TiVo Community
TiVo Community
TiVo Community
Go Back   TiVo Community > Main TiVo Forums > TiVo Series3 HDTV DVRs
TiVo Community
Reply
Forum Jump
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-12-2008, 07:23 PM   #1981
Southie Boy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimWall View Post
I just received this e-mail from TWC. Looks like a December date!!!

We expect the Tuning Adapters to be released to the public sometime in December in many areas of the country.
How much would you want to bet that your area of the country (or mine) will not be among the "many" that get the adapters. My letter was almost word for word the same but it said they would be beginning distribution before the end of the year.

I'd say it's just more TWC lies.
__________________
I was born down on A street,
raised up on B street,
Southie is my home town.
Southie Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2008, 05:37 AM   #1982
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 9,150
"Lies" because the truth doesn't fit your personal needs. Ooooookay. (backing away slowly)
bicker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2008, 12:10 AM   #1983
wireman121
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 101
According to Cablevision's website http://optimum.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/...i=&p_topview=1, requiring Cablevision customers to use their cablebox to view ALL available channels is not against the FCC regulations. Is there something different about the VOOM channels and NHL center ice (and the others they list) that lets them get around the FCC regulations?
wireman121 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2008, 02:12 AM   #1984
mikeyts
Wireless Wiseguy
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 2,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by wireman121 View Post
According to Cablevision's website http://optimum.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/...i=&p_topview=1, requiring Cablevision customers to use their cablebox to view ALL available channels is not against the FCC regulations.
I'm sorry, but I don't see where it says that (it also doesn't sound as though Cablevision is requiring "customers to use their cablebox to view ALL available channels"). Can you quote the portion of what they say that you're interpreting that way?
__________________
Mike Scott

"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
" -- hookbill
mikeyts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2008, 05:43 PM   #1985
vstone
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Martinsville, VA
Posts: 1,223
Analog cable ready was an industry idea and not required by the FCC. After FEB 17, cable companies must continue to service analog TC sets for 3 years, but they can require you to use a cablebox and they can charge you for it.

In the digital world, there are requirements to allow you to use equipment other than a cable box. Existing devices are Tivo, a no longer available Sony DVR, a specially built PC, or a cablecard TV set, of which there are very few. CFR requires cablecard, but the SDV technology has not been officially addressed by the FCC, so cable companies can pretty much do as they wish.

Even with digital cable channels carrying local OTA, there is no technical requirement other than it be unencrypted. All of those millions of TV sets being sold today have clear QAM tuners, but many cable companies do not support them.
vstone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2008, 05:37 PM   #1986
lrhorer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Posts: 6,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by wireman121 View Post
requiring Cablevision customers to use their cablebox to view ALL available channels is not against the FCC regulations. Is there something different about the VOOM channels and NHL center ice (and the others they list) that lets them get around the FCC regulations?
Two-way CATV services are specifically excluded from the regulations covering broadcast services. Video on demand, pay-per-view, and SDV are two way services.
lrhorer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2008, 05:45 PM   #1987
lrhorer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Posts: 6,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyts View Post
I'm sorry, but I don't see where it says that (it also doesn't sound as though Cablevision is requiring "customers to use their cablebox to view ALL available channels"). Can you quote the portion of what they say that you're interpreting that way?
I think what he meant is there are channels one cannot view unless one has an STB, not that there are no channels which do not require an STB.
lrhorer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2008, 10:10 PM   #1988
mikeyts
Wireless Wiseguy
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 2,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by vstone View Post
Even with digital cable channels carrying local OTA, there is no technical requirement other than it be unencrypted. All of those millions of TV sets being sold today have clear QAM tuners, but many cable companies do not support them.
Code of Federal Regulations Title 47 §76.640(b)(1) provides technical specification of how digital channels will be carried on cable systems, by reference to the appropriate SCTE specs. Any clear QAM tuner which complies with these specs, which are based on the plug-and-play digital-television-over-cable "memorandum of understand", as agreed upon and signed by top execs of all the major cable MSOs and CE OEMs (Charter, Comcast, Cox, TWC, Cablevision, Insight, Cable One, Advance/Newhouse, Hitachi, JVC, Mitsubishi, Matsu****a, Philips, Pioneer, Runco, Samsung, Sharp, Sony, Thomson, Toshiba, Yamaha and Zenith) should be able to tune clear QAM channels on any complaint cable system. Personally, I think that those regulations and standards bind the cable companies to "support" modern clear QAM tuners, though no one could expect them to be able to help a sub with any specific piece of off-the-shelf equipment.
__________________
Mike Scott

"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
" -- hookbill

Last edited by mikeyts : 11-19-2008 at 08:36 PM.
mikeyts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2008, 11:54 PM   #1989
dswallow
Save the Moderatоr
 
dswallow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Long Branch, NJ, USA
Posts: 49,297
TC CLUB MEMBER
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyts View Post
Code of Federal Regulations Title 47 §76.640(b)(1) provides technical specification of how digital channels will be carried on cable systems, by reference to the appropriate SCTE specs. Any clear QAM tuner which complies with these specs, which are based on the plug-and-play digital-television-over-cable "memorandum of understand", as agreed upon and signed by top execs of all the major cable MSOs and CE OEMs (Charter, Comcast, Cox, TWC, Cablevision, Insight, Cable One, Advance/Newhouse, Hitachi, JVC, Mitsubishi, Matsu****a, Philips, Pioneer, Runco, Samsung, Sharp, Sony, Thomson, Toshiba, Yamaha and Zenith). Personally, I think that those regulations and standards bind the cable companies to "support" modern clear QAM tuners, though no one could expect them to be able to help a sub with any specific piece of off-the-shelf equipment.
A better way to put the problem is to say that most every if not all cable systems with digital signals do certainly support and utilize the QAM standards. However what's missing is any connect between channels assignments and any sort of concept of guide data. Plus the typical QAM channels assignments can move around simply as part of how the cable system manages bandwidth, with no corresponding non-subscription methods or standards to allow for non-cable-box/non-CableCARD tuners to follow them automatically and seamlessly.
__________________
¯\_(ツ)_/¯****************
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dswallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2008, 08:58 AM   #1990
vstone
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Martinsville, VA
Posts: 1,223
Quote:
Originally Posted by dswallow View Post
A better way to put the problem is to say that most every if not all cable systems with digital signals do certainly support and utilize the QAM standards. However what's missing is any connect between channels assignments and any sort of concept of guide data. Plus the typical QAM channels assignments can move around simply as part of how the cable system manages bandwidth, with no corresponding non-subscription methods or standards to allow for non-cable-box/non-CableCARD tuners to follow them automatically and seamlessly.
Actually, CFR does require the passing of channel ID from the broadcast, but few actually do this.
vstone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2008, 02:34 PM   #1991
mikeyts
Wireless Wiseguy
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 2,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by vstone View Post
Actually, CFR does require the passing of channel ID from the broadcast, but few actually do this.
Yeah--they're required to broadcast PSIP loops in QAM carriers containing clear content. As you say, compliance is splotchy. My current provider, TWC San Diego, does it and I can tune all of the digital locals with their assigned virtual channel numbers from the cable using my Mitsubishi panel's QAM tuner with no CableCARD installed (I can't be sure if they're carrying the PSIP program descriptions, since I have TV Guide On Screen activated). I lived in Cox territory up in Oceanside a year ago and they had PSIP working as well.
__________________
Mike Scott

"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
" -- hookbill
mikeyts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2008, 08:10 PM   #1992
jim_newtivoguy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 10
Posted this on the TWC thread, but for those of you who are wondering, these Tuning Adapters do exist. I picked mine up today, and it seems to work just fine. TWC Austin - the guy at the office had about 4-5 of them that he ordered after I went in today and they didn't have them.
jim_newtivoguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2008, 08:56 PM   #1993
Enrique
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: San Antonio,Tx
Posts: 5,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim_newtivoguy View Post
Posted this on the TWC thread, but for those of you who are wondering, these Tuning Adapters do exist. I picked mine up today, and it seems to work just fine. TWC Austin - the guy at the office had about 4-5 of them that he ordered after I went in today and they didn't have them.
Do you have any pics?
Enrique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2008, 09:03 PM   #1994
Combat Medic
No guts, no glory
 
Combat Medic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 8,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim_newtivoguy View Post
Posted this on the TWC thread, but for those of you who are wondering, these Tuning Adapters do exist. I picked mine up today, and it seems to work just fine. TWC Austin - the guy at the office had about 4-5 of them that he ordered after I went in today and they didn't have them.
Interesting. I just got an eMail from the CEO of TWC SA and he says they are still in testing.
Combat Medic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2008, 06:44 AM   #1995
jim_newtivoguy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 10
Yes, I have pics. (I'd have better ones, but I don't want to pull all the other gear out of my cabinet).
Attached Images
File Type: jpg IMG_6257.JPG (81.0 KB, 88 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_6256.JPG (65.5 KB, 78 views)
jim_newtivoguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2008, 10:31 AM   #1996
csm10495
Badoop Badoop!
 
csm10495's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 117
wow at least some cable companies are getting something done. Cablevision thinks their to good to give the adapter. Anyone know when Cablevision give out the adapter?
csm10495 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2008, 03:08 PM   #1997
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 9,150
See related discussions concerning the FCC recently citing companies for their deployments of SDV -- as a result of those, even relatively recent and reliable information about future deployments, if any, would be up in the air.
bicker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2008, 03:19 PM   #1998
SCSIRAID
Registered User
 
SCSIRAID's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vero Beach, FL
Posts: 2,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker View Post
See related discussions concerning the FCC recently citing companies for their deployments of SDV -- as a result of those, even relatively recent and reliable information about future deployments, if any, would be up in the air.
Not slowing TWC Raleigh down.... All these recent HD additions (except MGM HD) are SDV. More coming in December.

http://www.timewarnercable.com/Carol...ngeUpdate.html

Nov. 20, 2008: The following channels will be added:

Planet Green HD - Channel 262
CNN HD - Channel 269
NBA League Pass HD Channel (for NBA League Pass subscribers) - Channel 720
MLB Extra Innings/NHL Center Ice HD Channel (for MLB Extra Innings and NHL Center Ice subscribers) - Channel 745
MGM HD - Channel 291 (replacing MOJO on HD Suite)
Nov. 11, 2008: The NBA League Pass Preview Channel (710) is changed to an NBA League Pass package channel.

Oct. 29, 2008: The following HD channels are added to the Free HD lineup:

Discovery HD - Channel 260: Offers real life entertainment in shows such as American Chopper, Monster Garage, Unsolved History, and more.
Speed HD - Channel 273: 24-hour cable network devoted exclusively to automotive, aviation, and marine entertainment and information.
ESPNU HD - Channel 288: Coverage of NCAA college sports includes basketball, football, baseball, hockey, and more.
Bio HD - Channel 296: BIO HD is about real people and their real lives: up close and personal, gritty and provocative, always unfiltered.
SCSIRAID is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2008, 04:04 PM   #1999
mikeyts
Wireless Wiseguy
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 2,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker View Post
See related discussions concerning the FCC recently citing companies for their deployments of SDV -- as a result of those, even relatively recent and reliable information about future deployments, if any, would be up in the air.
I've seen some posts from people saying that their cable company was backing out of SDV because of those decisions but if true, I don't understand why. They weren't particularly punitive--a small fine and an ordered rebate and decrease in the fees of CableCARD-using subs for tiers with many channels that they can't access. There were no orders to make them put channels they moved to SDV back as linear services.
__________________
Mike Scott

"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
" -- hookbill
mikeyts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2008, 01:05 AM   #2000
lrhorer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Posts: 6,893
Not only that, but none of the imposed fines had anything to do with consumers or directly with the implementation of SDV per se. The fines were entirely based upon the MSOs' failures to supply timely notice to the local franchise authority. Moreover, the fines themselves were piddling. I could pay such fines out of my own pocket (they are smaller than my yearly real-estate taxes), and I'm not a multi-billion dollar MSO raking in more than $300,000,000 a month.

Compared to the prospect of ultimately doubling or tripling that $300,000,000 a month revenue, or even compared to the prospect of giving up 10% or 20% of it to Satellite and FIOS, the fines are completely insignificant.

Here in San Antonio we just lost a linear HD station - MoJo HD. A different HD station was added as an SDV only offering - MGMHD. It's definitely one I would like to have. For that matter, I would like to have MoJo HD back, but there are no regulations of which I know that can force a CATV company to carry anything other than a broadcast local channel defined to be must-carry.

Last edited by lrhorer : 11-21-2008 at 01:12 AM.
lrhorer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2008, 06:06 AM   #2001
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 9,150
I doubt your rosy perspective on this will prevail.
bicker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2008, 09:06 AM   #2002
cableguy763
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Austin
Posts: 525
lrhorer-MojoHD is cancelled. No mas. That's why they are replacing it with MGMHD.
cableguy763 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2008, 09:37 AM   #2003
SCSIRAID
Registered User
 
SCSIRAID's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vero Beach, FL
Posts: 2,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrhorer View Post
Not only that, but none of the imposed fines had anything to do with consumers or directly with the implementation of SDV per se. The fines were entirely based upon the MSOs' failures to supply timely notice to the local franchise authority. Moreover, the fines themselves were piddling. I could pay such fines out of my own pocket (they are smaller than my yearly real-estate taxes), and I'm not a multi-billion dollar MSO raking in more than $300,000,000 a month.

Compared to the prospect of ultimately doubling or tripling that $300,000,000 a month revenue, or even compared to the prospect of giving up 10% or 20% of it to Satellite and FIOS, the fines are completely insignificant.

Here in San Antonio we just lost a linear HD station - MoJo HD. A different HD station was added as an SDV only offering - MGMHD. It's definitely one I would like to have. For that matter, I would like to have MoJo HD back, but there are no regulations of which I know that can force a CATV company to carry anything other than a broadcast local channel defined to be must-carry.
MGM HD stayed on the same linear channel that was Mojo here...

I guess San Antonio looked at it as half a channel the could reclaim for SDV.
SCSIRAID is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2008, 04:03 PM   #2004
mikeyts
Wireless Wiseguy
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 2,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrhorer View Post
Not only that, but none of the imposed fines had anything to do with consumers or directly with the implementation of SDV per se. The fines were entirely based upon the MSOs' failures to supply timely notice to the local franchise authority.
From my layman's reading of those orders, they didn't seem to be entirely based on failure to inform franchise authorities. The first ruling, against Cox Fairfax County Virginia, was based in part on that, but the second ruling, against TWC Oceanic in Hawaii (here) was based on findings of violations of CFR Title 47, §76.1201 ("Rights of subscribers to use or attach navigation devices") and CFR Title 47, §76.640 ("Support for unidirectional digital cable products on digital cable systems"). From the order:
Quote:
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order (“NAL and Order”), we find that Oceanic Time Warner Cable (“Oceanic Oahu”), a division of Time Warner Cable, Inc. (together with Oceanic Oahu, “TWC”) apparently willfully violated Sections 76.1201 and 76.640(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules “Rules”) in its Oceanic Oahu Central cable system.1 Specifically, Oceanic Oahu apparently violated Section 76.1201 by moving certain channels to a Switched Digital Video (“SDV”) platform on November 6, 2007, thereby preventing subscribers with CableCARD-equipped unidirectional digital cable products (“UDCPs”) from using their navigation devices to access these channels.2 Further, in its deployment of SDV on November 6, 2007, TWC apparently violated Section 76.640(b)(1) by failing to provide a virtual channel table which conforms to the standards required under Sections 76.640(b)(1)(i)and 76.640(b)(1)(v). We conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“Act”),3 that TWC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000). We also require TWC to make appropriate refund of fees charged to customers affected by TWC’s movement of linear channels to the SDV platform on November 6, 2007.
So, the complaint again TWC Oceanic didn't actually have anything to do with the 30 days notification requirement--it was all about taking access to channels away from UDCP users (and further, about it being wrong to thereafter charge them the same amount as people who can get those channels).
__________________
Mike Scott

"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
" -- hookbill
mikeyts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2008, 05:19 PM   #2005
bicker
Gruff
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 9,150
That's it in a nutshell: The FCC punishing cable for actually using SDV as it was intended to be used.
bicker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2008, 06:03 PM   #2006
mikeyts
Wireless Wiseguy
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 2,155
The use of SDV is arguably an end-run around the FCC's requirement to support UDCPs (which all of the major cable companies agreed to do before it was codified into the regs); they had to at least slap them on the hands for it. Again, they didn't order them to stop using SDV or to change any of the channels taken away from UDCP-using subs back to non-switched services. At $20K per system (and they charged TWC Oceanic $20K for each of 3 separate systems they operate), and rebates and rate reductions to UDCP users, it could get pricey corporate wide, but nothing compared to the cost of non-SDV measures they'd have to take to compete with satellite's offerings.
__________________
Mike Scott

"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
" -- hookbill
mikeyts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2008, 08:35 PM   #2007
MichaelK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 7,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker View Post
That's it in a nutshell: The FCC punishing cable for actually using SDV as it was intended to be used.

would be interesting to see if they rule in any cases where SDV is used only for NEW channels. since item 1 just muddies things.

then the arguement about paying the same for less is taken away and the entire issue is if deploying SDV is against the rules or not.


item 1- is above "moving certain channels"
and
Item 2 is apparently about PSIP data- it's tough to tell if that's because time warner didn't transmit psip at all or only for the sdv channels. If they didn't do it for the sdv channels- of course they wouldn't and it would almost be saying you cant do sds at all.
MichaelK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2008, 08:49 PM   #2008
MichaelK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 7,299
here's another article discussing it:

http://www.commlawblog.com/2008/10/a...deo-platforms/

some interesting points of view and quotes but they dont link to their sources so not sure where it comes from

Quote:
In the Plug and Play Order, there was some recognition that the approved standards did not support “two-way” cable services. SDV is a sort of two-way service: unlike traditional cable technology which sends all channels to the subscriber at all times, in order to conserve bandwidth SDV sends only the channel that the subscriber is watching, and sends that particular channel in response to a signal received from the subscriber’s equipment when the subscriber selects the channel. The cable operators attempted to use as a defense, the recognition of limits on two-way services acknowledged in the Plug and Play Order.

The FCC rejected that defense, stating that it recognized two-way issues only with “interactive services” (such as video-on-demand, pay-per-view or certain electronic program guides), not with “linear programming” (i.e., programming offered on a set schedule, such as traditional cable channels).
so SDV in the FCC's eyes is NOT TWO-WAY- wow!

and then further
Quote:
The Commission concluded that it “is not TWC’s deployment of SDV technology that violates Section 76.1201, but TWC’s migration of existing linear programming to an SDV tier that [they] find inconsistent with the Commission’s Rules.” This sentence suggests that the FCC might approve making new (as opposed to existing) programming available only on an SDV platform, but that suggestion is undercut by the statement in the Order that “TWC’s movement of linear programming to an SDV platform is particularly troubling because no bi-directional navigation devices are commercially available at this time.”
so moving is the problem and the adapter trumps the argument that "no bi-directional navigation devices are commercially available at this time."

so that sounds like it's easy enough to remedy- dont take away channels, and only use SDV on new chennels on systems where the adapter is availible.,

BUT- BIG BUT- the PSIP thing...

says-
Quote:
In essence, Section 76.640(b)(1)(i) requires cable operators to send a one-way stream of data that is separate from the video programming (an out of band Forward Data Channel) that includes channel lineups and other programming information otherwise known as “service information tables.” These tables allow the consumer devices (referred to by the FCC as unidirectional digital cable products, or “UDCPs”) to find and display a scrambled programming service on a particular channel. Because of the bi-directional nature of SDV technology, however, UDCPs cannot view programming provided on such an SDV platform. If a cable operator transmits a virtual channel table that includes SDV programming to a UDCP, the UDCP will indicate that SDV programming should appear on certain channels but will be unable to display it.

To avoid such a scenario, some cable operators (including TWC) unilaterally excluded SDV programming from the virtual channel tables transmitted to customers with CableCARD-equipped UDCPs. This failure to transmit the service information table data constitutes a violation of Section 76.640, according to the Notices.
so what's cable supposed to do- provide psip data and then udcp without adapter subs try to tune and get nothing? Is the FCC saying that SDV just isn't allowed becasue PSIP wont work?
MichaelK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2008, 09:04 PM   #2009
mikeyts
Wireless Wiseguy
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 2,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelK View Post
then the arguement about paying the same for less is taken away and the entire issue is if deploying SDV is against the rules or not.
How's that? When cable providers add channels to existing tiers as SDV, they're not charging people with UDCPs any less to subscribe to those tiers, even though they can't get all of the content. Perhaps they're getting everything that they originally paid for, but that doesn't change the fact that people leasing cable boxes are getting an improvement in service without be asked to pay more.
__________________
Mike Scott

"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
" -- hookbill
mikeyts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2008, 02:26 AM   #2010
lrhorer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Posts: 6,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by cableguy763 View Post
lrhorer-MojoHD is cancelled. No mas. That's why they are replacing it with MGMHD.
Yeah, I know, or do you mean the station no longer exists at all on any system? Either way, I liked the channel, and it's gone, whatever the reason. It would have been nice if they had made MGMHD linear, at least until after the adapter is available. I realize TWC is under no obligation to do so, but it would have been nice for us Tivo users.
lrhorer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Forum Jump




Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Advertisements

TiVo Community
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skins by: Relivo Media

(C) 2013 Magenium Solutions - All Rights Reserved. No information may be posted elsewhere without written permission.
TiVo® is a registered trademark of TiVo Inc. This site is not owned or operated by TiVo Inc.
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:36 AM.
OUR NETWORK: MyOpenRouter | TechLore | SansaCommunity | RoboCommunity | MediaSmart Home | Explore3DTV | Dijit Community | DVR Playground |