|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 290 responses total. |
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.
|
gull
|
|
response 82 of 290:
|
Jan 25 03:10 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:74: I think Pat's problem with it may be that only the
already-converted would buy his channel, thus eliminating his chance to
preach to unbelievers. I understand some minority-targeted channels
also worry that their audience buy-in would be too low to support their
programming.
(Side note: Just heard today that UPN and WB have folded. The most
popular stuff from the two of them is going to be merged into a new
CBS-Warner channel called CW.)
Re resp:77: That's cool, but it wouldn't work for me. I need my Daily
Show. :)
|
n8nxf
|
|
response 83 of 290:
|
Jan 25 14:25 UTC 2006 |
n
|
slynne
|
|
response 84 of 290:
|
Jan 25 14:39 UTC 2006 |
resp:79 Do the Kiwanis need digital cable or can they sell tv's with
analog cable? Comcast has an $11/mo analog option that only includes
broadcast channels. Even if you need digital, they may have something
similar. Call them and ask.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 85 of 290:
|
Jan 25 15:36 UTC 2006 |
Comcast's basic option generally includes digital versions of the
broadcast channels, but I find it hard to imagine that the Kiwanis are
reselling almost-new expensive televisions. Most likely they just want
to have cable at their facility, and "testing TVs" is the excuse to
justify it. It's pretty easy to tell from the configuration options
whether a TV is cable-ready, and virtually all TVs for something like the
past twenty years have been cable-ready. Do the Kiwanis resell a lot of
TVs from the seventies?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 86 of 290:
|
Jan 25 18:22 UTC 2006 |
I tried to ask earlier about some properties of WiFi networks but I guess
I asked in an unclear manner as no one answered. Here are my questions.
Can others detect my "closed" network (i.e., I have SSID broadcast turned
off)? If so, how?
And, if they can, how difficult is it to them connect to my network (apart
from security options like WEP)?
|
twenex
|
|
response 87 of 290:
|
Jan 25 18:25 UTC 2006 |
WPA is much more secure than WEP.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 88 of 290:
|
Jan 25 18:32 UTC 2006 |
re #86:
> Can others detect my "closed" network (i.e., I have SSID broadcast turned
> off)? If so, how?
Yes. Basically just by having their cards listen for traffic using a utility
designed for the purpose..
> And, if they can, how difficult is it to them connect to my network (apart
> from security options like WEP)?
I've never bothered but my impression is it's comparatively easy.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 89 of 290:
|
Jan 25 19:06 UTC 2006 |
(My base station doesn't offer WPA. What's wrong with WEP if the key is
changed frequently?)
Can that utility learn my SSID? Doesn't another system need that to connect?
|
springne
|
|
response 90 of 290:
|
Jan 25 19:32 UTC 2006 |
Yesterday, Time Warner dropped off my 24 port fiber switch and a rack mount
ups to go with it. Fired it up and I've got servers running today!
|
keesan
|
|
response 91 of 290:
|
Jan 25 23:21 UTC 2006 |
Kiwanis sell TVs from the 70s and even the 60s (with tubes). Nobody watches
TV there, they are just sold. Is there some way I can look up online the
cheapest possible business option? The person who decided to pay for this
cable service won't pay for an ISP for himself (but does pay for grex). His
logic escapes me. He could get broadband for kiwanis at 1/4 the price, set
up computers with adsl modems, and sell those for more than TVs.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 92 of 290:
|
Jan 25 23:45 UTC 2006 |
Yeah, www.comcast.com. I don't think they support lynx though.
I'm trying to think of what the free market price of a forty-year-old TV
with no remote, a 300 ohm antenna input, a fussy tuner that requires constant
adjustment of knobs that nobody has heard of like "horizontal hold", and so
on. Unless it's some sort of collector's item, I'm thinking it's negative
since it's full of hazardous materials that cost money to have disposed.
I certainly hope they're not selling them to people who lack the money
(or the willingness) to properly dispose of it when it breaks.
|
keesan
|
|
response 93 of 290:
|
Jan 26 01:45 UTC 2006 |
We sold one turqouise one maybe from the 50s (when was turquose faddish?).
And they still sometimes get in small portables BW (7 or 9" diagonals).
People come to Kiwanis looking for antiques. Reel-to-reel tape decks
fetch a lot, as do good turntables. There is a jukebox for sale.
|