Cablevision and SDV

[wolverines]

Has anyone gotten an adapter from them? I just noticed the other day that they got rid of all the voom channels and added more premium channels, so several HBOs, Starz, etc. all in HD. However, I can't get them with my S3. They must require the adapter. Has anyone gotten one?

I haven't tried calling them yet, but knowing their CS it will take forever to find someone who knows what I'm talking about so I thought I'd ask here first.

[ThomC]

It's been my experience that it takes a few days for channels, (after they show up in the guide), to go 'live'.
Comedy Central HD took about 5 days.
I'm hoping that they 'throw the switch' this weekend.

[dbenrosen]

Cablevision does not yet have an TA (tuning adapter) available. They could possibly be testing it, but I have not heard any reports of one being in the wild. On the CV Yahoo newsgroup, there was an indication that they are coming very soon, but no official word as to a date.

I'm hoping the newly added HD premium channels are NOT SDV.

[urwathrtz]

Had Cablevision at the house on 12/24 and asked about the Voom channels. He said they were going away. He also didn't see the tuning adapter coming any time soon, or at all.

[psxboy]

I know someone personally who's involved in the beta-testing of the tuning adapter for cablevision in the NYC metro area. He just got word that he'll be receiving a test unit within the next couple of weeks. So it sounds like it won't be much longer until they start deploying them officially.

[dubluv]

kinda weird when you call cv, they have no idea what a tuning adapter is. is it that hard to say we're working on it with a projected date somewhere in the not too distant future?

[Dr_Zoidberg]

.

I'm hoping the newly added HD premium channels are NOT SDV.


BZZT, thank you for playing. They ARE SDV. I just called Cablevision to ask about them, and the HD "specialist" said they were. My cable box for my S2 is already getting them.

It's funny, but this specialist had no idea about the SDV tuning adapters. The last time I spoke to Cablevision in December, the agent gave their party line about having the tuning adapters available by the end of 2008. I remember laughing at him.

Well, at least, they've updated the website to remove the 2008 part. (http://www.optimum.com/right_now/switched_vid.html)

[ajonas]

I just got off the phone with the cablecard supervisor from Cablevision who informs him that the new hd movie stations that replaced "voom" are sdv. When I inquired about getting a tuner adapter he had no idea when cablevision would be making them available.

Verizon fios is looking better to me already!

Disappointing serivce. Clearly they could not care less about tivo and cablecard customers.

AJ

[NJ_HB]

These showed on on my TiVoHD and TiVoDT recently.
I can tune them with the DT but the TiVoHD brings up an error message that I need cable card service. (Which I have on the HD).
I deleted from the channel list in the HD so that I don't record from them in error and will wait for the TA or Fios whichever comes first.

[KariInWonderland]

I know someone personally who's involved in the beta-testing of the tuning adapter for cablevision in the NYC metro area. He just got word that he'll be receiving a test unit within the next couple of weeks. So it sounds like it won't be much longer until they start deploying them officially.

How was he able to get involved with the beta testing? Cablevision's lack of cooperation in providing these adapters and lack of knowledge by cs reps is quite aggravating, especially when they're the only area option!

[DCIFRTHS]

I can also confirm that the new channels in Westchester are broadcast using SDV. I pay for the new channels, and I can't tune them in, so needless to say, I am not happy :mad:

[lrhorer]

I can also confirm that the new channels in Westchester are broadcast using SDV. I pay for the new channels, and I can't tune them in, so needless to say, I am not happy :mad:
How is it you are "paying for the new channels", when you aren't paying any more for service than you did when they weren't available to anyone? The bottom line is the only way the CATV company can afford to deliver the channels is by employing SDV. UDCP owners are unfortunately impacted because their units cannot receive SDV channels, but TiVo owners will soon be able to receive them. Why would it be fair for the CATV company not to deliver the additional channels just because a very small percentage of subscribers cannot receive them?

[Blahman]

Perhaps they should as their legal representative authority to the government and the FCC suggest and start deploying them by the end of of 2008 (oh that passed and they haven't even started testing). That is what the NCTA told the FCC their members would do for SDV deployments in lieu of being forced to accept DCR+ and being allowed to use OCAP/True2Way/WhateverNameTheyGiveItNext. Last I checked Cablevision was a member and thus have given some level of legal representation and their interests over to the NCTA as such. This fallacy that the NCTA speaks for its members and can negotiate these items to the FCC & other government agencies must end. The FCC needs to start acting against this anti-consumer activity.

[lrhorer]

How is it anti-consumer for a company to offer additional services to more than 98% of its customers without any increase in costs to any of the customers?

As to the rest, the FCC is to blame more than anyone else for the current situation. The consumer electronics manufacturers share at least equal blame to the CATV companies, and consumers themselves are not entirely lacking in fault.

Edit: Oh, and when it comes to anti-consumerism, your tagline is as anti-consumerist as it comes. SDV will allow CATV companies to deliver many, many times the number of channels for lower costs per channel than is the case today. How would it be good for consumers to prevent this?

[DCIFRTHS]

How is it you are "paying for the new channels", when you aren't paying any more for service than you did when they weren't available to anyone?

The channels were added to the level of service that I subscribe to, and pay for. At this point in time, I am sticking with TiVo, and the result of that decision is that I am paying for channels that I can't view. It really is that simple.

The bottom line is the only way the CATV company can afford to deliver the channels is by employing SDV. UDCP owners are unfortunately impacted because their units cannot receive SDV channels, but TiVo owners will soon be able to receive them.

The cable company made a business decision regarding transmission of their signal. They did what they had to do - so be it. We both know that this decision wasn't based on "what is fair" nor should it have been.

Should I be happy that I receive less channels than my neighbor, when we both pay the same amount of money for the exact same service? Of course not! Unfortunately, by not being upset about the "untunable" channels, that is exactly what you are asking me to do.


Why would it be fair for the CATV company not to deliver the additional channels just because a very small percentage of subscribers cannot receive them?

I didn't say it would be fair: I said I was mad that I am not getting the level of service that I am paying for.

In my own best interest, what concerns me, is the value of service, either perceived or real, that I receive for my dollar. What else should I be concerned about? How much money the Dolan's make off of Cablevision each day? I think not. For the record, I care about "what's fair" as much as Cablevision, Verizon and every other "for profit" company does.

[Blahman]

How is it anti-consumer for a company to offer additional services to more than 98% of its customers without any increase in costs to any of the customers?

As to the rest, the FCC is to blame more than anyone else for the current situation. The consumer electronics manufacturers share at least equal blame to the CATV companies, and consumers themselves are not entirely lacking in fault.

Edit: Oh, and when it comes to anti-consumerism, your tagline is as anti-consumerist as it comes. SDV will allow CATV companies to deliver many, many times the number of channels for lower costs per channel than is the case today. How would it be good for consumers to prevent this?

How is it anti-consumer. Because they flat out lied knowing full well their members would not deploy Tuning Adapters by the end of 2008 in an effort to crush a competing standard for interoperability. They got what they negotiated for but are failing to provide the consumers with the concessions (Tuning Resolver/Adapters) that they agreed to deliver in return for True2Way instead of being forced to use Digital Cable Ready Plus.

As a consumer I have been screwed by their activities and lies and the fact that the negotiated a deal on behalf of their member companies that the member companies are not fulfilling.

[lrhorer]

The channels were added to the level of service that I subscribe to, and pay for. At this point in time, I am sticking with TiVo, and the result of that decision is that I am paying for channels that I can't view. It really is that simple.
You were obviously happy enough to pay the amount you are paying now for the channels you receive now prior to any changes by the CATV company. Now of course everyone wants to receive the maximum benefit for a given outlay of cash, but if the pricing previous to the introduction of SDV was fair, then the pricing itself remains so. I'm not saying you should be happy to not be getting the channels - I had to put up with it for well over a year, and during that time more than 50 channels were added. The point, however, is the CATV company had two choices: upgrade no one, or upgrade every user who chose to employ CATV owned equipment. Had they taken the former route, you would still be paying what you do now for the very same channels you receive now. How would that have been to your advantage?

The cable company made a business decision regarding transmission of their signal. They did what they had to do - so be it. We both know that this decision wasn't based on "what is fair" nor should it have been.
I would say as compromises go, this is more fair than most. Others have received considerable benefits, and you have not suffered any detriment.

Should I be happy that I receive less channels than my neighbor, when we both pay the same amount of money for the exact same service? Of course not!
Happy? Perhaps not. Are you happy for lottery winners? You paid the same amount for your ticket they did, but they get the money, not you. In this case, you get the advantages - and they are many - that go with owning a TiVo. You also get the disadvantages. That is not to say the CATV providers should not as a best-of-all-worlds solution continue to work to deploy the TA. They definitely should. All I'm saying is that unless your provider does what Hawaii operators did, a little patience on your part is in order.

Unfortunately, by not being upset about the "untunable" channels, that is exactly what you are asking me to do.
I'm asking you and others to take a longer view of the situation, just as I did. Feel free to write or call your provider and demand a $3 0r $4 a month refund, but don't have a coronary just because some channels you never received in the first place are temporarily missing from the lineup. Now, if they are still dragging their heels come May 1, then you have somewhat more of a legitimate beef, as a quarter should be more than plenty of time to rectify the situation, as they have already promised to do.

In my own best interest, what concerns me, is the value of service, either perceived or real, that I receive for my dollar. What else should I be concerned about?
A great many things, including how much value you will be receiving for your dollar a year from now. SDV potentially will allow you to receive much greater benefits in the future. Objecting to it based upon temporary inconveniences - especially when they are not a matter of reduction of your service but of an increase of other people's services in temporary exclusion of you is unwise, selfish, and short-sighted. Some people are going to get to enjoy the benefits before you do. It's unfortunate, but frequently going to be the case with any advance in technology.

How much money the Dolan's make off of Cablevision each day? I think not. For the record, I care about "what's fair" as much as Cablevision, Verizon and every other "for profit" company does.
How would it have been advantageous, fair, wise, or otherwise a good idea to deny the services to everyone? People who live in Maine can get lobsters for $4 a pound. Should Maine fishermen refuse to sell to Maine residents just because Arizona residents can't get them for the same price? Oh, and this isn't a case of the CATV owners making more money per person. They are still charging the same amount to the same number of subscribers. In fact, they are making less, because they now have to pay the content providers for the extra content.

The bottom line is that SDV potentially has huge benefits for subscribers and CATV providers alike. Indeed, it has already provided significant benefits for 98% of subscribers and will shortly provide some of the same benefits for the rest. That doesn't mean you should not continue to apply appropriate pressure to your local provider to cough up the TAs, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[lrhorer]

How is it anti-consumer. Because they flat out lied knowing full well their members would not deploy Tuning Adapters by the end of 2008
1. Some of their members did begin deploying in 2008.

2. I did not see any committment, certainly not in any missive to the FCC, to a 2008 delivery.

3. For the most part, a 2008 delivery was a pipe dream, and everyone should have realized that. If you look at my posts in this forum, I pointed this out regularly throughout 2008. Even Q1 2009 is a fairly impressive feat.

in an effort to crush a competing standard for interoperability. They got what they negotiated for but are failing to provide the consumers with the concessions (Tuning Resolver/Adapters) that they agreed to deliver in return for True2Way instead of being forced to use Digital Cable Ready Plus.
You are probably correct about the TA being a move intended at least in part to fend off DCR+. Note, however, that DCR+ would not have helped Series III class TiVo owners, at least not directly. Of course, a DCR+ dongle would have been quite possible, as well, but I seriously doubt they would have been available prior to Q1 2009.

As a consumer I have been screwed by their activities and lies and the fact that the negotiated a deal on behalf of their member companies that the member companies are not fulfilling.
I have 3 TAs in my house right now. Over a dozen cities already have the TA, and more are in schedule. The facts do not support your assertion. Just because you don't have one, yet, doesn't mean they are not being deployed. It never ceases to amaze me how so many people think their personal experiences constitute the workings of the entire universe. As to "lies", there is a big difference between failing to meet a commitment and lying. There is also a difference between a target date and a commitment. What evidence do you have that anyone lied in this respect, or even that there were any firm commitments in place? Just because you wanted it earlier does not mean anyone else was under any obligation to meet that goal.

I also more than question your assertion that you are being "screwed". There is a big difference between losing something and not gaining something. In this case, you are still paying the same amount for the same services you did before. That others are somewhat luckier than you to receive additional services is not the same thing as you being "screwed".

[lrhorer]

oh that passed and they haven't even started testing
What evidence do you have they have not started testing? The word of a CSR or line technician does not count, and a lack of evidence is not an evidence of a lack.

Despite your silly tagline, SDV is terrific. I have 3 Series III class TiVos which can receive over 50 HD channels and over 100 SD channels, all thanks to SDV. That it took over a year to get here and that during that entire year I could only get about a dozen HD channels was less than wonderful, but you would have the CATV company abandon SDV.

This fallacy that the NCTA speaks for its members and can negotiate these items to the FCC & other government agencies must end. The FCC needs to start acting against this anti-consumer activity.

So you are saying that even once the TA is delivered in your area and you have one, you will demand the CATV company shut down all your new channels because people with CableCard TVs will still be unable to receive the channels?

[lrhorer]

kinda weird when you call cv, they have no idea what a tuning adapter is.
Not really. Many CSRs probably don't know what a TiVo is, and I doubt half know what SDV is. I doubt 1 in 20 know how it works. Here in San Antonio, almost none of the CSRs knew what TAs were or when they would be delivered as little as 4 days before they were deployed. I doubt more than half know even now, several weeks after they have been in operation.

[nicky612000]

Just called Cablevision and they didn't have a date for this date tunning adapter but they said that it is being produced by Tivo. They will send out a mailer to all cablecard customers when it is available.

[mack1951]

I had to laugh when I read this thread. The poster defending SDV does not have Cablevision. SDV may be the best thing since sliced bread but the way it has been implemented by Cablevison is a real joke. Their own STBs can't tune all the channels all the time and get constant channel not available messages. They also do not need to use SDV if they would just get rid of their analog feeds and go pure digital they would have more then enough bandwidth for the channels they have now and future expansion.

[berkshires]

I had to laugh when I read this thread. The poster defending SDV does not have Cablevision. SDV may be the best thing since sliced bread but the way it has been implemented by Cablevison is a real joke. Their own STBs can't tune all the channels all the time and get constant channel not available messages. They also do not need to use SDV if they would just get rid of their analog feeds and go pure digital they would have more then enough bandwidth for the channels they have now and future expansion.

Its no good because there are some techinical difficulties? Nope.

All they have to do is get rid of analog...all the have to do to get rid of analog is a lot; maybe a lot more than implementing SDV and/or with a fraction of the benefit long term.

[mack1951]

Its no good because there are some techinical difficulties? Nope.

All they have to do is get rid of analog...all the have to do to get rid of analog is a lot; maybe a lot more than implementing SDV and/or with a fraction of the benefit long term.
The people who paid for NHL center Ice and kept getting the channel not available message would disagree about it just being a technical difficulties. The bandwidth saved from no more analog is not minor.

[wolverines]

They also do not need to use SDV if they would just get rid of their analog feeds and go pure digital they would have more then enough bandwidth for the channels they have now and future expansion.

I think this just goes to show you why options are so good to have. Most cablevision customers can just leave and go to FIOS. Get all digital. I haven't left because I need the analog channels based on my current setup. I have 4 tuners that all receive good old basic analog (2 TVs and a pc tuner). The cost of adding a box for every one of those becomes quite high, quickly.

So while I hope they move quicker to get me a TA for SDV, I hope they take their time on the full conversion to digital.

[berkshires]

The people who paid for NHL center Ice and kept getting the channel not available message would disagree about it just being a technical difficulties. The bandwidth saved from no more analog is not minor.

I suppose they are the experts.

The amount of bandwidth freed from getting rid of analog is not the defining issue apparently.

[pdonoghu]

Just called Cablevision and they didn't have a date for this date tunning adapter but they said that it is being produced by Tivo. They will send out a mailer to all cablecard customers when it is available.

Another example of a CSR not knowing what they are talking about. Tivo does not produce tuning adapters. They added support for them in the last software release. Tuning adapters are manufactured by the companies that make the cable system head end equipment, Cisco/SA, and Motorola. Cablevision is the only entity that can supply a tuning adapter that works with their system.

[mack1951]

I suppose they are the experts.

The amount of bandwidth freed from getting rid of analog is not the defining issue apparently.
Don't know what kind of experts we are or are not but we paid good money to get the NHL center Ice to watch hokey games not black screens with channel unavailable on them. Does not matter to a Cabelvision customer if SDV works for others or not, Cabelvision can not even get it to work with their own equipment so even if it is a great technology it sucks on Cablevision. Those who are not on Cablevision and have SDV that works God Bless you on Cablevision it does not so unless they can figure it out the only solution is more bandwidth and the only way to get it is go digital and loose the analog.
The more stuff they move to SDV without fixing the problem the worse it will get. No wonder they are loosing so many customers to Verizon FIOS.

[lrhorer]

The people who paid for NHL center Ice and kept getting the channel not available message would disagree about it just being a technical difficulties.
Exactly what else would you call it? That some provider is incompetent in no way means the protocol is deficient. Not available messages should be exceedingly rare, and very momentary.

The bandwidth saved from no more analog is not minor.
No, but it is completely trivial compared to the advantages of SDV. Most CATV plants have between 70 and 90 analog channels. Converting those 100% to digital will offer up to 180 HD channels maximum and from 90 to 900 or so analog channels, dropping roughly 2 HD channels for every 11 additional SD channels in the lineup. SDV, on the other hand offers literally an unlimited number of channels - potentially tens of thousands - with just a comparative handful of digital carriers.

[lrhorer]

I had to laugh when I read this thread. The poster defending SDV does not have Cablevision.
No, but how incompetent Cablevision might be has nothing directly to do with SDV.

SDV may be the best thing since sliced bread but the way it has been implemented by Cablevison is a real joke. Their own STBs can't tune all the channels all the time and get constant channel not available messages.
This may be true, I don't have first-hand experience with the company.

They also do not need to use SDV if they would just get rid of their analog feeds and go pure digital they would have more then enough bandwidth for the channels they have now and future expansion.
'Not even. VOD offerings and services like "start over" eat up QAMs like a swarm of termites attacking a 2 by 4. Without SDV, they are limited to a couple of hundred HD channels at most.

[berkshires]

No, but it is completely trivial compared to the advantages of SDV. Most CATV plants have between 70 and 90 analog channels. Converting those 100% to digital will offer up to 180 HD channels maximum and from 90 to 900 or so analog channels, dropping roughly 2 HD channels for every 11 additional SD channels in the lineup. SDV, on the other hand offers literally an unlimited number of channels - potentially tens of thousands - with just a comparative handful of digital carriers.

Put more generally, it offers the potential of "giving" every viewer on an entire cable system their own individual "channel," meaning they could watch anything they chose at any time.

[lrhorer]

That's right. Not only that, but publishing a "channel" suddenly becomes very inexpensive for the CATV company, so that they can drastically reduce the cost to a content provider for securing "time" on the CATV system. Where once only significantly funded broadcasters could offer up a channel on the CATV system, now the cost can be reduced to the point where even modestly sized businesses and even clubs and enthusiast's organizations can put up a channel. Your bowling league or motorcycle club might be quite able to put up videos. Scuba diving clubs could serve up diving videos and slide shows for club members to enjoy. Employment agencies could run a channel posting want ads and client video resumes.

[ThomC]

That's right. Not only that, but publishing a "channel" suddenly becomes very inexpensive for the CATV company, so that they can drastically reduce the cost to a content provider for securing "time" on the CATV system. Where once only significantly funded broadcasters could offer up a channel on the CATV system, now the cost can be reduced to the point where even modestly sized businesses and even clubs and enthusiast's organizations can put up a channel. Your bowling league or motorcycle club might be quite able to put up videos. Scuba diving clubs could serve up diving videos and slide shows for club members to enjoy. Employment agencies could run a channel posting want ads and client video resumes.

I believe that what you are describing is called YouTube! :rolleyes:

[berkshires]

I believe that what you are describing is called YouTube! :rolleyes:

Which is one reason why the Cable Cos need this ability.

[lrhorer]

I believe that what you are describing is called YouTube! :rolleyes:
'Not too far from it, actually, except that the commercial nature of the feeds should keep the content quality much higher - I hope - and that the feeds can be authorized only for specific users, should the content provider so choose. Thus, a company could produce semi-confidential videos and they would only be delivered to authorized individuals' households. They also could produce pay-per-view videos, and split the proceeds with the CATV company. Online banking, interactive features including gaming, you name it and all potentially in glorious full rez HD.

[mack1951]

'Not too far from it, actually, except that the commercial nature of the feeds should keep the content quality much higher - I hope - and that the feeds can be authorized only for specific users, should the content provider so choose. Thus, a company could produce semi-confidential videos and they would only be delivered to authorized individuals' households. They also could produce pay-per-view videos, and split the proceeds with the CATV company. Online banking, interactive features including gaming, you name it and all potentially in glorious full rez HD.
But why would you want to do those things over a possibly non-secure cable TV network. Sounds like something you should do on your own computer after making it as secure as possible. Also with the amount of compression most cable operators use I would hardly call it glorious full rez HD.

[lrhorer]

But why would you want to do those things over a possibly non-secure cable TV network.
It can be considerably more secure than the internet, and people do those things on the internet all the time. Remember, the network size for a CATV system is generally much smaller than the typical internet feed, and CableCard encryption is very strong.

Sounds like something you should do on your own computer after making it as secure as possible. Also with the amount of compression most cable operators use I would hardly call it glorious full rez HD.
I definitely do. And compared to YouTube...

[mack1951]

It can be considerably more secure than the internet, and people do those things on the internet all the time. Remember, the network size for a CATV system is generally much smaller than the typical internet feed, and CableCard encryption is very strong.


I definitely do. And compared to YouTube...
To each his own. However I think I'll keep computing on my computer and my TV watching on my TV.:)

[lrhorer]

To each his own. However I think I'll keep computing on my computer and my TV watching on my TV.:)
I suspect I will as well, mostly. This in no way suggests such features won't be popular, and just because you and I don't derive much benefit from them (or care to) doesn't mean other folks won't. I don't care for sardines, but some people love them. "'More power to them", I say.

[Blahman]

I would not expect Tuning Adapters on Cablevision in 2009 for general deployment in my opinion and estimation.

I just got off the phone with Jerry J. who contacted me in response to my FCC complaint lodged in October 2008. Currently Cablevision head-end equipment is not OpenCable compatible according to the statements made. The compatible equipment and software is not expected to begin deployment until April 2009. After that, testing and limited deployment of Tuning Adapter and other OpenCable devices may begin in select areas where the head-ends will be upgraded. So glad that they met the year-end 2008 holiday selling season for OpenCable deployment. As one of the 5 largest MSOs failing to meet this agreed goal in 100% of its markets that is outrageous. The FCC needs to step up and start dealing with these companies.

BTW - yes that also means no OCUR devices and no True2Way devices either until they start deployment of the new headend equipment and software.

Edit: add quotes
NCTA Filing to the FCC on 8/24/2007 pg 5:
The OpenCable Platform solution is not only the fastest path for retail: it is the only one that has any prospect of bringing consumers bidirectional retail options by the year-end 2008 holiday selling season.

NCTA Filing to FCC on 9/10/2007 pg 2:
OpenCable is being commercially deployed in headends and new interactive products today. Comcast, Time Warner, Cox, Cablevision and Advance-Newhouse will have completed the rollout of OpenCable to headends in all of their systems in time for the holiday 2008 season and ahead of the February 2009 broadcast digital transition.
How do you complete something for the 2008 holiday season if you don't start rolling out the compatible headends and software until April 2009?
The cable industry needs to be more regulated and controlled. The FCC needs to step up and do something about the constant lies and misinformation and missed deadlines by the NCTA and its members. The cable industry has gotten away with making their services incompatible with 3rd party hardware for far to long.

Edit2: Clarify that the first sentence is my opinion and estimation and separate out my reasoning for that estimate.

[dbenrosen]

I would not expect Tuning Adapters on Cablevision in 2009 for general deployment in my opinion and estimation.

A knowledgeable source in the Cablevision Yahoo newsgroup stated a few weeks ago that TAs would be available soon. I'll take his word for it since he has firsthand knowledge.

Whether or not they will actually work is another issue.

[Blahman]

A knowledgeable source in the Cablevision Yahoo newsgroup stated a few weeks ago that TAs would be available soon. I'll take his word for it since he has firsthand knowledge.

Whether or not they will actually work is another issue.

I don't put much hope in anything. One would expect a person delegated to respond to FCC complaints would at least be provided correct knowledge on the issues, but with Cablevision you never know.

Actually you do know, their support will always be sub-par.

[DCIFRTHS]

A knowledgeable source in the Cablevision Yahoo newsgroup stated a few weeks ago that TAs would be available soon. I'll take his word for it since he has firsthand knowledge.

Whether or not they will actually work is another issue.

Wilt H?

[dbenrosen]

Wilt H?

Yes.

[Blahman]

A knowledgeable source in the Cablevision Yahoo newsgroup stated a few weeks ago that TAs would be available soon. I'll take his word for it since he has firsthand knowledge.

Whether or not they will actually work is another issue.

Sorry in advance for the off-topic. Speaking of the Yahoo Group. Does the owner still exist? I've had a pending membership for months now.

[dbenrosen]

I don't know. I had that issue initially. Once I changed the reason for joining to say I was having a problem (and I was) I got approved quickly.

[Blahman]

I don't know. I had that issue initially. Once I changed the reason for joining to say I was having a problem (and I was) I got approved quickly.

Thanks for the tip. Made some changes and sent an email right to the group owner account and that seems to have done the trick.

[Dunnie]

Just got my Tuning adapter from Cablevision ... there isn't that much of an advantage to having it so far. 3-4 HD channels I didn't have yet ... but since VOOM went away ... very little is left.

anyway .. i guess i can sleep better now :/

[Dr_Zoidberg]

Just got my Tuning adapter from Cablevision ... there isn't that much of an advantage to having it so far. 3-4 HD channels I didn't have yet ... but since VOOM went away ... very little is left.

anyway .. i guess i can sleep better now :/



Thanks for latting us know, Cablevision! :(

Apparently you can just walk in to their stores and get them: Their announcement. (http://optimum.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/optimum.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=2403&p_sid=ZLE_g_uj&p_lva=651&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ 9MywzJnBfcHJvZHM9JnBfY2F0cz0mcF9wdj0mcF9jdj0mcF9wYWdlPTEmcF9 zZWFyY2hfdGV4dD1zZHYgdGl2bw**&p_li=)