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  
•       •       •

6913 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Aug 2013 at 8:07 AM (51 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



240 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 240 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report