Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'TiVo Series3 HDTV DVRs' started by jilter, Jul 12, 2009.
So what's your excuse for "always" arguing back, then?
How about people simply present their disappointment and dissatisfaction as such, without trying to make it sound like the providers are doing something wrong?
Tell you what, here is a link to a wiki on monopoly. It is not just a section of a town, it is an entire town of 25000 people that has a single provider. This is what I am using to define monopoly. please link me to what you mean
Here is what you said
Here is what it was in response to
by shortening my statement " is a legal issue we can both have differing opinions on and until a court decides otherwise, they are doing nothing illegal." to "they are doing nothing illegal." you are twisting my meaning to imply I think they are doing think they are doing nothing illegal.
As far as the suggestion to file suit goes, until a cap is imposed where I am I would not have legal standing to file so it would be pointless to even try. If they ever do I will examine my options at that time.
That's as good of a definition as any. And there is effective competition even in your town. There is. Despite your denial and you insistence on imposing your own personal limitations on the scope of who offers the service (subscription television entertainment). Again, the definition of a market monopoly is not subject to your personal decision about what technologies you're willing to accept, or where in a town you personally chose to live. Those decisions are all on you; don't blame providers for the ramifications of your personal decisions.
If by shortening the quotation you thought I changed the meaning of what you wrote, then perhaps your clarification here has cleared that up for folks. All I was doing was highlighting the part of your message that I was replying to. It is the only part of the sentence I wanted to comment on. I didn't mean to imply you said nothing else, and I didn't say that you said something else..
And realize what everyone already subject to the cap has already discovered.
I'm gonna have to go Missouri on you for this one. I distinctly remember reading in a thread either here or at AVS about this issue in the past that the cable operators were not supposed to be messing with the CCI flags.
Indeed. But they are knowingly selling a product advertised as "unlimited" with their fingers crossed behind their backs, knowing that they cannot hope to meet demand.
So, when faced with the choices of honking off customers by jacking up rates (to add bandwidth), honking off customers by imposing caps (to conserve it), or going to tiered pricing, they chose the worst possible option - hard caps with no way to monitor usage, no warnings, and no recourse.
There have been several discussions on this, the only actual law regards the Copy Never flag (0x03). According to Federal regulations, this can only be used on pay-per-view channels.
This thread contains pertinent info.
Thank you. I stand corrected. bicker, I apologize for doubting you.
Doesn't change the fact that it's a bogus practice, though. I don't personally have to put up with it, I've got Cox. But I guess they could be DBs about it, couldn't they?
Actually, the FCC regulations also allow Copy Once (0x02) on any channel except over-the-air channels. I quote the specific regulation in this thread:
(See post #45.)
First let me say up front, I don't think a monopoly is necessarily a bad thing it just means they "lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods". My opinion is that the cable companies operate as legal monopolies in that they were "provided an incentive to invest in a risky venture" install and maintained the cable infrastructure in an area. This keeps the cost down because they have a built in service area that only they can deliver service to. This is a good thing. It may be a legal monopoly but a monopoly just the same.
If my town of 25000 can only get 1 service from 1 company, my choice is what move? that would mean that the company has "sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it." Please show me what you mean, I really would like to understand it or you understand my position better. I don't see the personal limits you referred to.
FYI in case you didn't notice or for others, the "quoted parts" are from the referenced wiki.
Bicker can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he's referring to satellite TV. Some people may not be able to receive it depending on what obstructions are around their house, but generally it's available if you live in the continental US.
I had forgotten about Satellite (and I had used it myself for years) but even then, monopoly doesn't mean that here is no other competition, it means "when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it". Does cable have that level of control even with Satellite being considered? I had mentioned that on a wider scale, I had said cable companies but could include Satellite as a subscription television entertainment as Biker called it, are acting as a cartel "in which several providers act together to coordinate services". At best there is little competition and they have incentive to limit the competition from other sources like the internet. I'm don't mean to imply that it is happening sometimes I do forget that a lot of this is hypothetical because so far they don't have widespread caps on bandwidth. But it is something that should be watched to make sure that it doesn't happen. I could be wrong and Bicker right, I just don't see it. Like I said I don't have a problem with a legal monopoly, if it keeps the cost down. The problems come about when greed starts getting involved. Enron, Worldcom for example and the whole Prime Rate Mortgage fiasco. Greed can make companies do terrible things.
It isn't a monopoly.
That isn't the case in any municipality in the country. There is effective competition for subscription television service, everywhere. Your personal decisions that blind you to, or deprive yourself of, the options of satellite service providers have no merit in the determination of whether any specific supplier within that market is a monopoly.
And the answer is "no". And again, if you don't believe me, just ask a judge to find in your favor. This is really the point where it is time to put up or shut up. Claiming that there is a legal status without the willingness to adjudicate your perspective and thereby have change applied to the reality you are experiencing is puerile and inane. You're not the first person to come up with the idea that you're unhappy with how much you have to pay and what you get for it. However, despite so many people whining about this for so many years, the government doesn't take the action that it would be required to take if what you claim is true. The only reasonable explanations are that either all those unhappy are simply weak-willed cry-babies and really have no sense of conviction whatsoever (and therefore dismiss-able on those grounds), or your accusation is wrong. I suppose you can say I'm being charitable by concluding that the latter is the case.
No reason to get snippy. This is just a user forum, not a court of law. And I asked you, politely I might add, what I was missing? I wanted to learn something, and possibly change my opinion if I could understand what your reasoning was, I had forgotten about Satellite in our discussion of if the cable company had a monopoly in the Premium TV Delivery market, but I don't think that makes a difference.
I will still point out that just because you have competitors, doesn't mean you can't have a monopoly, you just have to have a large enough market share. Also in fact, legal monopolies can be established where competition is intentionally stopped. Also I pointed out that monopolies are not in and of themselves illegal, it when they do anti competitive things that they get into trouble , a legal monopoly just has the legal backing to bar competition.
The only arguments you make for your opinion are either: "Its not a monopoly", there is effective competition EVERYWHERE, or my personal decisions have no bearing.
Just saying something doesn't make it so.
Never use absolutes (or at least be suspicious of them) aside from that what is the competition, when one has 80%+ of a market and the competition has 20%- of a market, that's arguable either way and we can have different opinions and not get personal. Microsoft had close to those same numbers and got in trouble for anti competitive behavior. its about control of a market.
What personal decisions are you talking about? where I work, where I live? That's a lot of control the cable industry would have if they influence those choices.
I too can think of a few reasonable explanations why we have a difference of opinion. either you are a troll just looking for a confrontation, you are wrong, or maybe we just have a difference of opinion. Instead of implying that I am being polite by inferring one while choosing another I'll say we just have a difference of opinion and two people can have a difference of opinion with no qualifiers and be polite about it.
What most cable companies have is not a "monopoly", but a "natural monopoly".
It's stupid to allow multiple companies to tear up the street running wires to houses. Anyway, it rarely makes economic sense for companies to do that, so they don't.
Fortunately I live in an area where both Comcast and Verizon are franchised to deliver video to my house. But this situation isn't very common in this country. It also may not be sufficiently profitable, as can be seen by Verizon choosing to sell off its local operations to Frontier Communications.
I could buy that. But it still is a type of monopoly.
We have two choices here, Comcast and FIOS. A few miles south, where I used to live, they have three choices now since FIOS came to the area.
Hence the use of the word MOST. Don't forget Satellite
Sorry, but this is a very common point of contention here, and I get annoyed with people basically crafting self-fulfilling disappointment for themselves and others, but ignoring the reality, because the reality has ramifications that don't make consumers happy. The reality is that making consumers happier now, by thinking something that is actually not realistic, just makes things worse when the actual reality hits them in the face.
I'm going to play this another way, now. Are you suggesting that the franchising authorities nationwide are idiots? That they actually have legal justification to take actions that are substantially in their constituents' best interest and don't do so because they are morons? Or is it some big conspiracy -- everyone in government is getting a big payment so that you have to pay more to get what you want, with regard to what we're talking about in this thread? Seriously, and with respect: What the heck are you saying? Because the message I'm getting, perhaps through innuendo, is that someone is doing something wrong. I've made it really clear that it isn't the suppliers, so if you want a pound of flesh, let's see if we can find a target for your ire that is valid, vis a vis the reality of the situations.
The two I've mentioned are where you choose to live (i.e., without a place to erect a satellite dish -- again, your choice to live there, not any supplier's fault that you made that decision), and what technology you choose to use (i.e., TiVo -- again, your choice, and no one's fault but your own that you've limited your choices in that manner).
Going back to that pound of flesh that I would hope to help you find.... I have a suggestion, with regard at least to the matter of technology choice: The anti-cable FCC under Kevin Martin neglected to impose separable security on satellite providers. So if you really want someone to blame for something, in this realm, let's start with Kevin Martin.