COMCAST forcing digital cable boxes down suscribers' throats!!! (Merged)

Re: COMCAST forcing digital cable boxes down suscribers' throats!!!

I can respect that. I don't see it as a "right or wrong" issue as much as a "constructive perspective or destructive perspective" issue.

However, when you use a legal term, you are held up to legal standards, so you are absolutely "wrong" about what you've said here. Something isn't fraudulent because you've misunderstood it.

Re: COMCAST forcing digital cable boxes down suscribers' throats!!!

You're creating something I never said so you can argue against it, for whatever reason. I never mentioned switching to a competing provider such as Dish Network. In fact, I've said the opposite. I was with Comcast because they offered something the others didn't. When they no longer do, I won't be with them either.

I've attempted to clarify it for you a few times now, but you seem stuck on what you imagine I'm saying rather than what I'm clearly saying. So hopefully this example connect with you.

Let's say say I eat Golden Arches Lean Deluxe Plus burgers because I only eat "burgers" that are 85%+ lean. Let's further say that Golden Arches decides they will no longer sell the burger because it isn't profitable for them. I then decide that I'll no longer frequent Golden Arches. What you've done is said I'm being unbalanced and consumerist for making (and expressing) that decision because no other mass fast food place offers an 85%+ lean burger either. You're further trying to explain basic business concepts (I've run one successfuly for over 20 years). Neither of which has anything to do with me saying I'll no longer eat at Golden Arches because they no longer offer a product that works for me.

I'm just not understanding what you expect me to say? Am I to say that I'll go ahead and eat the 60% lean burger they offer because that's about what everyone else offers as well? Or should I perhaps just not say anything at all if my position represents the minority? Or can I simply say that I realize Golden Arches may benefit from their decision, but as a consumer, I don't make decisions based on what benefits them, but what benefits me -- just as they do.

Re: COMCAST forcing digital cable boxes down suscribers' throats!!!

If you say that that isn't what you were saying I can accept that. However, what I wrote was still relevant, in general, and still valid on its own merit.

This is something I didn't pick up on earlier. Too few consumers recognize that their power stems from the willingness to do without when no supplier offers something that they can accept.

The converse is also true: If you pay for a service more than one month after you claim you no longer find it acceptable, then you're basically just lying to yourself. Continuing to subscribe to cable ratifies the value that the cable company is asserting is there. (And remember: The time to take such action with regard to the ramifications of terms and conditions of a contract you enter into is before you enter into the contract.)

In a nutshell, "I have canceled my subscription to (insert service provider here) because I don't like that their service is .... " More importantly, what I object to is statements along the lines of, "(Insert service provider here) is wrong to do .... " when such statements are made in the absence of the aforementioned "balance".

Re: COMCAST forcing digital cable boxes down suscribers' throats!!!

Sure. It just wasn't valid as a response to anything *I* wrote.
I haven't made (and can't make) that statement as Comcast hasn't made the change yet here. But I'm aware of what's been going on in various markets and what their plans are. It's given me some time to consider my options and arrive at my personal conclusions.
I objected to you ascribing that position to me when I never said anything like that. I'm glad we got it clarified.

Thank goodness I don't work in the UN. I'm tired just from this discussion.

-

It appears it's appropriate to say "Happy Memorial Day", though given the purpose of the day, I've a difficult time using "Happy". So I'll just say to my fellow Americans, take the time to remember our fallen heroes in uniform.

Re: COMCAST forcing digital cable boxes down suscribers' throats!!!

You guys are realy being silly about this.
I think I agree with brian.

How could anyone think any of that would be free despite the wording on the
web site is hard to fathom.

Re: COMCAST forcing digital cable boxes down suscribers' throats!!!

I don't know if this will remain valid but in markets where they roll out the DTAs (digital transport adapters), the expanded basic package (currently called "Standard) should be unencrypted. At least that was the case due to some of the limitations of the DTA devices.

In major markets (like Chicago, July 2007) they will surely abandon the channel trap system, which will force encryption and full set-top-boxes, but in smaller markets they might go Clear and use the DTAs. (leaving the traps in place)

I think the Piracy issue they refer to is the removal of traps in areas that are too large to police the issue. Small areas should be more manageable and the cost may be cheaper to go Clear.

Re: COMCAST forcing digital cable boxes down suscribers' throats!!!

To be precise, it isn't due to any limitation in the DTA, but rather limitations imposed by the FCC (essentially banning use of inexpensive, i.e., non-CableCARD equipped, host devices for reception of encrypted services). There is a small but significant chance that the FCC will relent and grant a waiver to allow the DTAs to be enabled such that they will work with encrypted services. There are two reasons why the FCC might do this: First, it can be readily demonstrated that this will reduce costs for the lowest level customers, which is often the FCC's overriding concern. Second, it may be possible to demonstrate that the FCC is exhibiting substantial bias with regard to the application of related regulations as it pertains to the legacy terrestrial subscription television service provider versus satellite service providers and other terrestrial service providers. That might put the FCC in the position of having to choose between imposing new regulations on satellite (something that they have been readily reluctant to do) or granting this waiver.

Re: COMCAST forcing digital cable boxes down suscribers' throats!!!

Thanks for doing that- it saves me the trouble of having the same conversation.

The Comcast site does show diagrams (or descriptions of diagrams) where ---using a splitter and an A/B switch--- you can watch a channel from 2-30 (analog?) while recording a channel from 30-78 (digital).
http://www.comcast.com/MediaLibrary/...tch_analog.pdf

They also have a wiring description which addresses the issue of QAM tuners and HD-channels- so you can watch your HD-channels that the QAM tuners provide, and the ability to use an A/B switch to switch back to the set-top box channels (faq #28):
Comcast: FAQs

Re: COMCAST forcing digital cable boxes down suscribers' throats!!!

I didn't say that I'd fallen for it; I'm suspicious by nature and always read the fine print. I agreed with Scooter's reading because it was the most logical reading (albeit not the only reading). Can companies get away with it? Absolutely, and they do. Most businesses would weigh the benefits of increased interest from the misleading interpretation against the consequences of losing customers that feel misled. The legacy cable operators are not in the habit of doing so, because comparable competition is a new phenomenon in the vast majority of television markets.
Fair enough, I had no idea about the moratorium. I disagree with your characterization, however. Why are matters of fairness out of bounds when it comes to misleading advertising copy from the cable industry aimed at consumers, but matters of fairness are very much in bounds when it comes to consumer-friendly measures imposed by the government onto the cable industry?

For decades, securing a cable franchise in a given municipality was a license to print money -- a government-endorsed monopoly with perhaps a public access TV station or some equipment for the local school district in return. Only the agricultural industry has benefited from government intervention more. Since FiOS TV has to obtain its own franchising agreements to break into many markets, its government shackles are far more prohibitive and lasting than a three month consumer-friendly moratorium.

And since the digital tiers are already available, it's difficult to call these measures an effort to "improve their service offerings". In order to be more competitive, the cable industry is moving towards limiting their service offerings to the higher end tiers. Eventually, the low-cost basic tier mandated in many franchising agreements will be the only analog service left.

All of which is an argument for exercising one's induvidual right in a free market economy to cancel one's service and taking advantage of the advertising-driven and freely available HD over the air broadcasts. I spent three years of the last five without cable (except for high-speed internet) and very rarely missed it.

Re: COMCAST forcing digital cable boxes down suscribers' throats!!!

I've been without Cable for 30 Months now. I do not miss it at all!

Re: COMCAST forcing digital cable boxes down suscribers' throats!!!

Sorry, I didn't catch that. As you do, folks should always look for, read, and make sure that they are satisfied with all the possible interpretations of the fine print, or simply not accept the offer and do without the service.

Given the economics, it is not the most logical reading. Instead, it is the most consumerist reading. There is a big difference.

That is not the case. There is no way for mass-market providers avoid exploitation on the part of consumerists except through legal protection. The whole point of the mass-market is to drive profitability from each unit into quantity. That means that each individual sale is proportionately less meaningful, and also that each exploitation that is successful is that much more damaging.

We consumers have poisoned the pool. Now we have no choice but to live with the consequences of the marketplace we have helped bring about.

That's a myopic generalization. Just in the past couple of weeks I've posted replies in threads casting the same types of aspersions on up-start FiOS, and competitor DirecTV, as well as with regard to Comcast, Time Warner and a couple of other MSOs. Are you claiming that the up-starts are surprised that they themselves exist?

This is a reflection of the mass-market, not a reflection of any limited set of service providers.

And we can readily find analogues in other industries. Indeed, the exceptions are so rare that when you come across a company that operates differently it is often a source of remark. In some markets, there is a place for both: The premium supplier, charging a premium price for premium service, and the rest, charging a reasonable price for reasonable service. That's simply not the case in subscription television, HSI, or really any aspect of telecom.

You want the OP's misread to be a matter of fairness. It is not. It is a matter of wishful thinking, not fairness. Fairness is always applicable, when it really is a matter of fairness.

And remember, consumers aren't owed cheap service. That's also not a matter of fairness.

The restrictions on FiOS are no more onerous than on the legacy MSOs -- indeed often much less onerous. The MSO have historically have borne the brunt of exploitative franchising authorities, extorting tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of considerations in return for franchising agreements. The franchising authorities cannot commit such exploitative acts against FiOS, because doing so would be cast by media as restraint of competition to the "mean, nasty" cable company.

Absolutely. One thing consumerists often refuse to acknowledge is that they undercut their own power by refusing to use it, and the consumer's power stems from their willingness to do without, not from whining about not imposing both the service spec and the pricing on their suppliers.

Re: COMCAST forcing digital cable boxes down suscribers' throats!!!

I don't know about any other state,but in N.J. FiOS is a statewide franchise. They don't have to negociate town by town.

Re: COMCAST forcing digital cable boxes down suscribers' throats!!!

Satellite television didn't really take off until the 1990's, and is functionally different enough that it ceases to be an apples-to-apples comparison. FiOS and AT&T's TV service are far more comparable, and the prices are far more competitive than markets where competition is locked out by franchising agreements. Competition is a relatively new phenomenon, and in some areas still doesn't exist in a meaningful way. Who decides what is really a matter of fairness? To my mind, the consumer is at least as entitled to "fair" treatment as the service provider being regulated. I'm not saying that we as consumers have a right to free HD via a cable provider; only that advertising should make it clear what is being offered for free and what is not being offered for free. In the case of the advertising claim in question, some very minor wording and punctuation changes would have totally eliminated the ambiguity. But the legacy MSOs have also historically reaped the benefits of the franchising authority system. The tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars extracted by the franchising authorities are a drop in bucket compared to the millions of dollars in profits that the MSOs made from having a lock on terrestrial premium television. I've never been a fan of the current system, because what the municipalities get out of the equation -- a TV station hardly anyone watches and equipment hardly anyone uses -- pales in comparison to the economic benefits all subscribers would recieve from having meaningful competition when it comes to terrestrial premium television service.

We have had FiOS internet service available for months now. But despite all the technology being in place, Verizon cannot offer FiOS TV here because the town signed an exclusive franchising agreement with Time Warner Cable in 2003 that lasts until July 2013. So despite having a more advanced, more dependable TV option running less than a football field away from the house, we would have to get DirecTV if we wanted television service with FiOS internet and phone.

Statewide franchises of much shorter terms -- for both the new fiber-to-home services and the legacy MSOs -- would both limit government impositions on the industry and allow for much more responsive regulatory oversight. Agreed.

Re: COMCAST forcing digital cable boxes down suscribers' throats!!!

That is not the case. It is functionally identical; the differences are in implementation not in function. And that's why cable and satellite are considered direct competitors, because function -- what the customer is purchasing (i.e., television entertainment) -- is the same.

Nope. We have five competitors vying for our business here in Burlington, and we pay roughly the same as folks in areas where there are only three competitors, the legacy MSO plus Dish Network and DirecTV.

When it comes to what offerings companies can make in the mass-market, the government does.

Fair, meaning you get what you are explicitly promised. Surely.

And in this case, it did, even though people who prefer the consumerist perspective don't believe that that is the case.

I doubt it. I think the complaints are driven by effect, not by punctuation. Sometimes, people are looking for reasons to complain, or more properly, looking for foundations for the complaints that they're going to make regardless - such complaints stem not from unfairness, but from dissatisfaction itself, and dissatisfaction due more to buyer's remorse than from actual victimization.

No more so than they were promised. That's a red herring. If it is such a good deal going forward, why not have the state acquire the assets by eminent domain, paying the MSO the appraised value for the assets, and then operating the lucrative enterprise as a municipal agency, in the public interest? That way, they could feel free to use the vast profits to pay for imposing the desired consumer bias on the offerings. The reality is that there are profits but not windfall profits, and competition has already ripped into the ability for legacy providers to live up to the expectations imposed on them by the investor markets. Don't forget: The general public often speaks from both sides of their mouths: They want low prices as consumers, and high profits as investors.

Re: COMCAST forcing digital cable boxes down suscribers' throats!!!

Actually, Brian K has made some very good points here. I personally have been frustrated with Comcast because their business practices don't always suit me. My problem, to be sure. I don't like the satellite alternatives and my area has yet to get FIOS. In the long run, for me, it's about saving money. That's more important to me than 100's of HD channels. When FIOS hits my area, and assuming it will be a significant savings over cable service, I plan to switch. Like with any service, FIOS will eventually raise it's fees and service prices. However, I would like to save some money where I can and cable is, to me, too expensive for what's offered.

Re: COMCAST forcing digital cable boxes down suscribers' throats!!!

Comcast is doing that here in my location.

I have an EyeTV 250 Plus Mac TV tuner box and I was surprised that they have unencrypted QAM digital channels for all expanded basic cable channels (USA Network, TNT, ESPN, etc.). Not the HD versions of these channels, but it's still the digital versions, not just analog. Pretty cool.

Re: COMCAST forcing digital cable boxes down suscribers' throats!!!

You guys can argue all you want about the placement of commas, but nothing will change the fact that Comcast is offering local HD for free and charging for premium HD channels, more or less like the alternatives. There is no free ride. Choose the service that offers you the majority of the things you value most at a price you can live with.

Re: COMCAST forcing digital cable boxes down suscribers' throats!!!

Agreed. This has all made for interesting reading, and I applaud both Brian and Adam for being civil even when they didn't see eye to eye, but the real issue at hand is quite simple. If you don't like the way a company does business, then you are free to take your business elsewhere. I still use Comcast for Internet [my company pays for it], but got tired of the poor quality Motorola STB's and the frequent service interruptions [Comcast can't seem to weather the heavy rain and thunderstorms common in my area] so I put up an outdoor antenna a couple of years ago and haven't looked back. Sometimes my OTA channels have glitches too, but I never complain because they are free! The title the OP used for this thread is telling, as it reveals the attitude of too many consumers, assuming that Comcast has the power to "force" something on them.


I think this pretty much sums it up, and if we [the consumer] collectively put it into practice, we would see a drastically different marketplace in short order.

John

Re: COMCAST forcing digital cable boxes down suscribers' throats!!!

Must be nice, I get up to channel 25 in unencrypted QAM digital (besides the local HDs). Of course, three of those are public access, and four are Spanish channels...

Re: COMCAST forcing digital cable boxes down suscribers' throats!!!

It's too bad you see it that way (I'm the "OP"), but they are "forcing" it on me and everyone in my area. They're taking away something that I was paying for and are giving it back with an added drawback- a huge loss in flexibility, yet charging the same price (a price which has been inching up and up every year for the last several years).

I can't use a dish because of the location of my house, and even my antenna in the other room gets few channels because of my location.

If an antenna suits you- then good for you. But if you think that everyone's situation is the same as yours, then your attitude reveals something about you as well.

Re: COMCAST forcing digital cable boxes down suscribers' throats!!!

My intent was not to insult you, but rather to inspire you and others like you. Sorry if it came across otherwise. I completely understand your predicament, but you sound as if you're just going to take this lying down. No matter your situation, as long as you have money to spend, [and in some cases even if you don't] you have options. To properly realize this macro idea, however, consumers have to collectively stand up for themselves and present a united front. Any company that wishes to stay in business for the long run has no choice but to eventually listen. In this case, you will probably find yourself in the minority, [not a bad thing, by the way] but my advice would be to drop Comcast and explore any of several emerging alternatives such as web-based TV [Hulu or TV.com] or Netflix's streaming content. Also, I don't know where you live, but if you're anywhere near a major metro area [25-30 miles] you should be able to get at least the networks free OTA with the proper antenna. Most of the other stuff is garbage anyway in my opinion. Although an initial investment might be required, this would easily be more cost-effective than paying the cable company for their inferior mass-market product month after month. Just my thoughts...

John

Re: COMCAST forcing digital cable boxes down suscribers' throats!!!

Ditto. I only had cable in college. It was included when I lived in the dorms and in one of the apartment complexes I lived in. When it wasn't included, I only got the limited package because I couldn't get a signal with an antenna.

Nowadays, I can watch a lot of cable shows legally, thanks to Hulu, ESPN360.com (only available through select ISPs, including mine, AT&T), TNT's website (for NBA playoffs), and South Park's official website (episodes available one day after initial airing).

Re: COMCAST forcing digital cable boxes down suscribers' throats!!!

And while consumers should be doing without when no offering is worth it, it is important to note that keeping the service is another valid option -- explicitly recognizing that despite the fact that everything isn't exactly as one might want it, the service might still be worth the price charged.

That still doesn't jive with "forcing" anything: The suppliers offer. The subscribers either accept or decline. The usage of loaded language, self-victimization, etc., they don't add to the clarity of the situation but rather obscure it.

Re: COMCAST forcing digital cable boxes down suscribers' throats!!!

But clearly not to that "Person". "Worth" is the hot button word here. On the whole, many will agree that something is worth a certain amount. Wether it's a $2 Coke or $2000 HDTV. On the other hand, some would say that's too much for what's offered and go with a cheaper alternative or without all together. That doesn't make them wrong or the worth of the product any less valid. But, what somethings worth can fall just as much in the realm of a persons opinion as it does in common acceptance on the whole. If a company like Comcast feels that their service is worth the price they charge, then that's their right. Just as it's my right and the right of any consumer to decide if their perceived worth is the same as mine for said service.

"Worth" does not mean "happy"

Nuh-uh... clearly yes to that "Person", unless that person has canceled the service in question. For some reason, our consumerist society has distorted the meaning of the word "worth" in some folks' minds. Some people seem to think it means "happy". Heck, some people seem to think that they're owed such happiness.

However, note carefully what you said, i.e., that if something isn't worth it, the alternative is to go with something else or to do without. That's the point. Complaining about (specifically) lack of "worth", without switching or doing without, is disingenuous -- it is intellectual dishonesty (and admittedly these folks are sometimes lying to themselves, as well -- and therefore not necessarily deliberately committing deception).

Re: "Worth" does not mean "happy"

Moreover, it is ineffective, and only serves to frustrate the consumer and further enrich the provider they are dissatisfied with. Just as a judge is more likely to be moved by evidence over emotion, companies will [indeed must] respond to aggregate feedback, but will generally not respond to empty rhetoric. It's perfectly fine to vent [I certainly do my share] but at the end of the day, if you want to see things change, you have to learn to speak with your wallet.

John

Re: "Worth" does not mean "happy"

That was my point. People who actually take action. Talking about disingenuous, what about companies practices? We live in a day where people are expected to be responsible for their actions. We are expected to read the fine print on contracts and to have full "legal" disclosure on said contracts. So, why is there fine print at all? And why not be completely up front with full disclosure at the jump, rather than have to "call for more details"? Companies ads are geared to put out front the information they want you to see and hear and they back page the rest.

I personnally don't feel that's an honest practice. Legal, perhaps. Being within your legal right doesn't wave responsibility at all times, if ever, either. I may be within my legal right to have the right of way on the road, but, I need to be responsible enough to make sure no one's coming at me in the other direction. Not just to protect myself from them, but to protect them from themselves. It doesn't make it right. It's just a human courtesy. And, if we stray to far away from that principle, even in the face of personal or financial gains, then as a society we're done. Although, I think we are well on our way down that path and have been for awhile.

At the consumers level to complain in the face of acceptance is empty and meaningless. However, everyone needs to vent and bitch once in awhile to let off frustrations about what we accept or can't change. This topic on this forum is an excellent example of that. MeilR has a right to bitch. I've done it myself as I'm sure everyone on here has at some point over something. Whether it's completely justified or not we need that outlet at times.

Re: "Worth" does not mean "happy"

Indeed. Talk is cheap.

And there are a number of answers, but a lot of them are pretty-much categorical condemnations of consumerism and consumers as a group.

Many terms and condition exist solely in response to a long-term pattern of abusive exploitation by consumers, and other instances where consumers act in bad faith. People love to talk about those few examples where this company or that one did something wrong, but those examples are nothing compared to the extent and depth of transgression, deception, dishonesty and selfishness exhibited by the American consumer (in general).

Other terms and conditions exist to serve the paramount consumer desire, namely the lowest price. Great companies price based on value provided, so to satisfy consumer demand for the lowest price, while fulfilling a company's paramount responsibility, their fiduciary responsibility to their owners, they offer services of commensurate value. Terms and conditions effectively keep transgressive consumers from taking more than is offered.

The most effective advertising is the advertising that presents the products and services being offered in the best light, in the smallest span of time/space. Consumers in general reward companies who adhere to that approach.

As any reasonable person would expect, given how consumers react to advertising.

Honesty is a red herring. Of course the practice is honest. You're confusing "honest" with "up-front". They are two wildly different things. Indeed, asserting that companies aren't "honest" because terms and conditions aren't up-front is itself a dishonest accusation against the companies.

The terms and conditions effectively satisfy the relevant responsibilities. I know you want the universe to be different. That's life. We don't always get our own way with things.

Re: "Worth" does not mean "happy"

That was actually my intent when I started this thread- to vent my frustrations with Comcast, let others in my situation do the same, and to share information about the equipment that we are being "REQUIRED" to order, and the various ways to hook it up to facilitate recording, etc., etc. (all without being too intellectually dishonest, I hoped).


Back on topic........
Patrick, do you happen to know the difference between the set top boxes and the DTAs? The Comcast site just says that the set top boxes can be programmed to change channels for recording and can receive OnDemand content, and the DTAs don't. But - do the DTAs only receive channels 2-30?

Please let us know how the equipment works when you receive it.

Re: COMCAST forcing digital cable boxes down suscribers' throats!!!

I haven't received my DTAs, but I think they are a passive device that simply converts digital cable signal to analog video/audio to feed your TV's composite video and analog left/right audio input. I don't even think it'll help with channels above 30, but I guess I'll find out once I receive the DTAs.

They almost sound like those ATSC converter boxes that convert the OTA HD signals to plain 480i video to feed an older TV's composite video and analog audio without an ATSC tuner.