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 87
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-08-27 08:14:46 AM
5 votes:

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 08:24:40 AM
4 votes:
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 08:11:01 AM
4 votes:
I only have antenna tv and the picture rivals that of cable and it's free
2013-08-27 08:21:07 AM
3 votes:
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 01:10:27 PM
2 votes:

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 10:18:40 AM
2 votes:

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 10:05:59 AM
2 votes:

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 09:54:19 AM
2 votes:

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 09:53:28 AM
2 votes:

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 09:31:31 AM
2 votes:
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 08:43:14 AM
2 votes:
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 08:33:57 AM
2 votes:
"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 08:32:32 AM
2 votes:

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 08:30:11 AM
2 votes:

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 08:24:27 AM
2 votes:

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 08:21:00 AM
2 votes:
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 08:10:00 AM
2 votes:

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 07:25:01 PM
1 votes:

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 04:05:52 PM
1 votes:
/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 02:00:30 PM
1 votes:

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 01:20:57 PM
1 votes:

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 01:06:20 PM
1 votes:
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 01:04:13 PM
1 votes:

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 01:03:57 PM
1 votes:

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 12:30:33 PM
1 votes:

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 12:24:57 PM
1 votes:

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 12:19:24 PM
1 votes:
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 11:52:44 AM
1 votes:
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 11:44:45 AM
1 votes:

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 11:43:09 AM
1 votes:

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 11:38:41 AM
1 votes:

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 11:28:09 AM
1 votes:

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 11:20:56 AM
1 votes:
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 11:20:24 AM
1 votes:

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 11:13:12 AM
1 votes:

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 11:11:46 AM
1 votes:

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 11:08:20 AM
1 votes:

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 11:07:11 AM
1 votes:

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 11:03:47 AM
1 votes:
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 11:02:27 AM
1 votes:

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 11:00:10 AM
1 votes:

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 10:59:01 AM
1 votes:

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 10:57:22 AM
1 votes:

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 10:54:43 AM
1 votes:

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 10:50:18 AM
1 votes:
I have an antenna and Netflix...won't go back to cable until they offer a menu...
2013-08-27 10:47:06 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-08-27 10:42:20 AM
1 votes:

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 10:41:46 AM
1 votes:

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 10:38:23 AM
1 votes:

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


So far, something like this.

www.stonekits.co.uk
2013-08-27 10:37:57 AM
1 votes:

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.
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-27 10:36:31 AM
1 votes:

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 10:31:15 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-08-27 10:31:07 AM
1 votes:

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 10:27:37 AM
1 votes:

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 10:19:19 AM
1 votes:

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 10:10:34 AM
1 votes:

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 10:06:16 AM
1 votes:

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 10:01:19 AM
1 votes:

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 10:01:12 AM
1 votes:

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 09:59:16 AM
1 votes:

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 09:57:54 AM
1 votes:

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 09:46:15 AM
1 votes:

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 09:40:51 AM
1 votes:

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 09:40:38 AM
1 votes:
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 09:39:55 AM
1 votes:
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 09:36:46 AM
1 votes:

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 09:26:58 AM
1 votes:

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 09:25:50 AM
1 votes:

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 09:24:31 AM
1 votes:

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 09:20:32 AM
1 votes:
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 09:13:15 AM
1 votes:

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 09:03:22 AM
1 votes:
archives.evergreen.edu
Approves
2013-08-27 08:58:00 AM
1 votes:
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 08:55:44 AM
1 votes:
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 08:52:09 AM
1 votes:

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 08:50:46 AM
1 votes:
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 08:47:36 AM
1 votes:
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.
2013-08-27 08:44:30 AM
1 votes:

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 08:43:49 AM
1 votes:
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 08:38:43 AM
1 votes:

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 08:35:56 AM
1 votes:

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 08:33:48 AM
1 votes:

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 08:24:03 AM
1 votes:
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 08:21:16 AM
1 votes:
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 08:17:37 AM
1 votes:

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 08:13:05 AM
1 votes:

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 08:10:19 AM
1 votes:
Time Warner loses as soon as football starts.
 
Displayed 87 of 87 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report