Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

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


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
80 replies to this topic

#41 of 81 OFFLINE   Brian^K

Brian^K

    Supporting Actor



  • 681 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 06 2006

Posted May 25 2009 - 10:53 PM

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.

#42 of 81 OFFLINE   Scooter

Scooter

    Screenwriter



  • 1,514 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 03 1998
  • Real Name:Scooter
  • LocationDFW Area Texas

Posted May 26 2009 - 03:16 AM

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.

#43 of 81 OFFLINE   Adam Lenhardt

Adam Lenhardt

    Executive Producer



  • 14,875 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 16 2001
  • LocationAlbany, NY

Posted May 26 2009 - 06:18 AM

Agreed.

#44 of 81 OFFLINE   Brian^K

Brian^K

    Supporting Actor



  • 681 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 06 2006

Posted May 26 2009 - 06:38 AM

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. Posted Image

#45 of 81 OFFLINE   troy evans

troy evans

    Screenwriter



  • 1,294 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 02 2005

Posted May 26 2009 - 07:34 AM

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.
" I think it's time we go to plan B". "What's plan B?" "That's the one where we don't do something stupid".

#46 of 81 OFFLINE   MikeM

MikeM

    Screenwriter



  • 1,207 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 23 1999

Posted May 26 2009 - 10:50 AM

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.

#47 of 81 OFFLINE   Charlie Campisi

Charlie Campisi

    Screenwriter



  • 1,536 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 20 2004

Posted May 26 2009 - 11:58 AM

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.

#48 of 81 OFFLINE   John Dirk

John Dirk

    Second Unit



  • 412 posts
  • Join Date: May 07 2000

Posted May 26 2009 - 02:34 PM

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
"The names Francis Sawyer, but everybody calls me "Psycho."
Any of YOU guys call ME Francis, and I'll kill ya!"

My Home Theater
My BlogMy Travels

#49 of 81 OFFLINE   Joe_H

Joe_H

    Screenwriter



  • 1,754 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 17 2001

Posted May 26 2009 - 02:43 PM

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...

#50 of 81 OFFLINE   MielR

MielR

    Advanced Member



  • 990 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 14 2006
  • Real Name:MielR

Posted May 26 2009 - 02:50 PM

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.
SAVE STAR WARS! BOYCOTT THE BLU-RAYS! "Like" us here:

http://www.facebook....ycotttheblurays


#51 of 81 OFFLINE   John Dirk

John Dirk

    Second Unit



  • 412 posts
  • Join Date: May 07 2000

Posted May 26 2009 - 03:17 PM

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
"The names Francis Sawyer, but everybody calls me "Psycho."
Any of YOU guys call ME Francis, and I'll kill ya!"

My Home Theater
My BlogMy Travels

#52 of 81 OFFLINE   ThomasC

ThomasC

    Lead Actor



  • 6,526 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 15 2001

Posted May 26 2009 - 03:30 PM

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).

#53 of 81 OFFLINE   Brian^K

Brian^K

    Supporting Actor



  • 681 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 06 2006

Posted May 26 2009 - 09:06 PM

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.

#54 of 81 OFFLINE   troy evans

troy evans

    Screenwriter



  • 1,294 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 02 2005

Posted May 26 2009 - 10:44 PM

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.
" I think it's time we go to plan B". "What's plan B?" "That's the one where we don't do something stupid".

#55 of 81 OFFLINE   Brian^K

Brian^K

    Supporting Actor



  • 681 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 06 2006

Posted May 26 2009 - 10:52 PM

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).

#56 of 81 OFFLINE   John Dirk

John Dirk

    Second Unit



  • 412 posts
  • Join Date: May 07 2000

Posted May 26 2009 - 11:05 PM


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
"The names Francis Sawyer, but everybody calls me "Psycho."
Any of YOU guys call ME Francis, and I'll kill ya!"

My Home Theater
My BlogMy Travels

#57 of 81 OFFLINE   troy evans

troy evans

    Screenwriter



  • 1,294 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 02 2005

Posted May 27 2009 - 07:33 AM

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.
" I think it's time we go to plan B". "What's plan B?" "That's the one where we don't do something stupid".

#58 of 81 OFFLINE   Brian^K

Brian^K

    Supporting Actor



  • 681 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 06 2006

Posted May 27 2009 - 09:05 AM

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.

#59 of 81 OFFLINE   MielR

MielR

    Advanced Member



  • 990 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 14 2006
  • Real Name:MielR

Posted May 28 2009 - 02:14 PM

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.
SAVE STAR WARS! BOYCOTT THE BLU-RAYS! "Like" us here:

http://www.facebook....ycotttheblurays


#60 of 81 OFFLINE   Patrick Sun

Patrick Sun

    Studio Mogul



  • 38,067 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 30 1999

Posted May 28 2009 - 02:51 PM

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.
"Jee-sus, it's like Iwo Jima out there" - Roger Sterling on "Mad Men"
Patcave | 2006 Films | 2007 Films | Flickr | Comic-Con 2012 | Dragon*Con 2012




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users