for two years, though. The part that was most amazing to me? Their advertised price is exactly what I pay every month. No extra taxes or fees. They said $29.99, I pay $29.99. It even includes all the equipment. The speed I get isn't what was advertised though; it's twice as fast.

How Comcast is still in business here, I have no idea. I would've happily paid double just to be rid of them.
 
2013-08-27 09:46:45 AM

bunner: George Babbitt: bunner: BE free...

BEOS?

No, typo correction.  :  )  The whole "oh, no, see MY O/S is teh 1337!" thing is a bit like people arguing over the best car, to me.


Running BeOs would we ultra leet considering the most stable and current release, known as Haiku, is an alpha from Nov '12. I tried running the original back in ~2002 and it was like running the original BlackberryOS without a phone.
 
2013-08-27 09:50:05 AM

BitwiseShift: Got rabbit ears back in early 2000, since HDTV broadcasts were just starting and wanted to get local stations as they came on line.  Worked well, even could pick up 60 miles away (lived on top of a hill in the hill country).

Funny thing, the Hypesters at Best Buy, who had never tried to get local HDTV at home and probably had never seen an HDTV tuner, said rabbit ears would never be sold at their high class establishment and besides, rabbit ears all have a virus and you'd need to buy the special $100 virus protection.


Nah, you just had a bad salesperson, could happen anywhere. My local Best Buy Service Advisor clued me into Monster rabbit ears, they were expensive at $499, but they're gold plated, and he said the gold plating keeps the viruses out. And sure enough, I haven't had a virus in my tv since!

Don't forget the extended warranty though(it was only $149), if the gold plating wears off, they're practically useless!

I hear Bose is good too.
 
2013-08-27 09:51:11 AM

dj_spanmaster: tshetter: I am not understanding this at all, but maybe my service is different.

We have Bright House cable here, which gets its content from Time Warner somehow I think.

Showtime and CBS Sports channels are dropped but our local CBS channel 10 still works and we see prime time TV, morning and evening news and everything.

So...Looks like we will have NFL on CBS as well.


Anyone else in this same situation, or understand why this is how it works for me and not others?

IIRC, only the largest cities have had their local CBS channels removed. NYC, Chicago, etc.



I get this when I visit CBS to watch an episode:

i44.tinypic.com
 
2013-08-27 09:53:28 AM

gfid: I love it.  Cable is dying a slow death.  They farked us over for years and now they're paying the price.  I can get this shiat over the internet.


Up here the Cell phone business is about to change. They are allowing some of the US providers to come up. The big three (Rogers, Bell and Telus) are trying to play the sympathy card thinking that service will erode. Problem is no one is sympathetic with their quality of service for what we are paying right now.
 
2013-08-27 09:54:19 AM

pedrop357: I'm still at a loss as to why taking away this 100mhz block also necessitated requiring all analog stations to convert to digital.


I think it has something to do with the fact that you can squeeze more video/audio services into the same space as one analog channel. Instead of just having one PBS service on one channel, I get PBS, Create, World, and Kids in the same amount of spectrum. During the analog days, there were 7-9 channels in my area. Now, including sub-channels, I get 25 on a decent day.

Of course, cramming too many services on one channel can make some of them look rough. Channel 26 here has four sub-channels, and they look pretty compressed.
 
2013-08-27 09:56:55 AM

Waldo Pepper: I only have antenna tv and the picture rivals that of cable and it's free


Picture is probably better as it isn't as compressed, but don't tell Smitty.
 
2013-08-27 09:57:54 AM

tshetter: I am not understanding this at all, but maybe my service is different.

We have Bright House cable here, which gets its content from Time Warner somehow I think.

Showtime and CBS Sports channels are dropped but our local CBS channel 10 still works and we see prime time TV, morning and evening news and everything.

So...Looks like we will have NFL on CBS as well.


Anyone else in this same situation, or understand why this is how it works for me and not others?


The only CBS stations that are blacked out are those owned directly by Time Warner.  Affiliates owned by other companies aren't effected.  CBS affiliates owned by other companies already have their own deals in place.
 
2013-08-27 09:58:22 AM

George Babbitt: dj_spanmaster: tshetter: I am not understanding this at all, but maybe my service is different.

We have Bright House cable here, which gets its content from Time Warner somehow I think.

Showtime and CBS Sports channels are dropped but our local CBS channel 10 still works and we see prime time TV, morning and evening news and everything.

So...Looks like we will have NFL on CBS as well.


Anyone else in this same situation, or understand why this is how it works for me and not others?

IIRC, only the largest cities have had their local CBS channels removed. NYC, Chicago, etc.

I get this when I visit CBS to watch an episode:

[850x674 from http://i44.tinypic.com/wi9erp.jpg image 850x674]


You can blame CBS for that one too. They're blocking all TWC traffic based on IP. I was simply referring to the fact that some people still get their local CBS channels through TWC; it's likely because they aren't in a major market.
 
2013-08-27 09:59:16 AM

dj_spanmaster: tshetter: I am not understanding this at all, but maybe my service is different.

We have Bright House cable here, which gets its content from Time Warner somehow I think.

Showtime and CBS Sports channels are dropped but our local CBS channel 10 still works and we see prime time TV, morning and evening news and everything.

So...Looks like we will have NFL on CBS as well.


Anyone else in this same situation, or understand why this is how it works for me and not others?

IIRC, only the largest cities have had their local CBS channels removed. NYC, Chicago, etc.


I guess I should rejoyce living in a minor market area, yay!


CBS has been running radio ads saying that Time Warner has "dropped CBS programming."

Which isnt true as CBS pulled their programming from TWC.

Damn lying bastards!
 
2013-08-27 10:01:12 AM

George Babbitt: dj_spanmaster: tshetter: I am not understanding this at all, but maybe my service is different.

We have Bright House cable here, which gets its content from Time Warner somehow I think.

Showtime and CBS Sports channels are dropped but our local CBS channel 10 still works and we see prime time TV, morning and evening news and everything.

So...Looks like we will have NFL on CBS as well.


Anyone else in this same situation, or understand why this is how it works for me and not others?

IIRC, only the largest cities have had their local CBS channels removed. NYC, Chicago, etc.


I get this when I visit CBS to watch an episode:

[850x674 from http://i44.tinypic.com/wi9erp.jpg image 850x674]


That's a separate issue.  Basically, TWC is telling CBS that "until you settle, we will not carry your content on any of our services," which includes their local affiliates and their internet.
 
2013-08-27 10:01:19 AM

gfid: I love it.  Cable is dying a slow death.  They farked us over for years and now they're paying the price.  I can get this shiat over the internet.


eah, no it isn't.  I know for a fact (having once worked in collections) that people will pay their cable bill before they pay their mortgage.  Content providers (the people who actually make and sell the shows) make too much money off cable companies to go to any sort of online only solution. Simply put, they won't make as much money.  Also cable companies do other things than distribute TV, they also do cell network backhaul, enterprise level backhaul, internet, etc..  The TV part of it is actually small fraction.
 
2013-08-27 10:05:59 AM

pedrop357: I'm still at a loss as to why taking away this 100mhz block also necessitated requiring all analog stations to convert to digital.


You couldn't have adjacent channels (4-5, 6-7, & 13-14 weren't actually adjacent) within 100 or more miles of each other in the analog days.  There were also weird intermodulation rules, where stations 30 channels away interfered with each other.  There's still some interference between adjacents, but it's well within the digital noise floor for the intended reception area.

The FCC really does want to sell the 600MHz band (channels 36-52) asap.  They'll start 'reverse auctioning' as we go along (i.e., paying the current ABC/CBS/etc affiliates to relinquish their licenses and go dark).
 
2013-08-27 10:06:16 AM

StrikitRich: Waldo Pepper: I only have antenna tv and the picture rivals that of cable and it's free

Picture is probably better as it isn't as compressed, but don't tell Smitty.


People forget why Cable became a business in the first place.  In the beginning all there was, was over the air TV.  Which was great if you lived near enough to an antenna.  If you didn't, or lived in a mountainous area, tall buildings etc..you couldn't get a picture.  Someone got the bright idea to run a 'cable' down from the nearest tower and run it to some houses so people could share that antenna connection.  Later, these companies needed a way to compete and be 'better than OTA' thats when you started seeing cable only channels.

People still live in the mountains and valleys that don't get great OTA reception so the cable business model still works.
 
2013-08-27 10:06:53 AM
I have rabbit ears, all of the channels come through in crystal clear HD with 5.1 sound. So what I think is really ridiculous is paying for cable to get channels that you can get over the air for free.
 
2013-08-27 10:10:34 AM

thornhill: I have rabbit ears, all of the channels come through in crystal clear HD with 5.1 sound. So what I think is really ridiculous is paying for cable to get channels that you can get over the air for free.


Unless you live in an area too far away from an antenna and/or blocked reception.
 
2013-08-27 10:12:36 AM

Lunakki: Carth: tripleseven: TheMaskedArmadillo: What?  This shiat hasn't been resolved yet?

Nope, not that I'm too torn up about losing CBS, but time warner is a piece of shiat in general.  Thankfully, the fios is getting hooked up in my building this month.

I'll be first on the list for install.

They just hooked up FIOS on our street. I was amazed how much more expensive it is than Comcast for internet. Like double the price expensive and there is a $360 early termination fee if you cancel before 2 years.

Really? Here FIOS is less than half the price of Comcast, three times as fast on a bad day, and there is no contract. They do guarantee the price for two years, though. The part that was most amazing to me? Their advertised price is exactly what I pay every month. No extra taxes or fees. They said $29.99, I pay $29.99. It even includes all the equipment. The speed I get isn't what was advertised though; it's twice as fast.

How Comcast is still in business here, I have no idea. I would've happily paid double just to be rid of them.


I'm hoping that is the case when I talk to a rep. Right now I"m paying $39.99 for 50 down 25 up. Hopefully FiOS will match it when they try to sign me up.
 
2013-08-27 10:14:16 AM

JosephFinn: GrymRpr: "enjoy 1966 CBS quality programming "

CBS did have quality programing back then.

The Jackie Gleason Show
The Ed Sullivan Show
The Smothers Brothers
Mission Impossible

Hell,  They even had Lost in space!

Hell, Andy Griffith!  The Wild Wild West!  Of course, they also had Hogan's Heroes in their red column, but no one's perfect.


Lawrence Welk, Andy Griffith & Wild Wild West were 3 of my Grannies Fav's back then. So of course I can't stand them ( 1 Tv house back in the 60's )
 
2013-08-27 10:18:40 AM

Kimpak: Also cable companies do other things than distribute TV, they also do cell network backhaul, enterprise level backhaul, internet, etc..  The TV part of it is actually small fraction.


And, this is what emboldens TWC and the other cable companies to tell the content providers off.  The whole paid-TV model could up-and-die tomorrow, and they've still got the best in-place infrastructure for internet delivery for residential, most smaller businesses, and many backhaul sites.  A major revenue hit, but they'd survive.  Outside the Fios area, the telco competitors are largely stuck in 2001 and seem to stuck in the mud to get better.  The telcos could spend hundreds of millions replacing JFK-era copper with fiber, and coax cable could keep up for quite a while with virtually no additional cost.  Give a few more channels over to DOCSIS 3.0, split some overloaded nodes, and they could easily offer 100/20. Not Google Fiber speeds, but good enough.
 
2013-08-27 10:18:58 AM
www.artsjournal.com
 
2013-08-27 10:19:19 AM

GoldSpider: I'd have completely cut cable by now if I didn't get a discount on Internet service greater than the cost of basic cable.  Installing an antenna on my roof (which ya really need to do to get the best OTA signal) and wiring it throughout the house seems like a colossal pain in the ass as well.


Start with buying $10 rabbit ears and enough coaxial so that you can place the rabbit years on a window sill (and if that doesn't work, you're only out $15). Having lived in places ranging from NYC to central Alabama, that's all I needed to do to pull in all of the channels. Having the rabbit ears pressed against the window, though, is key. I've found that if it's just a foot from the window the reception tanks.

Slightly less intensive than putting an antenna on your roof is hanging a small one to the side of your house. But unless you live way way out in the sticks, I doubt the OTA signals are so weak that only an antenna on the roof will work.

And for the love of god, don't buy any of those powered antennas that claim to boost the signal. They're pure snake oil.
 
2013-08-27 10:21:15 AM
I've actually been pretty happy with my cable TV and internet service from TWC.

There. I said it.
 
2013-08-27 10:22:47 AM

Kimpak: StrikitRich: Waldo Pepper: I only have antenna tv and the picture rivals that of cable and it's free

Picture is probably better as it isn't as compressed, but don't tell Smitty.

People forget why Cable became a business in the first place.  In the beginning all there was, was over the air TV.  Which was great if you lived near enough to an antenna.  If you didn't, or lived in a mountainous area, tall buildings etc..you couldn't get a picture.  Someone got the bright idea to run a 'cable' down from the nearest tower and run it to some houses so people could share that antenna connection.  Later, these companies needed a way to compete and be 'better than OTA' thats when you started seeing cable only channels.

People still live in the mountains and valleys that don't get great OTA reception so the cable business model still works.


Go back and re-read the headline.
 
2013-08-27 10:24:39 AM

George Babbitt: bunner: George Babbitt: bunner: BE free...

BEOS?

No, typo correction.  :  )  The whole "oh, no, see MY O/S is teh 1337!" thing is a bit like people arguing over the best car, to me.

Running BeOs would we ultra leet considering the most stable and current release, known as Haiku, is an alpha from Nov '12. I tried running the original back in ~2002 and it was like running the original BlackberryOS without a phone.


heh

I got two Win 86 rigs, one for the office and one for the DAW in the studio.  Sold my Mac when I realized I'd have to replace every piece of audio software I have to have it run the audio rig, tried some Nux releases, I like it, but I mostly use PC's for recording and mix production and this involves paychecks, so I can't piss around with oh, so elegant O/S's where the dev occurs in college kid's basements.  I need results.  When Nix Nux comes out with a brilliant audio editor that runs VST and VSTi, I'm in.  And as far as elegance, when you reach for a channel on a console, turn one knob, and something you wanted to do happens - on that channel - without paging through 4 menus, that's elegant.  Audio production on digital platforms is a matter of convenience and great editing options that don't involve matte knife razors and aluminum blocks.  For actual mixing, it's sh*t.
 
2013-08-27 10:27:37 AM

Smelly McUgly: You're halfway there, people with digital antennas. Now get rid of cable and get a Roku or something else with lots of TV apps. Time Warner was nice enough to do half the work for you.


Yup. I have rabbit ears, reasonably fast internet, and an AppleTV for a set-top box. The wife uses the AppleTV for movies and the 1 or 2 tv shows she likes, and I use it to watch Top Gear. we use the rabbit ears for quick info during severe weather, and special events that are aired on broadcast tv. Our monthly bill is less than $40 for the internet and Netflix. Screw the cable companies.
 
2013-08-27 10:28:37 AM
It's the next round in Cable Companies trying to remain middlemen and not just bandwidth providers. Phone companies feel the heat as well, but have a lock on cellular to keep them relevant for a wile.

The sides are pushing in, much like an old horror movie spike chamber. Competition for basic bandwidth is coming, despite decades of "deregulation" to eliminate mom and pop internet providers and legislation aimed at destroying community internet access. New content sources not tied to the traditional cable plan are growing, like TWiT, ChannelFlip, and good old NetFlix. Google or Apple could, alone, dominate content creation by buying up networks and record labels, and they have a vested interest in keeping the entertainment flowing so that you will buy what they're selling.

Traditional cable television is failing, and telecom sees the writing on the wall. Companies in those spaces will transform or die over the next decade.
 
2013-08-27 10:31:07 AM

The Irresponsible Captain: Google or Apple could, alone, dominate content creation by buying up networks and record labels


I don't think even Google or Apple are interested in investing in a production and marketing channel for a product nobody pays for.
 
2013-08-27 10:31:15 AM

Kimpak: thornhill: I have rabbit ears, all of the channels come through in crystal clear HD with 5.1 sound. So what I think is really ridiculous is paying for cable to get channels that you can get over the air for free.

Unless you live in an area too far away from an antenna and/or blocked reception.


Given that this affects people in New York, they should be fine. I'm in NYC, first floor apartment, face north (most of the TV towers are south), surrounded by pre-war apartment buildings, and my rabbit ears pull in all of the channels. It's hard to imagine anyone with an even more obstructed reception.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-27 10:32:36 AM

bunner: so elegant O/S's where the dev occurs in college kid's basements


oh wow... you sure know what YOU'RE talking about.

pppft.
 
2013-08-27 10:34:08 AM
I can only imagine TWC tech support having to coach an average customer how to connect this antenna and then toggle their TV's inputs between cable and antenna.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-27 10:36:31 AM

Oreamnos: I can only imagine TWC tech support having to coach an average customer how to connect this antenna and then toggle their TV's inputs between cable and antenna.


IIRC there was a requirement (or there used to be) that cable companies working under local monopolies had to supply these switch boxes on request.   They should have no problems understanding how they work... though with cable customer service who knows what you get.
 
2013-08-27 10:36:36 AM

d23: bunner: so elegant O/S's where the dev occurs in college kid's basements

oh wow... you sure know what YOU'RE talking about.

pppft.


Oh, I'm sorry, Please continue to be 1337er than thou on somebody else's dime, cause you  know, cred, dude.  I mean results are 4  lus0rz.  Open source dev is largely crap, if you want to do audio.  And I do.  I stopped caring what you use them for when you posted that.   :  )
 
2013-08-27 10:37:57 AM

Lawnchair: And, this is what emboldens TWC and the other cable companies to tell the content providers off.  The whole paid-TV model could up-and-die tomorrow, and they've still got the best in-place infrastructure for internet delivery for residential, most smaller businesses, and many backhaul sites.  A major revenue hit, but they'd survive.  Outside the Fios area, the telco competitors are largely stuck in 2001 and seem to stuck in the mud to get better.  The telcos could spend hundreds of millions replacing JFK-era copper with fiber, and coax cable could keep up for quite a while with virtually no additional cost.  Give a few more channels over to DOCSIS 3.0, split some overloaded nodes, and they could easily offer 100/20. Not Google Fiber speeds, but good enough.


I can't speak for other cable companies but the one I work for (Not one of the big 3), we are working towards fiber to the house.  Its far to expensive to roll it out all at once, there are massive costs involved with running fiber.  However, our transport network and enterprise level network is already fiber.  The only thing that remains is last mile stuff.  This is pretty much the one area of our business we have a lot of control over.  The CATV part is largely out of our hands, we just slap a price on it and keep it as low as possible, while still making a profit.

Also with regard to DOCSIS 3.0 we do offer those speeds already, not many take it though.  If you look at our HSD customer base and how much bandwidth people use, on average, its not very high.  The bulk of our network are just people checking facebook, email and netflix. Ultimately that doesn't need the 105mbps level of service so most people opt for the cheaper 15/1 service.  So networks are being updated everyday, but its a slow expensive process.  We'll get there.  But by and large, most people don't need it anyway other than to post their ookla speeds on forums.
 
2013-08-27 10:38:23 AM

d23: though with cable customer service who knows what you get.


So far, something like this.

www.stonekits.co.uk
 
2013-08-27 10:41:46 AM

Kimpak: But by and large, most people don't need it anyway other than to post their ookla speeds on forums.


That dismissive notion annoys the piss out of me, frankly, because either you're delivering what you sold or you're not.

"I ordered the lobster"

"Well, yeah, but I mean, you like cheeseburgers, don't you?  That'll be 79.60 for the lobster dinners."

"This isn't lobster."

"But you ordered lobster!"
 
2013-08-27 10:42:20 AM

Kimpak: Lawnchair: And, this is what emboldens TWC and the other cable companies to tell the content providers off.  The whole paid-TV model could up-and-die tomorrow, and they've still got the best in-place infrastructure for internet delivery for residential, most smaller businesses, and many backhaul sites.  A major revenue hit, but they'd survive.  Outside the Fios area, the telco competitors are largely stuck in 2001 and seem to stuck in the mud to get better.  The telcos could spend hundreds of millions replacing JFK-era copper with fiber, and coax cable could keep up for quite a while with virtually no additional cost.  Give a few more channels over to DOCSIS 3.0, split some overloaded nodes, and they could easily offer 100/20. Not Google Fiber speeds, but good enough.

I can't speak for other cable companies but the one I work for (Not one of the big 3), we are working towards fiber to the house.  Its far to expensive to roll it out all at once, there are massive costs involved with running fiber.  However, our transport network and enterprise level network is already fiber.  The only thing that remains is last mile stuff.  This is pretty much the one area of our business we have a lot of control over.  The CATV part is largely out of our hands, we just slap a price on it and keep it as low as possible, while still making a profit.

Also with regard to DOCSIS 3.0 we do offer those speeds already, not many take it though.  If you look at our HSD customer base and how much bandwidth people use, on average, its not very high.  The bulk of our network are just people checking facebook, email and netflix. Ultimately that doesn't need the 105mbps level of service so most people opt for the cheaper 15/1 service.  So networks are being updated everyday, but its a slow expensive process.  We'll get there.  But by and large, most people don't need it anyway other than to post their ookla speeds on forums.


If cable companies offered it at reasonable prices more people might get it. Google Fiber is 1 Gbps for $70 a month. 100 Mbps is over $120 a month from my cable company.
 
2013-08-27 10:42:31 AM
bunner:   Open source dev is largely crap, if you want to do audio.


For mostly everything else as well.  Sure, some people will tout sugar crm, filezilla, forefox etc, but those are the exceptions.
 
2013-08-27 10:45:21 AM

tripleseven: bunner:   Open source dev is largely crap, if you want to do audio.


For mostly everything else as well.  Sure, some people will tout sugar crm, filezilla, forefox etc, but those are the exceptions.


I rather like filezilla because I move a metric f*ckton of uncompressed audio to and from a client's server, every month and it's a lot easier than line command DOS.  It's only truncated two files out of about 150 GB so far.
 
2013-08-27 10:47:06 AM

thornhill: Given that this affects people in New York, they should be fine. I'm in NYC, first floor apartment, face north (most of the TV towers are south), surrounded by pre-war apartment buildings, and my rabbit ears pull in all of the channels. It's hard to imagine anyone with an even more obstructed reception.


I live in the middle of nowhere Iowa, in a valley.  I can't get OTA reception w/o a bigass 100' tall antenna and 2 amps to run the line to my house.  The nearest broadcast antenna is >60mi away.  I may be going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing NYC has broadcast antenna's closer than 50 miles of you.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-27 10:48:28 AM

bunner: d23: bunner: so elegant O/S's where the dev occurs in college kid's basements

oh wow... you sure know what YOU'RE talking about.

pppft.

Oh, I'm sorry, Please continue to be 1337er than thou on somebody else's dime, cause you  know, cred, dude.  I mean results are 4  lus0rz.  Open source dev is largely crap, if you want to do audio.  And I do.  I stopped caring what you use them for when you posted that.   :  )


I've been using open source since the 90s, genius.  And it's been the same putdown all that time.  And it's been stupid, all that time.  Never mind that a huge percentage of open source dev happens in the tech companies you idolize so much.  Never mind that a huge amount of open source dev happens at places like CERN, which relies on it for all their day-to-day activities.  Never mind that you're on Fark, using an open source platform right now.  Never mind that every person using the Internet is an open source user somewhere along that chain.

And, actually, I have edited audio with open source tools, and Audacity is a great tool for those us that don't own professional equipment and still need to get it done.  And, no, it's not "professional," but it sure has worked for me well.

Anyway it doesn't matter what you or I use it for, the comment was dumb.
 
2013-08-27 10:50:18 AM
I have an antenna and Netflix...won't go back to cable until they offer a menu...
 
2013-08-27 10:51:16 AM

d23: I've been using open source since the 90s, genius.


And that's where you sh*t the bed with anything other than snotty posture of dime store superiority to offer.  As far as your pissant sarcasm, .7 percentile Stanford Binets.  Bye, Socrates.  :  )
 
2013-08-27 10:54:43 AM

Carth: If cable companies offered it at reasonable prices more people might get it. Google Fiber is 1 Gbps for $70 a month. 100 Mbps is over $120 a month from my cable company.


Quite simply put, we're not as profitable as Google.  We can't offer it at that price even if we wanted to.  Here's a few reasons.  Google doesn't pay franchise fees.  They also get to cherry pick which parts of which cities they build out to.  When we get a contract with a city, we are required to build out to every house in that city whether they are likely to order the service or not.  Google has the advantage of building their network from scratch, they don't have to deal with people who's houses have decades old cable wireing, or neighborhoods.

Biggest of all, Google has a hell of a lot more capitol from their other business that, even if they had to abide by the same rules we do and paid as much fees as we do, they could still sell their HSD at a significant loss to undercut the competition.
 
2013-08-27 10:56:43 AM

pedrop357: I'm still at a loss as to why taking away this 100mhz block also necessitated requiring all analog stations to convert to digital.



More susceptible to signal loss, pixelation and interference from terrain, structures, and distance from the transmitter.  Forces more customers to get cable/satellite or be in the dark.  Lobbied for heavily by same.
 
2013-08-27 10:57:22 AM

Kimpak: I can't speak for other cable companies but the one I work for (Not one of the big 3), we are working towards fiber to the house.  Its far to expensive to roll it out all at once, there are massive costs involved with running fiber.  However, our transport network and enterprise level network is already fiber.


I know FTTP is everyone's dream scenario.  But (and I think you'd agree), a nice solid 1GHz coax system in the last mile is highly underrated.  I think everyone poo-poohs it because "we've had coax since 1974".  This is why I don't think coax goes away soon... there's plenty of bandwidth left.

If I were CenturyLink, AT&T, etc, I'd take your nice existing fiber-fed pedestal boxes every few blocks, and use them to run a competitive IP-only coax/DOCSIS network to every house.  It would be way, way cheaper than running fiber.  It would actually work, unlike trying to feed more than 10Mbps down their sad lead-soldered 30-year-old POTS wires.
 
2013-08-27 10:59:01 AM

Kimpak: thornhill: Given that this affects people in New York, they should be fine. I'm in NYC, first floor apartment, face north (most of the TV towers are south), surrounded by pre-war apartment buildings, and my rabbit ears pull in all of the channels. It's hard to imagine anyone with an even more obstructed reception.

I live in the middle of nowhere Iowa, in a valley.  I can't get OTA reception w/o a bigass 100' tall antenna and 2 amps to run the line to my house.  The nearest broadcast antenna is >60mi away.  I may be going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing NYC has broadcast antenna's closer than 50 miles of you.


Last time I checked, TWC wasn't giving out rabbits ears in Iowa. The article says this is happening in LA, NYC and Dallas. And 82% of the country lives in urban and suburban areas, so you're in a small minority of people living significant distances from TV towers.
 
2013-08-27 11:00:10 AM

Kimpak: Carth: If cable companies offered it at reasonable prices more people might get it. Google Fiber is 1 Gbps for $70 a month. 100 Mbps is over $120 a month from my cable company.

Quite simply put, we're not as profitable as Google.  We can't offer it at that price even if we wanted to.  Here's a few reasons.  Google doesn't pay franchise fees.  They also get to cherry pick which parts of which cities they build out to.  When we get a contract with a city, we are required to build out to every house in that city whether they are likely to order the service or not.  Google has the advantage of building their network from scratch, they don't have to deal with people who's houses have decades old cable wireing, or neighborhoods.

Biggest of all, Google has a hell of a lot more capitol from their other business that, even if they had to abide by the same rules we do and paid as much fees as we do, they could still sell their HSD at a significant loss to undercut the competition.


I believe all of that. But is Google really 10x as profitable? They claim they're making a profit on their cable/tv offerings and it seems really suspect that as soon as Google announced it is going to Austin, ATT says it is going to offer 1 Gbps service at the same price.

If Google is really just that much more cost effective it seems like it is only a matter of time before they offer low cost internet to all the densely populated areas in the country.
 
2013-08-27 11:00:52 AM

bunner: That dismissive notion annoys the piss out of me, frankly, because either you're delivering what you sold or you're not.

"I ordered the lobster"

"Well, yeah, but I mean, you like cheeseburgers, don't you?  That'll be 79.60 for the lobster dinners."

"This isn't lobster."

"But you ordered lobster!"


I'm not sure exactly what your comment had to do with mine.  In that same post, I said we are still upgrading our speeds as quickly as possible, but in the mean time the speeds that are out there are sufficient for what the majority of people are using it for.
 
2013-08-27 11:02:27 AM

Carth: Pretty risky for a cable company to offer OTA antennas. We use one for broadcast television and it eliminated any need or desire for their service. Between that and cheap online sunday ticket there is no real need for cable.


I know several people around here who, given rabbit ears instead of cable, would see their first hi-def football game.
 
2013-08-27 11:03:47 AM
I live in Los Angeles County, about 12 miles north of Hollywood, but we're in the Foothills and there isn't a single TV channel that is watchable OTA because of the mountains. So we're stuck with Time Warner (no Fios or Uverse here...) I'd go internet only if I could find a good streaming news option for the mornings, to play in the background while breakfast etc. is going on.
 
2013-08-27 11:07:11 AM

alkhemy: I live in Los Angeles County, about 12 miles north of Hollywood, but we're in the Foothills and there isn't a single TV channel that is watchable OTA because of the mountains. So we're stuck with Time Warner (no Fios or Uverse here...) I'd go internet only if I could find a good streaming news option for the mornings, to play in the background while breakfast etc. is going on.


I know KTLA streams live during local news hours.  I would expect some of the others do too.
 
2013-08-27 11:08:20 AM

Carth: If Google is really just that much more cost effective it seems like it is only a matter of time before they offer low cost internet to all the densely populated areas in the country.


If Google has to play by the same rules as everyone else, their profit margin on their fiber service is going to go way down.  AT&T might be able to get away with it since they have a massive backhaul network.  A lot of smaller ISP's have to hand off to AT&T to get 'out' to the world.  We have to pay AT&T to do that...we pay them quite a lot in fact.  They don't have that extra cost.  That's just my theory on how they can offer those speeds.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for Google Fiber expanding and increasing speeds. As long as I can get a job there when/if they make the company I work for go out of business.
 
2013-08-27 11:11:46 AM

alkhemy: I live in Los Angeles County, about 12 miles north of Hollywood, but we're in the Foothills and there isn't a single TV channel that is watchable OTA because of the mountains.


We have 1 mountain town in California that we have to feed via microwave towers because we can't run cable through a national forrest.  We also can't get out to the site at night because the tower is on a dirt, cliffside road.  I'd hate to be the field tech that has to go out there to fix things.
 
2013-08-27 11:13:12 AM

Kimpak: gfid: I love it.  Cable is dying a slow death.  They farked us over for years and now they're paying the price.  I can get this shiat over the internet.

eah, no it isn't.  I know for a fact (having once worked in collections) that people will pay their cable bill before they pay their mortgage.  Content providers (the people who actually make and sell the shows) make too much money off cable companies to go to any sort of online only solution. Simply put, they won't make as much money.  Also cable companies do other things than distribute TV, they also do cell network backhaul, enterprise level backhaul, internet, etc..  The TV part of it is actually small fraction.


Well that's just stupid.  There's only 2 bills I make damn sure I pay on time and that's the mortgage and my credit card.  The rest get paid when I get around to them.  I'm usually not too late on them, but I'm not going to sweat it too much if my ISP gets paid a week late.

I did say "slow death" though.  Cable TV isn't going away anytime soon, but I've adjusted to life without it and I'm a TV junky.  The Roku really helps and I don't care for most reality shows.  My cable bill was around $160 before I dropped it.  That did include internet, but now I'm paying $40 for internet and there were really only a few shows on cable I really wanted to pay for.  I'm still caught up on Breaking Bad and I can wait for the other shows to come out on Netflix.

What really pissed me off about Comcast was it often didn't even work.  WTF, Comcast?  I'm paying you a couple thousand dollars a year and you can't even deliver!?!?!  Okay, well let us send someone out.  Fark you.  I want it to work all the time, not just some of the time.  And I don't want to hear some farking contractor tell me "I have the same problem at my house.  I just came from another customer's house with the same problem too.  I don't know what's wrong."

Sorry, that's not acceptable.  In fact, the last time I called Comcast they promised me they'd send a new modem out and I'd get it the next day.  Well, the next day was Sunday and I told this woman in India I don't think UPS delivers on Sunday.  She assured me they did though and I just said I'll believe it when I see it.

By that point though, I had already contacted the only other option for internet service and their equipment showed up on Monday.  Comcast then tried to charge me about $45 for this modem that didn't arrive on a Sunday and in fact never arrived at all which just meant I had to spend more time on the phone getting nasty with them.

I won't speak highly of my new ISP because it doesn't deliver the speeds that I am paying for, but it's close and at least it's consistent. The best thing I have to say about them is they're not Comcast because fark Comcast.
 
2013-08-27 11:14:04 AM

Kimpak: bunner: That dismissive notion annoys the piss out of me, frankly, because either you're delivering what you sold or you're not.

"I ordered the lobster"

"Well, yeah, but I mean, you like cheeseburgers, don't you?  That'll be 79.60 for the lobster dinners."

"This isn't lobster."

"But you ordered lobster!"

I'm not sure exactly what your comment had to do with mine.  In that same post, I said we are still upgrading our speeds as quickly as possible, but in the mean time the speeds that are out there are sufficient for what the majority of people are using it for.


I addressed that here.

Kimpak: That dismissive notion annoys the piss out of me, frankly, because either you're delivering what you sold or you're not.


I have no interest in any company telling me "what's good enough for what I probably use their product for."  I want what they sold me at my disposal, not a Woolworth's version that's "enough".
 
2013-08-27 11:15:20 AM
oops. well, I quoted myself from your reply.
 
2013-08-27 11:16:38 AM
My point being, regardless of the speeds at which they are upgrading, they shouldn't sell something they can't or feel they don't have to provide.
 
2013-08-27 11:20:24 AM

bunner: I have no interest in any company telling me "what's good enough for what I probably use their product for."  I want what they sold me at my disposal, not a Woolworth's version that's "enough".


Reading comprehension, do you have it?

One last time.  Networks are being upgraded..this means faster speeds, but this process is slow especially for smaller ISPs.  My point is, for MOST people (read that again because that's important) a 15/1 connection is MORE (read the capitalized word again) than enough bandwidth than they'll ever need.

For those of us who can and do use more than that we can pay for a higher tier.  Which (at least on our network) will put you on a different node so you're not dragging down everyone else.  If you're about to complain about the price, then go be poor somewhere else.
 
2013-08-27 11:20:56 AM
I have been trying for two weeks to get internet from TWC.  I stupidly stopped paying them and had service disconnected three months ago.  So, needing internet again for work, I called and scheduled a new installation.  I went to the TWC store, waited for one hour 15 minutes because they had one CSR for 20 waiting customers, returned my old equipment (had to, linked with old account) and paid off my balance.  Installation day rolls around, no one shows up.  I called and found out that they had cancelled my installation because the final payment and equip return was put on the new account and not the old one.  I spent the next two weeks fighting with them to mark my address and "serviceable" and unlock my account because of their mistake.  I literally called every day and spent a minimum of one hour of time each call.  I must have been cold transferred around 15 or so times.  Upon asking if I could talk to a supervisor, I was told "they are too busy and won't come to the phone" or "they don't take direct calls, but I will give them your info for a callback.:

FINALLY, I get an install scheduled for last Saturday 10am-11am.  No one shows.  I call and spend another hour on the phone while they contact dispatch.  Apparently, someone "accidentally" marked my service as complete.  They said that they would send a tech before he goes to his 3pm appointment.  Tech shows up with ladder, works on connection at the pole outside, then takes off.  I called again saying that they didn't give me any equipment.  CSR says that they can ship me out one, but there would be a $9.99 charge.  I gasped and he quickly said that I could go to the TWC store. I ran to the store since they closed in an hour (4pm) and they had five CSR's working, so I got right in and got my equipment.  Finally, I'm connected.
Was paying $40/month for 30mb/s, now paying $65 for the same.

I truly am baffled at how they get away with doing what they are doing.  I have no other choice than to go with them.
 
2013-08-27 11:25:38 AM

slykens1: Vodka Zombie: Or, you know, they could ditch the home shopping crap to cover the cost.

You do realize cable companies don't *pay* for home shopping channels but are paid to carry them?

If they drop the home shopping channel then the price will go up elsewhere.


Oh. But then they should dump the commercial breaks instead. Those look super expensive to produce.
 
2013-08-27 11:28:09 AM

Buttknuckle: I have no other choice than to go with them.


Sounds like you're ultimate problem is with their CSRs.  That's a problem with a hell of a lot of companies, and ashamed to say even the one I work for.  Part of the problem is people are dicks, on both sides.  I've seen some really good new hire CSR's get beaten down by dick customer's to the point where they become jaded dicks themselves.  Plus its a crappy barely minimum wage job so its not going to attract the best people.  Not an excuse of course, that's just the way it is.  Point being, even if you had another choice (which you probably do, DSL, Satalite, wireless, etc...) they're customer service is probably going to have their own bag of dicks.
 
2013-08-27 11:28:47 AM

Kimpak: Reading comprehension, do you have it?

One last time.


I suppose this is where people you troll usually tell you to stuff it up your ass.  Far be it from me to break with tradition.
 
2013-08-27 11:30:41 AM

slykens1: Vodka Zombie: Or, you know, they could ditch the home shopping crap to cover the cost.

You do realize cable companies don't *pay* for home shopping channels but are paid to carry them?

If they drop the home shopping channel then the price will go up elsewhere.


WAT? We're getting a shiat deal because I'm pretty sure my company pays for it.
 
2013-08-27 11:32:53 AM

bunner: I suppose this is where people you troll usually tell you to stuff it up your ass.  Far be it from me to break with tradition.


This is the part of the conversation where you realized you have no argument, lost and are trying to preserve whats left of your ego.
 
2013-08-27 11:37:00 AM

Kimpak: This is the part of the conversation where you realized you have no argument, lost and are trying to preserve whats left of your ego.


It as an endless source of amusement to me the degree to which dime store internet insult artists and pissant pedants are thoroughly convinced that the health of the egos of the people they target are wholly dependent upon the kindness of random c*nts on the internet.  Seriously.  It's like this little bubble world.
 
2013-08-27 11:38:41 AM

Kimpak: Buttknuckle: I have no other choice than to go with them.

Sounds like you're ultimate problem is with their CSRs.  That's a problem with a hell of a lot of companies, and ashamed to say even the one I work for.  Part of the problem is people are dicks, on both sides.  I've seen some really good new hire CSR's get beaten down by dick customer's to the point where they become jaded dicks themselves.  Plus its a crappy barely minimum wage job so its not going to attract the best people.  Not an excuse of course, that's just the way it is.  Point being, even if you had another choice (which you probably do, DSL, Satalite, wireless, etc...) they're customer service is probably going to have their own bag of dicks.


My problem is with the CSR's, correct.  I was going to go with Cincinnati Bell DSL even though it was more expensive and the fastest speed is 10mb/s (No Fioptics to my building), but after taking a poll from acquaintances, found that their customer service was just as shiatty.
I'm really at a loss for words over what they put me through the last two weeks - all so I could BE THEIR CUSTOMER.  wtf?  I'm 32 years old and have never yelled at a CSR on the phone before.  Until last week.  Fark Time Warner Cable up their monopolied asses.
 
2013-08-27 11:40:08 AM

bunner: It as an endless source of amusement to me the degree to which dime store internet insult artists and pissant pedants are thoroughly convinced that the health of the egos of the people they target are wholly dependent upon the kindness of random c*nts on the internet.  Seriously.  It's like this little bubble world.


Then why are you butthurt so much that you keep trying to get a last word in that had nothing to do with the original argument.

I'd love to debate, but you seem to have run out of talking points and decided to start trading insults instead.  I was just playing along.
 
2013-08-27 11:43:09 AM

bunner: It as an endless source of amusement to me the degree to which dime store internet insult artists and pissant pedants are thoroughly convinced that the health of the egos of the people they target are wholly dependent upon the kindness of random c*nts on the internet.  Seriously.  It's like this little bubble world.


Kimpak: This is the part of the conversation where you realized you have no argument, lost and are trying to preserve whats left of your ego.

 Don't make me stop this car...
 
2013-08-27 11:44:45 AM

Kimpak: I'd love to debate, but you seem to have run out of talking points and decided to start trading insults instead.  I was just playing along.


Of course you were Euripides.  Oh, you gallant man.  Hint.  When you start dishing out piss pail "Nuh UH!  U R teh stupid0r!1" it's fairly obvious that you not only have no argument, but what you use forums for.   Go needle somebody it works on.  Or don't.  Bye.
 
2013-08-27 11:45:14 AM

Waldo Pepper: I only have antenna tv and the picture rivals that of cable and it's free


I built my own antenna, because, those rabbit ears suck at catching the HD signal's array of frequencies. I'm no longer amazed at the quality of my HD picture, and it is better than the signal I was receiving from Centurylink.  This was the only part I spent money on. If time-warner thinks a simple set of rabbit ears will suffice, you can assume, they're woefully inadequate providing transmission signals of any kind to their customers.

Cable can go and suck on a dongle.
 
2013-08-27 11:52:44 AM
Meanwhile here in the civilized world, I pay just shy of €36/month ($45-50, depending on the exchange rate) for 100Mbit fiber internet, 150-ish TV channels (I've never bothered to count), two phone lines with unlimited calling to domestic numbers and international numbers in 40-some countries, and free wifi for my phone and laptop when I'm out and about.

/that number includes rental of the box and fees, FWIW
 
2013-08-27 11:53:30 AM

bunner: Kimpak: I'd love to debate, but you seem to have run out of talking points and decided to start trading insults instead.  I was just playing along.

Of course you were Euripides.  Oh, you gallant man.  Hint.  When you start dishing out piss pail "Nuh UH!  U R teh stupid0r!1" it's fairly obvious that you not only have no argument, but what you use forums for.   Go needle somebody it works on.  Or don't.  Bye.


Since you also seem to have some sort of Alzheimers, let me recap.
Me "Comment about how I want speeds to improve so we can offer better service, but in the mean time our service is good"

You "WAARRGBLL.  Don't tell me what is "Good", I'll tell you what's good.  I need eleventymillion mips down and a brazillion mips up for 5 bucks a month"

Me "er..ok.  Like I said, we're working on offering those speeds.  But again, our current speeds are more than adequate for the vast majority of our user base"

You 'thinking, Crap..my argument doesn't make sense now, and I can't think of an intelligent counterpoint'  "OMG You don't get it, you're dumb!"

Me "Well I see this is a circular argument.... "Naw mate you are"

You "Nuh, uh you are"
 
2013-08-27 11:54:48 AM

Robo Beat: Meanwhile here in the civilized world, I pay just shy of €36/month ($45-50, depending on the exchange rate) for 100Mbit fiber internet, 150-ish TV channels (I've never bothered to count), two phone lines with unlimited calling to domestic numbers and international numbers in 40-some countries, and free wifi for my phone and laptop when I'm out and about.

/that number includes rental of the box and fees, FWIW


But do yet good Merkin programming like Honey Boo Boo?  Huh, do ya commie boy?  *sigh*   :  /
 
2013-08-27 11:56:48 AM
We finally dropped DirecTV last month.....got tired of paying over $150/month for a bunch of channels that we never watch (and the fact that we don't watch that much TV anyways).

Went out and purchased a long-range antenna that I could hang in the attic and connect to the cable outlet in my TV room - picks up all of the OTA network channels with an occasional drop-off on the signal, but manageable (and as others mentioned, the HD quality of the picture is a huge jump compared to satellite).

Also have two Roku 3's in the house (plus Hulu and Netflix subscriptions; I think $16/month total?) and have finally begun watchin shows that we've always wanted to see but never got around to watching or recording (Breaking Bad, House of Cards, Tudors). We've found enough kids' programming on the Amazon/Netflix/PBSKids apps to keep them happy....

Now I'm eagerly awaiting Aereo's deployment across the Houston market in a few weeks.

Yeah - cable/satellite companies can suck donkey balls right now for all I care....
 
2013-08-27 11:57:20 AM

Kimpak: You "WAARRGBLL.  Don't tell me what is "Good", I'll tell you what's good.  I need eleventymillion mips down and a brazillion mips up for 5 bucks a month"


And you're telling me to learn how to read?   :  )  Trolls.  Irony proof since AOL.  Well, you better find another rope to piss up.  I have a delectable lunch here.  *click*
 
2013-08-27 11:59:28 AM

bunner: And you're telling me to learn how to read?   :  )  Trolls.  Irony proof since AOL.  Well, you better find another rope to piss up.  I have a delectable lunch here.  *click*


I'm still waiting for an argument...all I'm seeing are insults and straw men.
 
2013-08-27 12:13:37 PM

gfid: I love it.  Cable is dying a slow death.  They farked us over for years and now they're paying the price.  I can get this shiat over the internet.


Uhhh, no.  Les Moonves/CBS is representing the dying party here like usual.  Cable is also 'the internet' for the most part and they hate the internet because it doesn't fit into their 50 year old business model.  He is still probably behind any attempt you see to keep radio relevant.
 
2013-08-27 12:19:24 PM
OTA + Netflix: Most stuff that most people watch.  Except possibly sports.  If you're into sports, its a little bit harder to be a cheapass.
 
2013-08-27 12:24:57 PM

Mr. Titanium: sonofslacker: Waldo Pepper: I only have antenna tv and the picture rivals that of cable and it's free

I think the headline was referring to the actual programs on CBS not the quality of the picture. And the over the air (OTA) picture should be as good as cable or better. OTA is coming straight from the source and if the show is in HD the signal should be 1080i (high quality). Cable could be degrading the signal to a lower quality such as 720p (middling quality) and passing it off as HD. There's a big difference in picture quality between the two.

Not really.  I dropped cable about 10 years ago (I'm not "principled", just cheap!).  In bad weather, local stations might get a little snowy, but you could still watch them.  Since they went to digital signals, if the weather is bad, the picture gets pixilated and the audio has lots of interruptions-- enough to make it impossible to follow the story at times.  I'd go back to cable, but I hate Time-Warner with a passion.  And I really don't want to pay huge amounts of money for the same crap I get now, but on 300 stations.


Check on getting a signal amplifier. I'm 30+ miles out of an urban area and use an amplifier to get all the stations. Some come and go depending on the weather and season but mostly they are good enough to get the full data rate of 1080 (thanks to person pointing it out).
 
2013-08-27 12:25:30 PM

IRQ12: gfid: I love it.  Cable is dying a slow death.  They farked us over for years and now they're paying the price.  I can get this shiat over the internet.

Uhhh, no.  Les Moonves/CBS is representing the dying party here like usual.  Cable is also 'the internet' for the most part and they hate the internet because it doesn't fit into their 50 year old business model.  He is still probably behind any attempt you see to keep radio relevant.


Radio and TeeVee were never relevant.  The content was relevant.  They were access methods to content.  As is the internet.  The whole idea of the relevance being something inherent the distribution method is totally a new jack, woo hoo, "we are the future" kiddies notion.  It has one essential point of leverage over radio and TeeVee.  And you're using it.  It's interactive.  Other that that. it's no more "relevant" than a 94 Dodge is more relevant than a 72 Olds.
 
2013-08-27 12:30:33 PM

Kimpak: I live in the middle of nowhere Iowa, in a valley.  I can't get OTA reception w/o a bigass 100' tall antenna and 2 amps to run the line to my house.  The nearest broadcast antenna is >60mi away.  I may be going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing NYC has broadcast antenna's closer than 50 miles of you.


It would be kind of funny to see what would happen if I put up a 100' tall antenna in my backyard. Not only would the HOA come after me, the city probably would too and I don't have the land to secure such a thing anyway.  The weather would probably dismantle it before the city or the HOA did.

I'm not in the middle of nowhere, but still about 60 miles from the nearest broadcast antenna

IRQ12: gfid: I love it.  Cable is dying a slow death.  They farked us over for years and now they're paying the price.  I can get this shiat over the internet.

Uhhh, no.  Les Moonves/CBS is representing the dying party here like usual.  Cable is also 'the internet' for the most part and they hate the internet because it doesn't fit into their 50 year old business model.  He is still probably behind any attempt you see to keep radio relevant.


We'll see if CBS or TWC lasts longer.  Sadly they'll probably be around 100 years from now, but I'd bet TWC won't be known as a cable TV provider by then.
 
2013-08-27 12:33:25 PM

gfid: We'll see if CBS or TWC lasts longer.  Sadly they'll probably be around 100 years from now, but I'd bet TWC won't be known as a cable TV provider by then.


Leviathan corporations are purely interested in making more money than last year and taking it all home.  The product or service is, at worst, viewed as a tertiary concern and a nuisance and at best, a stepping stone and a means to an end.
 
2013-08-27 12:37:54 PM
TW really is the lowest of the low. (Tl;dr) Several years ago I dropped direct tv due to the fact that we had years of great service, I could not get high def due to living in trees. (Bought into them when Uniden sold $50 recievers as opposed to the $500 rivals had. yes, very old). Tw was called, I asked for permission to record the phone call. I got the sales droid stating that all cable runs of direct tv would be removed as part of their install. When the TW installers arrived, I asked them to remove the direct tv stuff first, based on their reputation. They said that was not part of the job. I disagreed and played the phone call. The installers walked out. They are not regulated by the state, but I listed complaints with the state, the BBB and filed a small claims with the bill for a handyman that did remove all of the direct tv wiring. Tw didn't show up, judgement was against them. Eventually I did get paid, but a filing of a law enforcement judgement was added to the list. As it ends up, the sales droid was fired, att uverse entered the neighborhood and is just awesome. Also far cheaper for two phone lines, fast unlimited Internet (in my area, not all), and great service people. Since TW is against another evil corporation in my area (Journal-Sentinal, home of the most biased media I have ever seen, and their local TV news blog was (since departed) actually used by middle school teachers on "improper use of grammar" on every update. Seriously, there was a whole section of a national middle school teacher's forum that I was pointed to discussing the news blog every time one was posted. Probably written by an MPS dropout who was interning at tmj4. So, right now have an antenna for local broadcast TV that is not compressed or subject to the 10 sec uverse delay, uverse for the cable channels we like/two phone lines/decent Internet.
 
2013-08-27 12:42:42 PM

bunner: IRQ12: gfid: I love it.  Cable is dying a slow death.  They farked us over for years and now they're paying the price.  I can get this shiat over the internet.

Uhhh, no.  Les Moonves/CBS is representing the dying party here like usual.  Cable is also 'the internet' for the most part and they hate the internet because it doesn't fit into their 50 year old business model.  He is still probably behind any attempt you see to keep radio relevant.

Radio and TeeVee were never relevant.  The content was relevant.  They were access methods to content.  As is the internet.  The whole idea of the relevance being something inherent the distribution method is totally a new jack, woo hoo, "we are the future" kiddies notion.  It has one essential point of leverage over radio and TeeVee.  And you're using it.  It's interactive.  Other that that. it's no more "relevant" than a 94 Dodge is more relevant than a 72 Olds.


I don't know what you are trying to say but assuming you actually know how relevant is being used in context:  The content is becoming less relevant too.  That content is losing eyes because of the content not the distribution model.

My assertion was that Les Moonves is trying to keep his business model alive long after the tides have shifted.  He may as well start suing beta because of piracy.  People in his position are used to their near monopoly like powers and are now basically chum in the water.
 
2013-08-27 12:45:52 PM
Yet another example of how governmental interference with basic market processes causes a sharp increase in cost and a decline in quality.  Hoover "regulated" the radio industry in the late 1920s, and his licensing scheme effectively froze radio technology in place for decades.  Frequency-hopping technology would have allowed many more radio channels to co-exist, but because the government's licenses were handed out in terms of 1928 technology, the technology stayed where it was in 1928.  That's why we still have only one or two content providers of each basic format in any given (terrestrial) radio market today.  (Which is also the reason that most radio music sucks, since the music producers learned to appeal to fewer radio stations, and thus lowest-common-denominator music, due to the limited number of media alternatives.)

Then came television licensing, and the government was again the reason we only had 3 channels for 40 years.  The threat of withdrawing that license was a powerful tool in ensuring that TV content was homogeneous and inoffensive, and was therefore stupid.

Governmental "regulation" of cable TV ensured that tons of worthless channels were purchased that had no market viability whatsoever, but which had to be bought along with the desired ones.  There were also a thousand different other governmental restrictions on where various providers could and could not go, and what they could charge, and what they had to offer, which (again) was the reason that the number of cable providers shrank to the point where there are only a handful of them.

When are people going to learn that "regulations" exist to benefit the mega-corporations, to stifle competition and innovation, and to screw over the consumer?
 
2013-08-27 12:48:12 PM
I just got a Roku 3 and Netflix and told Comcast to piss up a rope (except for internet). I only regret not doing it a year ago. But my girlfriend likes to watch the Today Show for some unholy reason so I was thinking of getting an HD antennae as well. I live in an apartment, so no roof access, but my TV is right next to a window that has pretty unobstructed views for a few miles. Has anyone used an indoor one they recommend?
 
2013-08-27 12:52:07 PM

IRQ12: I don't know what you are trying to say but assuming you actually know how relevant is being used in context:  The content is becoming less relevant too.  That content is losing eyes because of the content not the distribution model.

My assertion was that Les Moonves is trying to keep his business model alive long after the tides have shifted.  He may as well start suing beta because of piracy.  People in his position are used to their near monopoly like powers and are now basically chum in the water.


As irrelevant as it may be, the content is still the product.  My point is that the whole "chum in the water" thing basically comes down to fads and trends and one model is no less relevant than another if used effectively.  It seldom is and I agree that set in their ways old men don't want to have to pick up a new shovel to keep driving a Bentley, but the tail of the internet is just one more dog wagger and people are starting to notice that the whiz bang is wearing off.  People get what their money demands when the market is actually working.  When it isn't, you get pundits and billionaires saying what you're allowed to have and what matters and what doesn't.  And we've had that a little too long in all three distribution models, IMO.
 
2013-08-27 12:54:33 PM
gfid: ...
We'll see if CBS or TWC lasts longer.  Sadly they'll probably be around 100 years from now, but I'd bet TWC won't be known as a cable TV provider by then.

Definitely not, but it's just as likely that CBS will be the largest retailer of coffee houses with a happy ending.
 
2013-08-27 12:57:47 PM
And, all in all, a committed system that blows video through your wall in HD and 7.1, and does nothing else, is largely way more effective than getting bandwidth intensive content through your net connection, as a rule.  Things that do everything seldom do them all well in my experience.  See digital v. analogue audio consoles.
 
2013-08-27 01:01:18 PM

bunner: Leviathan corporations are purely interested in making more money than last year and taking it all home.  The product or service is, at worst, viewed as a tertiary concern and a nuisance and at best, a stepping stone and a means to an end.


As opposed to what?   As far as I know, any business is purely interested in making more money than last year.  If they're not, its probably not that successful of a business. Cable TV isn't a charity, but it is in their interests to sell the product that the consumer wants (and they do want it, otherwise nobody would be subscribed) at the highest price they're willing to pay without losing customers.  That's simple economics.
 
2013-08-27 01:03:57 PM

bunner: And, all in all, a committed system that blows video through your wall in HD and 7.1, and does nothing else, is largely way more effective than getting bandwidth intensive content through your net connection, as a rule.  Things that do everything seldom do them all well in my experience.  See digital v. analogue audio consoles.


...the hell is this supposed to mean?  Are you trying to argue that HSD and Video shouldn't come over the same cable?  If so, then you really don't know how a cable network works and should probably not try to make up stuff about it.

/source: I'm a network engineer
 
2013-08-27 01:04:13 PM

Waldo Pepper: I only have antenna tv and the picture rivals that of cable and it's free


I ha...ve............anten........na.....[no signal]..........t......v.....[no signal].....,.....hav....e....sp....en...[no signal]...t....hun....dreds.....of dol....l....[no signal]....ars....on antennas an.....d....[no signal]...stil...l...can't...ge..t.....[no signal] NB....C...loc...al...clear....ly....[no signal]....[rescanning]....Bu...t...I'll be dam....n...ed...if....[no signal] I ev....er....go...b...ack...to...c...[no signal]...ab.....l...........e.

/european digital tv works beautifully but that's because they didn't try to squeeze too many channels in, thus intentionally crippling broadcast tv and forcing people to remain slaves to cable or satellite. it's all about stacking the cheese...and it's my cheese they're stacking....and I like my cheese....dammit
 
2013-08-27 01:06:20 PM
Around here, (Western NC), OTA signals have always been spotty.  You are lucky to get four or five channels, three of which are still very staticy on a good day.  When it rains or snows, that can drop to one or two, depending on where you are located.   Digital antennas really don't help that because of pixelation, audio drops, etc.   Charter has us by the short hairs here.  if you have a family who is hooked on television, you can't really cut the cable, because of the caps Charter has set on net usage.  Two adults and two kids can eat 250gb of streaming video and internet usage pretty rapidly in a month, especially on the 30mbps tier.  Cutting the cable is not really an option for a medium/large family.  The other offering around here is 6mbps DSL, and I think they cap their bandwidth also..   I imagine if our local stations, (WLOS, WYFF, WSPA, and WHNS),  didn't renew contracts every year with the cable companies, their advertising dollars would dry up quickly, because of the limits on the OTA viewing area.   Charter has everybody held hostage..

It really sucks, but it seems like everybody is at the cable company's mercy.
 
2013-08-27 01:07:34 PM

bunner: And, all in all, a committed system that blows video through your wall in HD and 7.1, and does nothing else, is largely way more effective than getting bandwidth intensive content through your net connection, as a rule.  Things that do everything seldom do them all well in my experience.  See digital v. analogue audio consoles.


They both come over the same fiber optic cable..... Is there a more effective way to deliver tv and internet?
 
2013-08-27 01:10:27 PM

metallion: It really sucks, but it seems like everybody is at the cable company's mercy.


I spoze.  Dope dealers like their customers to be very humble and forgiving.  Then again, there's always rehab.

encinitaslibfriends.org
 
2013-08-27 01:12:33 PM

bunner: metallion: It really sucks, but it seems like everybody is at the cable company's mercy.

I spoze.  Dope dealers like their customers to be very humble and forgiving.  Then again, there's always rehab.

[850x566 from http://encinitaslibfriends.org/images/frontinday.jpg image 850x566]


What is that place? I need one of those word things that tell you what words mean? Where can I get one? Anybody?
 
2013-08-27 01:13:08 PM

Carth: bunner: And, all in all, a committed system that blows video through your wall in HD and 7.1, and does nothing else, is largely way more effective than getting bandwidth intensive content through your net connection, as a rule.  Things that do everything seldom do them all well in my experience.  See digital v. analogue audio consoles.

They both come over the same fiber optic cable..... Is there a more effective way to deliver tv and internet?


I realize that, but in my experience, whatever sub carrier is handling just the A/v seems to be very robust at delivering the goods as opposed to the stutter / buffer / crappy res on your RJ-45.  Then again, I've had some pretty piss poor ISPs who just blew me smoke when I asked why I as getting a fraction of what I paid for.
 
2013-08-27 01:15:48 PM

George Babbitt: What is that place? I need one of those word things that tell you what words mean? Where can I get one? Anybody?


Knock at the door by the old elm after midnight.  Ask for Barney.

Bring your own weenies in case Montag snows up.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-08-27 01:17:31 PM
shows up...
 
2013-08-27 01:20:57 PM

bunner: I realize that, but in my experience, whatever sub carrier is handling just the A/v seems to be very robust at delivering the goods as opposed to the stutter / buffer / crappy res on your RJ-45.  Then again, I've had some pretty piss poor ISPs who just blew me smoke when I asked why I as getting a fraction of what I paid for.


Is your problem actually that you're getting slow internet speeds? If that's the case, first read the fine print, you're paying for  up to Xmbps.  Not exactly Xmbps.  That's not a marketing ploy, its the nature of the beast.  We can provision a modem for say 15mbps down, which is what it would get at the head end if it was on its own port.  But there's a lot of stuff between your modem in  your house and the head end.  Everyone who has a cable splitter without terminators, every nick in a line, every outdated internal wire contributes a little bit of noise to the system, plus you are sharing a connection with your neighbors.  So, you'll get good speeds at off peak times, worse speeds at peak times.  Also it depends on what you're trying to connect to.  We can't control other people's networks, we can just make ours as clean as possible.  That being said, maybe you do have a legit issue but its a single issue that's specific to you or your node and could be fixed if its properly diagnosed.  Speed issues can be difficult to fix due to the variety of causes.

I can guarantee its not because, TV is running over the same cable as your internet, if someone told you that then they're full of shiat.
 
2013-08-27 01:24:03 PM
Hipsters rejoice!
 
2013-08-27 01:29:49 PM

ReverendJynxed: Hipsters rejoice!


They make hand carved bubinga wood antennas with real bakelite bases?
 
2013-08-27 01:31:38 PM

alkhemy: I live in Los Angeles County, about 12 miles north of Hollywood, but we're in the Foothills and there isn't a single TV channel that is watchable OTA because of the mountains. So we're stuck with Time Warner (no Fios or Uverse here...) I'd go internet only if I could find a good streaming news option for the mornings, to play in the background while breakfast etc. is going on.


try hooking the coax cable directly to your TV (w/o the damn cable box), I discontinued my cable service (still have internet) and I get the local broadcast channels..ymmv
 
2013-08-27 01:39:32 PM

bunner: Ah, TWC.  "This is what we charge, this is what you'll get, kiss my ass."  We don't just rip you off, we insult you sh*tless.  Had a 30/5 TWC roadrunner feed.  Never even came close to 4/1mbps.  Add a sh*tty VoIP phone with no UPS and 72 channels of utter sh*t and you're oinking up 180.00 a month for whatever the hell they feel like capping you at.  If this company falls into the ocean, maybe the .gov crews will get off their ass and start a WPA type program blowing 100/10 fiber to every house in America.  You know, like the civilized countries.


Ooooo hahhahahahhahhahahhahaaaa.  The USA isn't civilized at all!  THe citizens don't believe it yet but they will soon.  As soon as they realize that all of those backwards socialist countries everywhere else are actually in really good shape and they are... soylent green for the rich...
 
2013-08-27 01:43:15 PM

sonofslacker: Waldo Pepper: I only have antenna tv and the picture rivals that of cable and it's free

I think the headline was referring to the actual programs on CBS not the quality of the picture. And the over the air (OTA) picture should be as good as cable or better. OTA is coming straight from the source and if the show is in HD the signal should be 1080i (high quality). Cable could be degrading the signal to a lower quality such as 720p (middling quality) and passing it off as HD. There's a big difference in picture quality between the two.


Yup. The difference between the NBC HD feed off my local cable system and what I pull off my antenna is night and day. The cable company SWEARS it is 1080p but I'm 100% certain they are lying.

/ on the flip side, my cable internet speed averages 90-95% of advertised speed, so... YMMV.
 
2013-08-27 01:44:42 PM

Towermonkey: The cable company SWEARS it is 1080p but I'm 100% certain they are lying.


See here.
 
2013-08-27 01:51:20 PM

Towermonkey: on the flip side, my cable internet speed averages 90-95% of advertised speed, so... YMMV.


My company regularly accomplishes this too.  Little secret.  A cable company provisions your modem for the advertised speed, say 15mbps.  But on average, not counting burst speed you'll probably get around 12-14mbps depending on time of day.  What we do is advertise the 15 but actually provision the modem for 18. We also have high burst speeds.  So you'll see an average of 14-16 depending on time of day, but at off peak times on a good node you can see stints of 50-100mbps assuming you have a docsis 3 modem.
 
2013-08-27 02:00:30 PM

Kimpak: Towermonkey: on the flip side, my cable internet speed averages 90-95% of advertised speed, so... YMMV.

My company regularly accomplishes this too.  Little secret.  A cable company provisions your modem for the advertised speed, say 15mbps.  But on average, not counting burst speed you'll probably get around 12-14mbps depending on time of day.  What we do is advertise the 15 but actually provision the modem for 18. We also have high burst speeds.  So you'll see an average of 14-16 depending on time of day, but at off peak times on a good node you can see stints of 50-100mbps assuming you have a docsis 3 modem.


Yeah, I worked for AT&T for a few years and when the Uverse rollout started, a premises tech I knew mentioned something like this.

I actually like my cable company, it's a pretty smallish concern, their CSRs aren't assholes, and I've never really had any service issues I couldn't resolve myself. The only real complaint I have is I haven't figured out how to hook a 1 TB external drive to the DVR yet, and that's due more to me being lazy and not researching it deeply enough. I started a new job recently and just haven't had the time, since I'm working 60 hours a week...
 
2013-08-27 02:01:58 PM

sonofslacker: Waldo Pepper: I only have antenna tv and the picture rivals that of cable and it's free

I think the headline was referring to the actual programs on CBS not the quality of the picture. And the over the air (OTA) picture should be as good as cable or better. OTA is coming straight from the source and if the show is in HD the signal should be 1080i (high quality). Cable could be degrading the signal to a lower quality such as 720p (middling quality) and passing it off as HD. There's a big difference in picture quality between the two.


You start with a core of truth, but end up veering off:
1.  720p is still by definition HD.  The difference between 720p and 1080i requires you be very close to the screen to see it.
2.  Cable degrading the signal happens, but it's more along the lines of overcompressing the video(not enough bitrate for the resolution) vs downgrading the resolution.  The result is artifacts.

starlost: my parents are in their 80's and could get many channels over the air but they can't deal with using rabbit ears and readjusting them every time they change channels.


1.  Most people are in range of half a dozen stations.
2.  Get a proper antenna hookup and you don't need to fiddle.
 
2013-08-27 02:03:50 PM

exvaxman: They are not regulated by the state, but I listed complaints with the state, the BBB and filed a small claims with the bill for a handyman that did remove all of the direct tv wiring. Tw didn't show up, judgement was against them. Eventually I did get paid,


Awesome.  You're a hero in my book for that, but they probably just figured it wasn't worth their time.

I took a case to small claims court once.  It was kind of a pain in the ass, but I won too.  I just never got paid. It's still some small consolation that I got a judge to agree with me.
 
2013-08-27 02:09:35 PM

Kimpak: We also have high burst speeds.  So you'll see an average of 14-16 depending on time of day, but at off peak times on a good node you can see stints of 50-100mbps assuming you have a docsis 3 modem.


I would say that companies that overdeliver at any time are in the minority.  Around here a 15Mb connection, with 4 channels of DOCSIS 3, will still get at the best of times exactly 15.01Mbps, from the headend's Speedtest.  And honestly, I can understand why.  If you sometimes let your 15Mb/s customers get 20 or 25, they  will start calling and biatching when they get 16 or 17.
 
2013-08-27 02:15:05 PM

Lawnchair: I would say that companies that overdeliver at any time are in the minority.  Around here a 15Mb connection, with 4 channels of DOCSIS 3, will still get at the best of times exactly 15.01Mbps, from the headend's Speedtest.  And honestly, I can understand why.  If you sometimes let your 15Mb/s customers get 20 or 25, they  will start calling and biatching when they get 16 or 17.


That hasn't been too much of a problem for us.  Usually people are pleasantly surprised to see speeds over what they paid for.  We've spent a lot of time and money on our transport network so we can do those sorts of things.  Where it sometimes falls down though is last mile and customer prem stuff.  99% of the time that's where a slow speed issue is on our network.  We're working on that,  but not fast enough in my opinion.
 
2013-08-27 02:39:42 PM

JosephFinn: GrymRpr: "enjoy 1966 CBS quality programming "

CBS did have quality programing back then.

The Jackie Gleason Show
The Ed Sullivan Show
TheSmothers Brothers
Mission Impossible

Hell,  They even had Lost in space!

Hell, Andy Griffith!  The Wild Wild West!  Of course, they also had Hogan's Heroes in their red column, but no one's perfect.


By 1966, Barney was gone and it was all Howard and Goober.  Hardly quality programming at that point.
 
2013-08-27 02:51:33 PM
Comcast user here, who is actually fairly satisfied with the service. Now FIOS came around and floods my mailbox with advertisements on a weekly basis. Wow...$ 79.99/mo for a year or two sounds great...then you start adding up the other fees. HD Converter box..$15 a month, basic converter box..$5/month, (I live in a house with multiple people) regulatory fees, taxes, installation costs, whatever else they throw in..ends up being more than I'm paying now with Comcast (although FIOS claims to be 'faster' and more channels or whatever. I don't need faster..I just want a reasonable price!). Quite disappointed that Verizon has not become a real alternative at all. And the whole rental box thing is a complete scam, pure and simple. (I know there are a couple ways around this, but none that is simple as turning on your TV and changing channels).

\Use an antenna for my kitchen TV to listen to the news in the morning. I get a couple channels, but going antenna-only isn't a viable option in suburbia, unless you want to spend 20 minutes moving the antenna around when changing channels.
 
2013-08-27 02:56:53 PM

metallion: Digital antennas really don't help that because of pixelation, audio drops, etc.


Couple dirty secrets:
1.  There is no such thing as a "Digital Antenna".  Antennas are designed for the frequency(ies) they're supposed to utilize(receive or transmit), and directionality.
2.  Digital television transmits within the same frequency ranges as the old analog stations.  *ON AVERAGE*, if you got good signal before your picture improved, only if you were putting up with a snowy picture before will you lose digital signal.
3.  If you're having intermittent signal issues, signal optimization might be an option - do something to improve your signal a bit like lining the antenna up more precisely, moving the antenna a bit - up generally works.  If that doesn't work a new antenna or amplifier might work.  Oh yeah, and if you have any splitters in the system make sure all wires are terminated - open terminations act as noise sources.
 
2013-08-27 03:06:00 PM

Carth: Pretty risky for a cable company to offer OTA antennas. We use one for broadcast television and it eliminated any need or desire for their service. Between that and cheap online sunday ticket there is no real need for cable.


Amen. Worst part for me is during college football season going without The Ocho.

/ the tubes is where it's at for me
 
2013-08-27 03:11:42 PM

Firethorn: metallion: Digital antennas really don't help that because of pixelation, audio drops, etc.

Couple dirty secrets:
1.  There is no such thing as a "Digital Antenna".  Antennas are designed for the frequency(ies) they're supposed to utilize(receive or transmit), and directionality.
2.  Digital television transmits within the same frequency ranges as the old analog stations.  *ON AVERAGE*, if you got good signal before your picture improved, only if you were putting up with a snowy picture before will you lose digital signal.
3.  If you're having intermittent signal issues, signal optimization might be an option - do something to improve your signal a bit like lining the antenna up more precisely, moving the antenna a bit - up generally works.  If that doesn't work a new antenna or amplifier might work.  Oh yeah, and if you have any splitters in the system make sure all wires are terminated - open terminations act as noise sources.


4. The general rule with antennas is the higher you place it, the better the signal. Outside is always better than indoors. Rooftops and poles outside are better than wall-mounting near the ground indoors.

5. Start with the cheapest antenna, and if that doesn't work return it and move up to the next price bracket. Keep doing that until you find one that does the job.
 
2013-08-27 03:19:24 PM

sonofslacker: Waldo Pepper: I only have antenna tv and the picture rivals that of cable and it's free

I think the headline was referring to the actual programs on CBS not the quality of the picture. And the over the air (OTA) picture should be as good as cable or better. OTA is coming straight from the source and if the show is in HD the signal should be 1080i (high quality). Cable could be degrading the signal to a lower quality such as 720p (middling quality) and passing it off as HD. There's a big difference in picture quality between the two.


720p is better than 1080i.

720p is 720 lines of resolution every scan.
1080i is 540 lines of resolution every other scan. Why would you want interlaced?  Interlaced is NEVER better than progressive scan.

Maybe your TV fills in the space in-between (it probably does) but it's not a higher quality signal.

The difference between OTA and cable isn't the resolution, it's the compression. Cable almost always compresses the signal, so 1080i on cable is often full of artifacts and looks muddy compared to the same signal being sent OTA.

However, OTA is fidgety because the signal bounces like crazy if you're surrounded by houses, trees, or mountains. If you're in the city or suburbs it's tough to get a good, stable OTA signal unless you really spend on a decent outdoor antenna. If you're out in the middle of nowhere you might have better luck with a lower priced antenna providing you can attic mount or pole-mount it.

But either way, 1080i is not better than 720p. Yes, it's a larger number, but an interlaced 540 lines is never going to be as nice-looking as non-interlaced 720 lines.

However, to the naked eye it's not a big deal. Most people can't tell the difference between 1080i, 1080p, and 720p. Videophiles claim they can, but I have yet to see any that can pick out the 1080p TV from the 720p TVs in a line-up, just from the appearance of the screen image.
 
2013-08-27 03:22:35 PM
Oh, and one more thing:  There is no such thing as broadcast 1080p. No network is willing to use that much bandwidth when customers can't see the difference, anyway.

The satellite services offer some 1080p on-demand streaming, but nobody-- cable, OTA, or dish-- offers a 1080p live channel AFAIK. The only place 1080p comes into play is with games, Blu-ray Disc, and streaming services like Vudu.

And though Netflix is now offering 1080p, it doesn't work unless your ISP is signed-on with them to support it. They don't just stream it automatically. Their technology HAS to be supported by your ISP for the stream to truly be 1080p... And a lot of ISPs don't support it, yet.
 
2013-08-27 03:30:06 PM

Carth: tripleseven: TheMaskedArmadillo: What?  This shiat hasn't been resolved yet?

Nope, not that I'm too torn up about losing CBS, but time warner is a piece of shiat in general.  Thankfully, the fios is getting hooked up in my building this month.

I'll be first on the list for install.

They just hooked up FIOS on our street. I was amazed how much more expensive it is than Comcast for internet. Like double the price expensive and there is a $360 early termination fee if you cancel before 2 years.


Charter. $29.99 per month. 50 Mpbs. No bandwidth caps (AFAIK). Free modem with sign-up. No monthly lease fees. No additional fees. My bill is exactly $29.99 every month for this whole year.

That leaves me plenty to pay $7 a month for a good VPN.

If the price jumps after the year, I'll leave for 90 days and go to AT&T DSL. After 90 days I'll go back to Charter and get the "new signup" deal again.
 
2013-08-27 03:33:16 PM
I called TWC to ask what they were going to do for customers that were paying the same amount but receiving less content and their answer was basically nothing. They said that even though I had lost 6 Showtime channels and CBS my bill would remain the same and they were not forthcoming with offers of free set top boxes or internet speed upgrades like the last time we lost content (a local channel, WMOR was lost for about 2 weeks) due to huge corporations arguing about how to split up billions of dollars.

The 3rd supervisor that I talked to told me that there would eventually be some sort of 'credits' on my bill to offset the lost content. When I asked how much and when he could not/would not say. I told him that I was betting that those credits would range anywhere from zero dollars to one million dollars and that I was betting that it would be more like zero dollars.

I wish that I didn't have SO many trees, I'd get Dish (and the Hoppa'!) or DirecTV again.

Verizon has the best product but is the most expensive and is a customer service nightmare. I once spent 10 minutes arguing with a 'tech' over the phone who insisted that I needed to into my basement to reset something. I live in Florida, apparently he didn't believe me.....
 
2013-08-27 04:05:52 PM
/self-important hat is being adorned.

I actually AM getting a kick out of these replies. I work for CBS and am one of the people negotiating with TWC.

- CBS Sports Network is still on the air.
- TWC's contract for retransmission consent of CBS owned and operated affiliate broadcast stations have expired. So, TWC does not have the right to carry CBS in those owned and operate markets (L.A., N.Y., and Dallas).
- TWC is not distirbuting Showtime networks and Smithsonian channel because those agreements also expired.
- Any TWC market carrying a CBS station does so because that station is not a corporate owned and operated station.

//hat removed.
///back to reading the comments.
 
2013-08-27 04:05:58 PM

ZeroCorpse: Carth: tripleseven: TheMaskedArmadillo: What?  This shiat hasn't been resolved yet?

Nope, not that I'm too torn up about losing CBS, but time warner is a piece of shiat in general.  Thankfully, the fios is getting hooked up in my building this month.

I'll be first on the list for install.

They just hooked up FIOS on our street. I was amazed how much more expensive it is than Comcast for internet. Like double the price expensive and there is a $360 early termination fee if you cancel before 2 years.

Charter. $29.99 per month. 50 Mpbs. No bandwidth caps (AFAIK). Free modem with sign-up. No monthly lease fees. No additional fees. My bill is exactly $29.99 every month for this whole year.

That leaves me plenty to pay $7 a month for a good VPN.

If the price jumps after the year, I'll leave for 90 days and go to AT&T DSL. After 90 days I'll go back to Charter and get the "new signup" deal again.


I wish we had that option here. RCN is similar in price to charter but they aren't available on our street. I can't figure out why a house 4 doors down has completely different internet/cable offerings than we do.
 
2013-08-27 04:10:03 PM

etyer: Smithsonian channe

l

Smithsonian showed up today on Apple TV. Do you think other CBS properties will make their way onto that system or is Smithsonian only doing it because it isn't very popular.
 
2013-08-27 04:15:57 PM
I have an antenna. And the picture isn't particularly good. Probably because the antenna is inside (not on the roof) and I live in an apartment.

I'd like both cable company executives and network executives to die in a fire.
 
2013-08-27 04:20:32 PM

etyer: /self-important hat is being adorned.

I actually AM getting a kick out of these replies. I work for CBS and am one of the people negotiating with TWC.

- CBS Sports Network is still on the air.
- TWC's contract for retransmission consent of CBS owned and operated affiliate broadcast stations have expired. So, TWC does not have the right to carry CBS in those owned and operate markets (L.A., N.Y., and Dallas).
- TWC is not distirbuting Showtime networks and Smithsonian channel because those agreements also expired.
- Any TWC market carrying a CBS station does so because that station is not a corporate owned and operated station.

//hat removed.
///back to reading the comments.


If that is so can you tell me why you are punishing the internet users, some of who do not use the cable TV? It seems you are trying to use me as leverage, and I like that less than actually not accessing the shows I may wanna see..
 
2013-08-27 04:22:10 PM
I get the local PBS station over an aerial in HD (KQED, KTEH). My biggest complaint is with FOX, I have a 16:9 TV/Monitor but unless you are HD all of their score boxes now show up half off the screen in the upper left corner, even when I switch to other viewing mode 3:4 or Zoom.
 
2013-08-27 04:29:53 PM

thornhill: Given that this affects people in New York, they should be fine. I'm in NYC, first floor apartment, face north (most of the TV towers are south), surrounded by pre-war apartment buildings, and my rabbit ears pull in all of the channels. It's hard to imagine anyone with an even more obstructed reception.


Easy. 60 miles +, at the eastern edge of the county, behind many hills, at the bottom of a valley, in a two floor steel frame apartment building, with almost all the transmitters in another country (Mexico).

Even when the broadcasts were analog, reception was sh*t. Always. Unless you lived within 10 miles of the border. No cable = no tv, unless you're one of the fortunate few who lives in a house on a hill facing south.
 
2013-08-27 04:40:51 PM

thaylin: etyer: /self-important hat is being adorned.

I actually AM getting a kick out of these replies. I work for CBS and am one of the people negotiating with TWC.

- CBS Sports Network is still on the air.
- TWC's contract for retransmission consent of CBS owned and operated affiliate broadcast stations have expired. So, TWC does not have the right to carry CBS in those owned and operate markets (L.A., N.Y., and Dallas).
- TWC is not distirbuting Showtime networks and Smithsonian channel because those agreements also expired.
- Any TWC market carrying a CBS station does so because that station is not a corporate owned and operated station.

//hat removed.
///back to reading the comments.

If that is so can you tell me why you are punishing the internet users, some of who do not use the cable TV? It seems you are trying to use me as leverage, and I like that less than actually not accessing the shows I may wanna see..


Though I know you're not doing it personally,  etyer, it's a great question. I have a DSL connection and no television service, and I can access CBS shows on the site. If the move to block TWC users on the site isn't spite or an attempt to punish TWC users, what is it?
 
2013-08-27 04:51:25 PM

Carth: etyer: Smithsonian channel

Smithsonian showed up today on Apple TV. Do you think other CBS properties will make their way onto that system or is Smithsonian only doing it because it isn't very popular.



A user has to authenticate as a subscriber to Smithsonian Channel via a cable/telco/satellite service provider. So, you can access Smithsonian Channel via AppleTV through authenticated streaming (also known as "TV Everywhere"). Not over-the-top true Internet streaming.

More programmers are making their networks available via authenticated access. It's a hot-button issue.
 
2013-08-27 05:04:40 PM

dj_spanmaster: thaylin: etyer: /self-important hat is being adorned.

I actually AM getting a kick out of these replies. I work for CBS and am one of the people negotiating with TWC.

- CBS Sports Network is still on the air.
- TWC's contract for retransmission consent of CBS owned and operated affiliate broadcast stations have expired. So, TWC does not have the right to carry CBS in those owned and operate markets (L.A., N.Y., and Dallas).
- TWC is not distirbuting Showtime networks and Smithsonian channel because those agreements also expired.
- Any TWC market carrying a CBS station does so because that station is not a corporate owned and operated station.

//hat removed.
///back to reading the comments.

If that is so can you tell me why you are punishing the internet users, some of who do not use the cable TV? It seems you are trying to use me as leverage, and I like that less than actually not accessing the shows I may wanna see..

Though I know you're not doing it personally,  etyer, it's a great question. I have a DSL connection and no television service, and I can access CBS shows on the site. If the move to block TWC users on the site isn't spite or an attempt to punish TWC users, what is it?


TWC wanted to have its video subscribers watch CBS shows on the website. No spite or punishment. Just no other way to stop TWC's attempts to circumvent the situation.
 
2013-08-27 05:05:11 PM

rewind2846: thornhill: Given that this affects people in New York, they should be fine. I'm in NYC, first floor apartment, face north (most of the TV towers are south), surrounded by pre-war apartment buildings, and my rabbit ears pull in all of the channels. It's hard to imagine anyone with an even more obstructed reception.

Easy. 60 miles +, at the eastern edge of the county, behind many hills, at the bottom of a valley, in a two floor steel frame apartment building, with almost all the transmitters in another country (Mexico).

Even when the broadcasts were analog, reception was sh*t. Always. Unless you lived within 10 miles of the border. No cable = no tv, unless you're one of the fortunate few who lives in a house on a hill facing south.


If you live in such a remote place, chances are that there may not even be cable TV -- your only option is a dish.
 
2013-08-27 05:18:01 PM
1966 means What's My Line, one of the most unintentionally raunchy shows of it's era (masquerading as a classy celebrity game show) is still on the air. Plus several iconic variety shows, dramas, and sitcoms.  Sign me up!
 
2013-08-27 06:04:31 PM

etyer: TWC wanted to have its video subscribers watch CBS shows on the website. No spite or punishment. Just no other way to stop TWC's attempts to circumvent the situation.


So, TWC goaded CBS into totally screwing the viewership. That single action does more to make CBS the bad guy than anything TWC says or does.
 
2013-08-27 06:38:01 PM

thornhill: If you live in such a remote place, chances are that there may not even be cable TV -- your only option is a dish.


In southern california, anything within 100 miles is not considered "remote", since there is such a strong car culture here. Many people regularly commute 75 miles or more round trip each day.
It's not just the distance, it's the topography here. From pictures you can see that this place (as is most of SC near the coast) very hilly, with little in the way of flat land until you are at least 70 miles inland. The towers for most local stations were put in Mexico decades ago because they were cheaper to operate there, and there are hills that look down onto the central part of the big city from across the border. As the county built north and east, those towers became relics, as it's tough to even get FM radio stations out there (same towers).

However, the local cable companies (there used to be five or six, now there are two - TWC and Cox) saw this opportunity and cut deals with the local politicians to lay their lines. The smaller companies were bought up, and now the northern half of the county belongs to TWC while the south belongs to Cox, with some overlap. Their only real competition is ATT UVerse, but they have been fighting to keep them out for years. DirecTV and Dish Network have had some traction, but many of the Houseowners Associations here have anti-dish rules written into their CC+Rs, because those same cable companies bribed the builders too. Their deals with the local politicians will also let them keep their near monopolies until the end of time.

tl;dr - you can get cable almost anywhere in the county, and more often than not if you don't choose it you get nothing. On purpose.
 
2013-08-27 07:25:01 PM

DubtodaIll: gfid: I love it.  Cable is dying a slow death.  They farked us over for years and now they're paying the price. still ridiculously wealthy and successful and can continue to do business.  I can get this shiat over the internet.


Pretty much. Considering how many people GET THEIR INTERNET FROM CABLE COMPANIES.
 
2013-08-27 07:29:41 PM

Mr. Breeze: I can get this shiat over the internet.


This is getting more difficult every day without paying for it an order of magnitude more than the relative outlay we had through cable/sat.
 
2013-08-27 10:30:35 PM

Cataholic: JosephFinn: GrymRpr: "enjoy 1966 CBS quality programming "

CBS did have quality programing back then.

The Jackie Gleason Show
The Ed Sullivan Show
TheSmothers Brothers
Mission Impossible

Hell,  They even had Lost in space!

Hell, Andy Griffith!  The Wild Wild West!  Of course, they also had Hogan's Heroes in their red column, but no one's perfect.

By 1966, Barney was gone and it was all Howard and Goober.  Hardly quality programming at that point.


http://archive.org/details/CBS-TV-Special
 
2013-08-27 11:19:32 PM
Didnt read the article, but rabbit ears do not pick up digital signals.  Rabbit ears are for UHF/VHF.
 
2013-08-27 11:30:52 PM

Frederick: Didnt read the article, but rabbit ears do not pick up digital signals.  Rabbit ears are for UHF/VHF.


Um, if you have a digital converter in it, yes, rabbit ears will work fine.

If you have an old analog tv, no, rabbit ears won't do shiat.
 
2013-08-27 11:35:15 PM

Lawnchair: If I were CenturyLink, AT&T, etc, I'd take your nice existing fiber-fed pedestal boxes every few blocks, and use them to run a competitive IP-only coax/DOCSIS network to every house. It would be way, way cheaper than running fiber. It would actually work, unlike trying to feed more than 10Mbps down their sad lead-soldered 30-year-old POTS wires.


Yup.  Unfortunately, in my neighborhood AT&T just renamed their 6Mbps/768k DSL "UVerse" and started spamming us.  "See!  You get UVerse now!"
 
2013-08-27 11:43:26 PM

Frederick: Rabbit ears are for UHF/VHF.


Digital signals are on either UHF or (less frequently, but not uncommonly) on VHF.  In the normal "rabbit ears" sold for the last 40 years, the V-shaped rods will mostly get VHF, the loop will mostly get UHF.  They will work just fine in most situations within roughly 20 miles of a full-power transmitter.

There is no such thing as a 'digital antenna'.  We're using the exact same frequencies we always have (though almost nobody is using RF channels 2-6).
 
2013-08-28 01:28:51 AM
fark time warner
 
2013-08-28 08:12:21 AM

Lawnchair: Frederick: Rabbit ears are for UHF/VHF.

Digital signals are on either UHF or (less frequently, but not uncommonly) on VHF.  In the normal "rabbit ears" sold for the last 40 years, the V-shaped rods will mostly get VHF, the loop will mostly get UHF.  They will work just fine in most situations within roughly 20 miles of a full-power transmitter.

There is no such thing as a 'digital antenna'.  We're using the exact same frequencies we always have (though almost nobody is using RF channels 2-6).


^This
 
2013-08-28 09:32:33 AM

Mr. Breeze: DubtodaIll: gfid: I love it.  Cable is dying a slow death.  They farked us over for years and now they're paying the price. still ridiculously wealthy and successful and can continue to do business.  I can get this shiat over the internet.

Pretty much. Considering how many people GET THEIR INTERNET FROM CABLE COMPANIES.


Yeah, but I told Comcast to go fark themselves.  DSL works just fine.

Fark you Comcast
 
2013-08-28 10:45:48 AM

George Babbitt: sonofslacker: Waldo Pepper: I only have antenna tv and the picture rivals that of cable and it's free

I think the headline was referring to the actual programs on CBS not the quality of the picture. And the over the air (OTA) picture should be as good as cable or better. OTA is coming straight from the source and if the show is in HD the signal should be 1080i (high quality). Cable could be degrading the signal to a lower quality such as 720p (middling quality) and passing it off as HD. There's a big difference in picture quality between the two.

The compression spoken of is not a reduction of resolution, but rather of the data rate of the transmission. You can still retain the same resolution while having a drop in video quality, same as photographic or audio. Less data used for the each pixel even when there are the same number of pixels results in lower quality pixels. The OTA broadcasts come down at full data rate, whereas many cable companies do feed shows at lower data rates to save on bandwidth costs. cover poor infrastructure.




FTFY.
 
2013-08-28 11:18:59 AM

StoPPeRmobile: FTFY.


Touche'

/thanx lol
 
2013-08-28 12:14:09 PM

rewind2846: but many of the Houseowners Associations here have anti-dish rules written into their CC+Rs,


I know that not everybody knows this, but anybody getting flack about putting a radio receiver up, whether it looks like a traditional antenna or a dish(which is really just a very directional antenna), simply needs to contact the FCC.  It's federal law that you're allowed to put any antenna up that you 'need' to receive television, however you need to, including towers(as long as they're safe), and the FCC has determined this includes satellite tv.

Remember, the FCC is the one able to do things like fine people $10k+ for illegal devices.  They can hit HOAs and local governments very easily.
 
Displayed 240 of 240 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report