|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 290 responses total. |
nharmon
|
|
response 57 of 290:
| 
Jan 23 17:57 UTC 2006 |
I agree with Marc that this does sound like some extreme interference.
You could always call the FCC and tell them there is some equipment
nearby that is interfering with your network. Who knows, they might have
plenty of spare time now that Howard Stern is off the air.
|
gull
|
|
response 58 of 290:
|
Jan 23 19:46 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:8: Right now the cable companies seem to be using the switch to
digital cable as a way to try to force people to pay more money for the
same content. If it had price parity with analog cable I might be more
tempted, but otherwise it just looks like another rate increase. I
also haven't been terribly impressed with the demo HDTVs at places like
Best Buy. Yeah, the picture is really sharp when there's nothing going
on, but when there's much action on screen the JPEG blockies start to
show up.
Re resp:19: There are two problems with predictions like that. One is
that they're solutions looking for problems. How many consumers have
actually *asked* for their refrigerator to tell them when they're out
of milk, or their toaster to tell their washing machine when they make
toast so it can pre-configure itself to remove jelly stains? The other
problem is that most people can't or won't deal with complex systems
like that. Sure, it's possible to load all your DVDs into a central
computer and watch them anywhere in the house, but the average
consumer, who can't even program his VCR timer, isn't going to want to
fuss with trying to figure out how to use it. Until it can be made
easy and reliable, at least.
There are horror stories of people who have bought "smart homes" and
have never been able to get everything working right. Think about how
often your computer doesn't behave properly. Now imagine the same
unreliablity applied to your lights, heat, and garage door opener, and
you have an idea of the problem.
Re resp:31: Maybe the older X10 stuff was better. The stuff I've
bought in the last ten years or so has all been unreliable junk.
Re resp:57: The 2.4 GHz band that wireless network stuff operates on is
unlicensed. The tradeoff with not having to have a license is the FCC
won't help you if you have an interference problem -- they only care
about interference to licensed services. If you look at the
documentation for any given wireless device, you'll find this verbiage:
"This device complies with Part 15 of the FCC rules. Operation is
subject to the following conditions: (1) this device may not cause any
harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept interference
received, including interference which may cause undesired operation."
The 2.4 GHz band is sort of a combination of the Wild West and a
garbage dump. You may get interference from cordless phones, amateur
radio operators, microwave ovens, and even weather radar. WiFi uses
spread-spectrum technology to avoid most interference from other
services, and it actually works pretty well, but the potential for
problems is built in.
|
gull
|
|
response 59 of 290:
|
Jan 23 19:46 UTC 2006 |
Sorry about the crummy formatting. I forgot that "lazy HTML" ignores
line breaks. I'm too used to LiveJournal.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 60 of 290:
|
Jan 23 19:58 UTC 2006 |
re #58:
> Right now the cable companies seem to be using the switch to
> digital cable as a way to try to force people to pay more money
> for the same content.
And don't forget: less convenience.
Set-top boxes suck, but they're what we're going to be stuck with
for at least this generation of TV technology.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 61 of 290:
|
Jan 23 20:11 UTC 2006 |
Re #58: I'm not sure what cable company you're talking about, but
Comcast (as an example) generally provides digital versions of its
standard "analog" content for no extra charge, including HD versions of
local channels. You'll need to provide your own tuner, of course, and
it won't be as polished a viewing experience as you could get with a
Comcast STB or DVR.
They're certainly hoping that digital cable will be a way to bump you
up to a "more channels" package and that they'll make money off you
with VOD and other services, but the digital content itself isn't
encrypted on the wire and so you don't have to pay anything extra to
see it. So I don't really think it's accurate to say that you're being
charged more for the same thing.
Best Buy (and other stores of that genre) is famous for having crappy
HD feeds. But the underlying point is true -- there is a lot of
mediocre HD content out there. All the DBS providers downres and
recompress into mediocrity, and a fair amount of NBC OTA is mediocre
because they suck away bandwidth for their stupid "Weather Plus"
channel, and so on. We can hope that when HD movies on disc come out
later this year they'll be able to take advantage of the medium's
storage capacity to allow fewer compromises.
Re #60: True enough. Alas, the alternative to STBs seems to be
CableCARD, which (so far) sucks more.
|
ric
|
|
response 62 of 290:
|
Jan 23 20:14 UTC 2006 |
I dispute both of those.
I find digital cable to be more convenient because of the built in guide.
I also get more content with digital cable because I'm able to get a bunch
of digital channels that aren't available on standard cable, like ESPNNews,
DIY, and my daughter loves Boomerang and Toon Disney.
I also get a ton of "on demand" channels free where I can watch shows at any
time.. Food Network On Demand is great, DIY On Demand, Golf on demand, cartoon
network on demand, etc.
And I often also listen to the digital music channels when I'm cleaning the
house or doing other kinds of work. Lately, I've been tuned into the Arena
Rock channel.
Most important though, is that my digital cable box has a built in DVR, which
I could no longer live without.
|
ric
|
|
response 63 of 290:
|
Jan 23 20:16 UTC 2006 |
(#61 slipped in)
i do pay extra for my HD cable box... which included the HD local stations
and Discovery HD and TNTHD. I pay extra for the "HDSuite" which includes
HDNet, HDNet Movies, inHD, inHD2, etc.
|
tod
|
|
response 64 of 290:
|
Jan 23 20:33 UTC 2006 |
re #61
Whats a good tuner(decoder) and where can I get one? >;)
|
marcvh
|
|
response 65 of 290:
|
Jan 23 21:05 UTC 2006 |
If you crunch the numbers I suspect you'll find it's better to rent than
buy at this point. For example, if you want a digital cable DVR, you
can buy one for between $500-1000, or you can rent one for like $10/mo;
renting is a no-brainer. The only reasonably-priced QAM tuners I've
seen have been PCI cards.
Someday all TV sets will be DCR (digital cable ready) but we're not
there yet, and by the time we get there they will probably have
developed some new modulation technique which will make them obsolete
anyway.
|
tod
|
|
response 66 of 290:
|
Jan 23 21:15 UTC 2006 |
Thanks. It looks like for now, there are QAM tuners built into high end
televisions but there is no guarantee that the channels aren't scrambled or
set to only be received by their receivers...
|
gull
|
|
response 67 of 290:
|
Jan 24 01:53 UTC 2006 |
Part of what makes digital cable such an uninspiring idea is that I
have three TVs, so having to use a set-top box is kind of a
non-starter.
I also work in some casinos that use Comcast's digital cable feed for
background music (as well as for video), and I've noticed the digital
channels are less than reliable. There are long stretches of time when
the music feed channels are silent, with a black screen that says "this
channel will be available in a few minutes." In light of that, I find
their ads about the unreliability of satellite service pretty funny.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 68 of 290:
|
Jan 24 03:20 UTC 2006 |
re #62: your mileage may vary depending on your own cable company.
Here in Ketchikan when our cable company went all-digital they
actually removed channels from their basic line-up and began charging
their customers an extra $5 per television per month to cover the
costs of the set-top boxes needed to provide this "improved service."
Meanwhile their quality is notably bad and gets even worse whenever
a vessel with radar passes through the harbor.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 69 of 290:
|
Jan 24 04:34 UTC 2006 |
Yup, more money for no improvement is a pretty good example of how not
to deploy things. Re #67, I've seen occasional audio dropouts for a
couple of seconds but haven't experienced what you describe. Sounds
lousy.
Cable companies are kinda stuck. On the one hand, they have early
adopters whose main priorities are digital transmission (way better for
DVR) and lots of high-quality HD content. They are willing to pay a
premium price but they expect a premium product, and when they're forced
to watch a crappy analog static-filled feed of the SciFi channel they're
not happy.
On the other hand, you have foot-draggers who still use analog cable
with old cable-ready TVs. They enjoy watching whatever their favorite
channels are, CNN or ESPN or whatever. They don't particularly care
about picture quality as long as it doesn't totally suck, and they're
not particularly interested in new services. Their main priority is not
seeing their bill go up; they already feel like they pay too much for
the service they get.
I don't particularly envy the kinds of decisions that cable companies
are forced to make in figuring out how to service both crowds. Soon
DirecTV will roll out local feeds in HD, and a ton of new HD channels
will launch (National Geographic-HD, MTV-HD, HGTV-HD, and so on.) Early
adopters will expect their cable systems to make at least some of them
available. Foot-draggers will expect nothing to change. Not sure it's
possible to meet both expectations.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 70 of 290:
|
Jan 24 07:04 UTC 2006 |
re #69: it gets even more complicated when you throw the demands of the
content providers in.. Ever wonder why your cable system carries a whole
bunch of really crappy channels you can't imagine anyone watching? Well,
if they want to offer you a popular channel like, say, MTV (god only knows
why it's still popular, but it is..) then they've also got to carry, say,
Gameshow Network, and the Flannel Channel. So after you've agreed to
carry two or three crappy channels for every channel that's in great
demand you get to bundle the cost of each channel into the customers' bill.
And of course you've got to offer premium content of some sort.. Well then
you'd better be prepared to pony up $100K for the new software every time
the networks decide to change to a new transport encryption.
The cost of providing the content adds up to an appalling share of the
monthly bill and that's before paying off satellite dishes, receivers,
video head end systems, the access platform and cable plant, installer labor,
set-top-boxes, and everything else..
We're about to start offering cable-TV-like service and I find the business
plan to be pretty baffling. Perhaps giants like Comcast have economies of
scale and more bargaining power to work with but I wonder how anyone makes
a profit providing cable service.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 71 of 290:
|
Jan 24 17:37 UTC 2006 |
Yup, the power of a brand. Consumers don't just want any music channel,
they want MTV (wait, do they still play music?)
Can't Stephens and Young get you some more pork in the form of a federal
"Rural Cableification Act" or something to help provide this vital
infrastructure? I don't think the city of Ketchikan is going to be able
to grow and prosper without Bravo and TvLand, and it hardly seems fair
for your cruise ship passengers to have better entertainment options
than the people on land.
Digital technology does allow, at least in principle, a more grainular
pricing model where channels are served a la carte instead of in a
handful of tiered packages. This seems like a better arrangement -- the
content providers set the prices, the consumers pick what they're
willing to pay for, and the service provider is just a common carrier
who enables the transaction. But DBS providers haven't exactly rushed
to embrace that model, and cable companies look like they'll only do it
if forced.
Lately I've kind of surprised myself by wishing that I lived in Verizon
country, so I that their fiber-optic service (FiOS) was an option. I
have my doubts as to whether Comcast will ever offer something like
this, and Qwest's idea of TV service is offering price bundling
discounts with DirecTV.
|
gull
|
|
response 72 of 290:
|
Jan 24 19:05 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:69: I'm definitely in the "foot-dragger" category. I only
watch half a dozen of the fifty or so channels I get, as it is. I'm not
particularly interested in movie channels, which seem to be the main
draw of digital cable, currently. (I have a Netflix subscription that
nicely satisfies my movie-watching needs.)
Re resp:71: A la carte pricing is actually a big issue right now. The
FCC Commissioner is making noises about asking Congress to let him
regulate smut on cable unless cable companies start offering plans
where people can opt out of buying non-"family-friendly" channels.
It's more likely we'll see a "family friendly" bundle instead of a la
carte, though. The content providers are opposed to it because of what
mcnally points out -- very few people are going to pay to watch QVC or
The Game Show Network, given the choice. In fact, Pat Robertson
recently argued against a la carte pricing because he's worried it
would reduce the number of homes that religious channels get into.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 73 of 290:
|
Jan 24 20:18 UTC 2006 |
re #71:
> Can't Stephens and Young get you some more pork in the form of a federal
> "Rural Cableification Act" or something to help provide this vital
> infrastructure? I don't think the city of Ketchikan is going to be able
> to grow and prosper without Bravo and TvLand, and it hardly seems fair
> for your cruise ship passengers to have better entertainment options
> than the people on land.
Don't worry, because we're a rural telephone company we're already
immune to the laws of economics as you know them -- the invisible
hand isn't just invisible for us, it's nonexistant. Market forces
have practically no direct effect upon our business revenue, whereas
arcane regulatory decisions are the life or death of our company.
It's horrible.
re #72:
> Pat Robertson recently argued against a la carte pricing because he's
> worried it would reduce the number of homes that religious channels
> get into.
Pat Robertson, cable-TV welfare queen? Gotta love the irony..
|
marcvh
|
|
response 74 of 290:
|
Jan 24 20:34 UTC 2006 |
Re #72: I think most people only watch a handful of channels out of the
number available, no matter whether they're technophiles or
neo-luddites. But yes, movies and sports are two big things for which
many viewers are willing to pay extra for improvements in content and/or
video quality (though I do know people who got digital cable just so
they could watch BBC America.) I got it mainly so that I could get
movies in HD.
Channels like QVC would have a negative a la carte price, since they
actually pay the cable companies to be carried. I suppose that the
Jebus channels could also get carried under similar terms if that's
important to them. But, oddly enough, Pat seems to be the only one
complaining about it. I haven't heard the homosexuals complain that a
la carte pricing would reduce the reach of Bravo and Logo.
Re #73: Does that mean DBS isn't a viable solution in southeast Alaska?
I know that the terrain is rugged and the satellites would be pretty low
in the sky...
|
mcnally
|
|
response 75 of 290:
|
Jan 24 20:47 UTC 2006 |
re #74: Not a lot of homes have the necessary low-angle south-facing
view needed for satellite reception.
|
tod
|
|
response 76 of 290:
|
Jan 24 21:09 UTC 2006 |
Mine doesn't. I had to build a crane looking thing to extend it out off the
garage..and not a very stable solution.
|
slynne
|
|
response 77 of 290:
|
Jan 24 22:06 UTC 2006 |
I have Comcast's unadvertised $11/mo option. I got it after I realized
that I mostly only watched broadcast channels so I called and asked
about it. Digital cable costs around $80/mo which is way more than I
want to spend on TV. I do most of my TV watching with netflix anyways.
I love renting TV shows from them because there are no commercials and
one can watch it whenever one wants to instead of being a slave to a
schedule.
|
tod
|
|
response 78 of 290:
|
Jan 24 22:20 UTC 2006 |
re #77
Ditto on both
|
keesan
|
|
response 79 of 290:
|
Jan 25 02:44 UTC 2006 |
Does Comcast offer anything cheaper than $80/month for nonprofits selling used
TVs? They are gouging Kiwanis, which uses the cable to sell TVs 12
hours/month, and has to sell a TV every week to pay for it.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 80 of 290:
|
Jan 25 02:48 UTC 2006 |
Why not just hook the TV up to a VCR or DVD player?
|
keesan
|
|
response 81 of 290:
|
Jan 25 02:50 UTC 2006 |
I dont' know. They could also hook up to a dish on the roof. I think he
wants to prove the TVs will work with cable.
|