# twc v satellite what twc says



## lee120 (Dec 2, 2002)

FACT: Satellite service can't compete with Time Warner Cable! 
When it comes to quality and value, Time Warner Cable is the best in business. Make
sure you know the fact - and fiction - about satellite service with a long term contract! 



Time Warner Cable Facts:

Access to over 250 channels -- including top
rated channels and local programming that
you can't get with satellite -- like Houston
Weather NOW and local News 24 Houston! 

Receive 76 FREE standard cable channels on
extra cable - ready outlets - without needing
extra equipment or paying more per outlet
each month. 

All 23 local channels are included at no extra
charge -- including KNWS Ch., 51 Houston
Rockets Basketball that you can't get on
Satellite! 

More Premium channels than any satellite
dish for less! 
Channels
Addt'l Cost
TWC
14 HBO
$10.00
DISH
8 HBO
$13.99
Direct TV
7 HBO
$12.00


No need to buy extra equipment (like a 2nd
satellite dish for local channels) or an antenna
(like for satellite's HDTV channels) 

Time Warner cable is more reliable in bad
weather. 

Watch movies when you want with iCONTROL
video-on-demand. 

Discounted installations with an on-time
service guarantee. 

Free service calls and 24/7 local customer
service from a local company. 

You'll never sign a long-term contract, plus
we've got a 30-day money back guarantee. 


Satellite Dish Facts:

Up to $240 fee to terminate your contact before
1 year. 

You may be charged for downgrading service
levels after signing a contract. 

Every service call costs you money. 

Expensive, nonrefundable "Activation Fees"
with "free" installation. 

No money-back guarantee or on-time
guarantee 

You must purchase additional equipment to
add local channels or HDTV. 

Each receiver must be connected to phone
line. 

Receiver equipment is required for each
television to receive any channels at all. 

Fewer premium channels available than Time
Warner Cable that cost almost twice as much. 

iCONTROL is not available. 

You are responsible for equipment repairs
and maintenance. 

Rain fade or total reception loss from
inclement weather or something as simple as
cloud cover.


----------



## cj9788 (May 14, 2003)

Whoa that' a pretty bold statement. I dont know where to begin.


----------



## Cyclone (Jul 1, 2002)

Well I'll start the rebuttal.



> _Rain fade or total reception loss from
> inclement weather or something as simple as
> cloud cover_


I just watched Dish Network all during the recent hurricane ( I wasn't going out in that weather). The Dish never failed, cable was out for two days (modem and tv).



> _You are responsible for equipment repairs
> and maintenance._


I have a extended warrenty plan, for $2/mo I get my receiver replaced for only the cost of shipping. Was done quick and easy.



> _Receiver equipment is required for each
> television to receive any channels at all._


So does Digital Cable. So cable doesnt' really have a leg up on this one.



> _Every service call costs you money._


Not always. Besides, Its been nice not requiring a service call from Dish in the 3+ years I have been a customer.


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

Actually you can get channel 51 from Houston with Dish and Houston locals package and a second sat dish is not needed for that channel. 

One thing they didnt say is that you can get hdtv on your local networks with a simple coax converter switch for about $4.00 more with digital cable box. That right there is worth your money to have TWC for hdtv local networks.

But they don't have a dvr yet and I can't imagine going back to not having one. That one thing is why I wouldn't think about TWC Cable : I've got to have a dvr. :grin: 



3/ 508s and a 721 dish dvr


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

Cyclone said:


> _Receiver equipment is required for each
> television to receive *any channels at all.*_
> 
> So does Digital Cable. So cable doesnt' really have a leg up on this one.





> Receive 76 FREE standard cable channels on
> extra cable - ready outlets - without needing
> extra equipment or paying more per outlet
> each month.


Notice the words "any channels at all" in the first quote, with my bold. I have digital cable (not TW), and while I can only view digital channels with my two boxes, I have two more tv's hooked up with just the standard cable channels. When I had DBS I did not have that option. So cable *does* have a leg up on this one.


----------



## Mike Richardson (Jun 12, 2003)

Access to over 250 channels -- including top
rated channels and local programming that
you can't get with satellite -- like Houston
Weather NOW and local News 24 Houston!

*Houston Weather NOW is nothing exclusive and the News channel isin't even offered to DBS so that's not a fair playing ground. It's like saying cable sucks because you can't get Dish On Demand PPV.*

Receive 76 FREE standard cable channels on
extra cable - ready outlets - without needing
extra equipment or paying more per outlet
each month.

*But you get no guide, no digital, no premium, no PPV, no VOD, no interactive - why pay for digital cable features that only work on one TV?*

All 23 local channels are included at no extra
charge -- including KNWS Ch., 51 Houston
Rockets Basketball that you can't get on
Satellite!

*Rubbish. The local channels are included in the cost of the higher packages. Standalone, local channels are something like $13 on cable and only $11 on DISH ($5 access, $5.99 locals). And that stuff about channel 51 is a pure LIE - 51 is on the main Houston locals spotbeams for both E* and D*. D* also has all houston minors on their spotbeam and E* has them with a FREE extra dish with NO extra charge.,/b]

More Premium channels than any satellite
dish for less!
Channels
Addt'l Cost
TWC
14 HBO
$10.00
DISH
8 HBO
$13.99
Direct TV
7 HBO
$12.00

This is one of the few places that cable is ahead. D* and E* lag behind with the premiums. However, the counts all include west channels which are nothing but time delayed east feeds. Also, premiums can be pretty cheap when bundled in the DISH Value Packs, AEP, or Total Choice Premier

No need to buy extra equipment (like a 2nd
satellite dish for local channels) or an antenna
(like for satellite's HDTV channels)

THE SECOND DISH IS ABSOLUTELY FREE!!! There is no charge. The antenna is a different story, I'm not sure.

Time Warner cable is more reliable in bad
weather.

That depends. My cable modem service goes out more often than I get rain fade.

Watch movies when you want with iCONTROL
video-on-demand.

Gee, that's nice. Oh, wait, a DVR from E* or D* lets you watch ANY show at ANY time after it's aired. Not just your limited VOD selection.

Discounted installations with an on-time
service guarantee.

Umm...? Discounted meaning cheaper or crappier? Most of the time you don't have to pay for DBS installs or you have to pay usually $50 for a regular install. (usually less)

Free service calls and 24/7 local customer
service from a local company.

I don't give a crap if it's from a local company as long as the service is good.

You'll never sign a long-term contract, plus
we've got a 30-day money back guarantee.

Contracts are for the most part the nature of DBS.

Satellite Dish Facts:

Up to $240 fee to terminate your contact before
1 year.

It's a contract for a reason. You agreed to pay that $240 fee if you cancelled. If you don't like that then don't sign the contract and get cable.

You may be charged for downgrading service
levels after signing a contract.

E* charges $5 and I think D* is free.

Every service call costs you money.

Nope. Not every service call.

Expensive, nonrefundable "Activation Fees"
with "free" installation.

Digital Home Plan has a $49 fee that's REFUNDED on your first bill. Other plans are similar.

No money-back guarantee or on-time
guarantee

Not too sure about this one.

You must purchase additional equipment to
add local channels or HDTV.

In most cases, nope. You do need an HD receiver for HD but that's about it.

Each receiver must be connected to phone
line.

Nope.

Receiver equipment is required for each
television to receive any channels at all.

Yeah. 

Fewer premium channels available than Time
Warner Cable that cost almost twice as much.

See above.

iCONTROL is not available.

Well I can't get a Whopper at McDonalds but I'm not crying about it.

You are responsible for equipment repairs
and maintenance.

Not in most cases. DHP has warranty on all the receivers. Other paid for receivers have warranties.

Rain fade or total reception loss from
inclement weather or something as simple as
cloud cover.

That's the nature of the technology. It's inevitable. Sorry.*


----------



## Mike Richardson (Jun 12, 2003)

Bogy said:


> Notice the words "any channels at all" in the first quote, with my bold. I have digital cable (not TW), and while I can only view digital channels with my two boxes, I have two more tv's hooked up with just the standard cable channels. When I had DBS I did not have that option. So cable *does* have a leg up on this one.


Why pay for digital cable when you can't get your digital channels, PPV, premiums, VOD, interactive, EPG, etc, on most of your TVs?


----------



## Bill R (Dec 20, 2002)

This guy is just a cable *troll*. Why are you guys feeding him?

It is likely he works for a cable company and he get paid to post stuff like this.


----------



## jeffwtux (Apr 27, 2002)

If every city had a cable deal that good maybe DBS wouldn't exist, 
unfortunately that's true. There's one major drawback to cable in my city 
that hasn't been mentioned. You need to have digital cable to get any 
movie channels. So in my city, if you want 1 movie package(and the 
none of the movie packages have more channels than dish) on 2 TVs, 
it's
$37.75+$23.95+$7.95(second digital receiver fee)+franchise fee=$72.25

For less than that price you can get AT100+HBO+Cinemax+locals on 4 TVs!!
It comes to $70.96.


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

Where I live is Time Warner too. 

If we take Digital + HBO/Cinemax + 2 boxes, here is the difference.

Time Warner cable..
63.95+6.95(box)+6.95(box)+1.95 (extra outlet fee for Movie channel) + franchise fees & tax = 84.91

Top 100 + HBO/Cinemax + Locals + Addl + tax 
49.99+5.99+4.99+tax =64.93

I think its funny that cable can actually sucker people into their "packages". You can get Digital cable for 43.95, or get Digital & 2 premium services for 63.95. Yet, if you order the premium services alacarte (no package), its $14.95 in addition to 43.95!! (that would make it 58.90).


----------



## pez2002 (Dec 13, 2002)

Well when i had comcast 


I had 


HBO And starz I had starz for 2 years and then we dropped it our bill with starz and hbo and 2 digital boxes we where paying $93 A Month Then we dropped starz and just got Hbo Then our Price was $82.00 a month with 2 digital boxes thats when my mom said thats it i want directv And hear we are with Directv and no Problems 

Cable is expensive


----------



## jeffwtux (Apr 27, 2002)

My city doesn't have a local 24 hour news station either. 
If every city had a deal as good as this guy who started the thread, 
DBS wouldn't exist. I'm a DishNetwork retailer so I keep track of 
cable deals. There are certain suburbs in the Metro Detroit
area that have cable deals as good or better than this guy because they
have WideOpenWest along with Comcast. I DON'T ADVERTISE IN THOSE
CITIES. I tell people that if I lived in that suburb, I WOULD HAVE 
CABLE TOO!! I'm still convinced that the majority of cities would 
have a better deal if there was only 1 giant cable monopoly nationwide,
like Ma Bell was. At least that way, they would be forced to have nationwide
pricing. Sure, the guy who started the thread would pay more, but
at least everybody would get the same deal. That's the way I like it. 
The reason the cable companies can get awasy this their prices is because
nobody knows what other cities are paying, unless they investigate.


----------



## jeffwtux (Apr 27, 2002)

When their is only 1 giant monopoly nationwide instead of fragmented monopolies
like we have now, regulation and government oversight is inevitable.


----------



## Cyclone (Jul 1, 2002)

Bogy said:


> Notice the words "any channels at all" in the first quote, with my bold. I have digital cable (not TW), and while I can only view digital channels with my two boxes, I have two more tv's hooked up with just the standard cable channels. When I had DBS I did not have that option. So cable *does* have a leg up on this one.


I was focusing on the Digital Cable. Considering that it is required to satisfy most of their "pros". On one hand they are mocking DBS for requiring equipment, but on the other hand they are in the same boat by needing the STB for VOD, Digital Channels, Premium channels above the ones including in the analog tier, Digtial quality boast, etc...


----------



## VASatelliteGuy (Oct 10, 2002)

That is all find and dandy about Time Warner cable but for those of us with Cox in DC there is no comparrison between satellite and cable.


----------



## lee120 (Dec 2, 2002)

Bill R said:


> This guy is just a cable *troll*. Why are you guys feeding him?
> 
> It is likely he works for a cable company and he get paid to post stuff like this.


I just think there two side to every story and I have Had directv for over 2 years and I am going no were and we know directv side


----------



## Mike Richardson (Jun 12, 2003)

jeffwtux said:


> My city doesn't have a local 24 hour news station either.
> If every city had a deal as good as this guy who started the thread,
> DBS wouldn't exist. I'm a DishNetwork retailer so I keep track of
> cable deals. There are certain suburbs in the Metro Detroit
> ...


Umm, actually TWC Houston has a bad deal after their price increases. See my other post. Most sitations would be a little cheaper on DISH Network.


----------



## Bill R (Dec 20, 2002)

lee120 said:


> I just think there two side to every story and I have Had directv for over 2 years and I am going no were and we know directv side


You are STILL a troll. This is a DBS forum, NOT a cable forum.

By the way, where did you learn how to write?


----------



## toad57 (Apr 23, 2002)

lee120 said:


> FACT: Satellite service can't compete with Time Warner Cable!
> When it comes to quality and value, Time Warner Cable is the best in business. Make sure you know the fact - and fiction - about satellite service with a long term contract!


Sorry, I left cable back in 1996 and never looked back. My cableco would go out far more often than does my satellite, and for longer periods too. What causes these outages? Car hits a pole? Someone puts a bullet into a line amplifier? Squirrel farts as they run along the cable?

I don't typically select a service (in this case, cable) when it's less reliable than the superior (and more features) alternative, DBS.

Maybe the rubes are fooled or impressed by your so-called facts, but you will find mostly informed people here, thus you're wasting your time. I hope you got a good bonus from your employer, Mr. Troll.


----------



## toad57 (Apr 23, 2002)

Here's some gems from the TWC website you neglected, Mr. Troll:

_*How many television sets can I connect to Digital Cable?*
You can connect Digital Cable to any number of TVs in your home for a low fee per month for each TV, plus equipment charges. A one-time upgrade charge will be applied to connect your TVs with Digital Cable._

Gee Mr. Troll, did you forget about Digital Cable? This is no different than DBS service - you need (for the moment) a box for each TV! And, DBS doesn't charge you any '_one-time upgrade charge_' do they? Why did you fail to mention that?

_*Do I need a separate cable box for each outlet?*
No. Only the outlet you choose. Many customers prefer to put a Digital converter in just the family room, others would rather have one in every room. With Time Warner Digital Cable, the choice is yours. _

Well Mr. Troll, what do you mean by _the choice is yours?_ What if I want every possible channel on every TV, but only want just one coverter box? Can I do that, since you say the choice is mine? Gee Mr. Troll, your 'Digital Service' has the same box requirement as satellite digital, no?

_*What channels do I get with Digital Cable?*
Lots-up to 200 channels plus 40 CD-quality music channels. Please check with your local Time Warner Cable office to see the exact channel line-up and pricing._

Hmmm... what do I need to order if I want your Latino channel package? Or NFL Sunday Ticket package? NHL Center Ice Package? NBA League Pass? Arabic, Japaneese, Korean, Russian or French stations? What about a Christian channel package? What do I do if your cable doesn't even run past my house? DBS has an answer, what is yours?

*These are some of the FACTS that you surely don't want your cable customers discovering, do you?*


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

Mike Richardson said:


> Why pay for digital cable when you can't get your digital channels, PPV, premiums, VOD, interactive, EPG, etc, on most of your TVs?


Did I miss something? Has DBS overcome the need for a separate box for each TV? Why pay for DBS when you can't get *anything* on most of your TV's? :lol:


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

Cyclone said:


> I was focusing on the Digital Cable. Considering that it is required to satisfy most of their "pros". On one hand they are mocking DBS for requiring equipment, but on the other hand they are in the same boat by needing the STB for VOD, Digital Channels, Premium channels above the ones including in the analog tier, Digtial quality boast, etc...


Why do you guys keep ranting about needing a box to get digital cable channels, when you need a box to get ANY channels with DBS? I don't NEED every channel possible on every TV in my house. If I really felt I did I'd get more boxes.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

VASatelliteGuy said:


> That is all find and dandy about Time Warner cable but for those of us with Cox in DC there is no comparrison between satellite and cable.


If I were you I would insist Cox D.C. upgrade their system to the quality of Cox Omaha. Or move to Omaha. Cable would be the least of my reasons for doing so.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

lee120 said:


> I just think there two side to every story and I have Had directv for over 2 years and I am going no were and we know directv side


But lee, they don't want to hear the other side. The only talk about cable they want to hear is that it is the evil spawn of Satan, and how they are on the side of the angels. :grin: :sure: :lol:


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

Bill R said:


> You are STILL a troll. This is a DBS forum, NOT a cable forum.
> 
> By the way, where did you learn how to write?


Then why do you guys bring up cable so often in this forum?


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

toad57 said:


> Sorry, I left cable back in 1996 and never looked back. My cableco would go out far more often than does my satellite, and for longer periods too. What causes these outages? Car hits a pole? Someone puts a bullet into a line amplifier? Squirrel farts as they run along the cable?


How about when we hit a period of solar flares again. Any body else remember those good old days? Or when a satellite loses a couple of transponders? Putting a pole back up after a car hits it doesn't take nearly as long. When I had DBS I almost always knew when a storm was coming, because 5-10 minutes before it got there my signal would go out.



> I don't typically select a service (in this case, cable) when it's less reliable than the superior (and more features) alternative, DBS.


The reliability varies widely between providers and locations of the same companies. In reality, digital cable has far more potential than DBS, and thanks to the DBS companies cable companies, especially mine are waking up to the fact that they must respond and utilize that potential. Thanks guys. If you are lucky, your companies will try their best to respond in turn. Of course they are extremely limited in what they can offer due to the limitations of DBS technology/bandwidth.



> Maybe the rubes are fooled or impressed by your so-called facts, but you will find mostly informed people here, thus you're wasting your time. I hope you got a good bonus from your employer, Mr. Troll.


Or perhaps its just that when you preach to the choir, you better tell them what they want to hear.


----------



## toad57 (Apr 23, 2002)

Bogy said:


> How about when we hit a period of solar flares again. Any body else remember those good old days? Or when a satellite loses a couple of transponders? Putting a pole back up after a car hits it doesn't take nearly as long.


So a cableco headend is immune from any of these satellite-related events, or do you think they get all of their programming via copper or fiber? How many outages did you suffer due to transponder loss while you had DBS?



> When I had DBS I almost always knew when a storm was coming, because 5-10 minutes before it got there my signal would go out.


You must have had a lousy installation then... it takes a VERY LARGE storm between
my dish and the sat to lose my reception.



> Or perhaps its just that when you preach to the choir, you better tell them what they want to hear.


No, I'm just responding to the BS marketing tone of the original post, e.g. '_Here are the facts_' and when I present a set of 'facts' in a similar tone you accuse the messenger of 'preaching to the choir'? ... last I looked, this is called _DBSTalk_, so you expected to find cable tv zealots here?

Which is better, a pickup truck or a sedan? By and large, I encourage people to check out cable and satellite and make up their own minds- each has something to offer and neither is superior in a major way, but one may be better suited to your needs/wants. Some people have an excellent cableco, some have a lousy one in terms of service and/or price. In my area my cableco was just plain lousy, so I switched to DBS. If your cable experience has been a better one than DBS, then fine... there are plenty experiences on both ends of the spectrum to placate anyone with a pre-concieved notion of which is the better choice.

By and large, the bogus marketing and distortion of "facts" (aka FUD) seems to be coming from the cable tv companies- I've yet to see that DBS is doing anything similar- they usually don't even mention cable tv, they just quietly keep increasing their customer base. Why do you think that is? How can they do that without even mentioning cable tv, whereas cable tv has to paint satellite as evil?

You claim that cable TV has such limitless technology ahead of it compared to DBS... then how will people with no cable running past their house avail themselves of it? DBS participation limited only by your ability to see a spot in the southern sky.


----------



## toad57 (Apr 23, 2002)

Bogy said:


> In reality, digital cable has far more potential than DBS, and thanks to the DBS companies cable companies, especially mine are waking up to the fact that they must respond and utilize that potential. Thanks guys. If you are lucky, your companies will try their best to respond in turn. Of course they are extremely limited in what they can offer due to the limitations of DBS technology/bandwidth.


You're darn tootin about that cable TV potential... they are really using some advanced stuff!

Care to comment?


----------



## Mike Richardson (Jun 12, 2003)

Bogy said:


> Why do you guys keep ranting about needing a box to get digital cable channels, when you need a box to get ANY channels with DBS? I don't NEED every channel possible on every TV in my house. If I really felt I did I'd get more boxes.


When you pay for DBS you know you're gonna get everything on all of your TVs. With cable you'll get your basic blah blah no frills channels on all your TVs but why PAY for a guide, digital channels, premiums, blah blah, etc, when you STILL have to get a box for each tv you want that junk on?


----------



## Bill R (Dec 20, 2002)

One thing that cable is doing in MY area is moving all the stuff that MOST people want to their digital tier. All that they are going to have in their analog tier is the local broadcast channels (because of the FCC they HAVE to leave them unscrambled and in the basic tier) and the local access channels (which almost no one watches) and a few of the "basic cable" channels. Soon you will need digital cable to get anything worthwhile (and the costs of the digital cable box for EACH TV). 

When you compare the cost for what MOST people want, cable (in MY area) is about $10 more a month than DBS.


----------



## jeffwtux (Apr 27, 2002)

Bogy said:


> Why do you guys keep ranting about needing a box to get digital cable channels, when you need a box to get ANY channels with DBS? I don't NEED every channel possible on every TV in my house. If I really felt I did I'd get more boxes.


That is why I compared the monthly price of digital cable in MY CITY(which clearly doesn't get as good of a deal as yours) on 2 TVs to DishNetwork of 4 TVs. DishNetwork on 4 TVs is cheaper than digital cable on 2. For the price you pay for a 2nd digital receiver in my city, you could buy a used 301 in a year and a half with the savings compared to the $4.99 second receiver fee from DISH. In my city a 2nd digital receiver is $7.95/month.


----------



## Mike123abc (Jul 19, 2002)

Every channel I watch on a regular basis is in my cable company's analog tier (77 channel of which 9 are locals). I have DBS because in my case DBS is cheaper and offers HDTV which TWC does not. TWC really offers AT100 in analog. I know there is the issue of quality of analog cable, but I would venture that the majority of quality issues with cable exists in people's own home wiring. I get a better picture with analog cable than DBS. People do not all look like they have botox injections. You can actually see the wrinkles on people, they have not been compressed out. Like I said I made the trade off to save $15/month and get HDTV.

The satellite technology that cable companies use IS FAR MORE RELIABLE than DBS. C band does not suffer from rain fade like the Ku band. Plus the cable company is going to have a 16+ foot dish to optimize reception. In fact if the C band goes out, guess what, DBS goes out too since Dish/Direct get their programming from C band. The reliability of cable has to do with all the amplifiers they have out in the field between you and the head end. When they go out your lose your picture.

Face it, cable can be much better than anything DBS has to offer in *SOME* areas. Cable has the capacity to be better in every area, but most cable companies choose to not upgrade their plants, lower their prices, etc to compete with DBS. Now that DBS is becomming more of a threat some of them are waking up and showing they can compete.

Cable companies are competing with themselves too, they do not want to just lower the price to compete with DBS since they have 80% of the market, why lower profits on the 80% that they own to maybe get some of the 20%.

*NOTE* Digital cable ready TVs are coming out. The standard has been approved now by the FCC. Soon you will not need a box to get digital cable on every outlet. I do not know how cable companies are going to price it, but still it will be easier to use a digital cable ready TV than an external cable/dbs box.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

toad57 said:


> So a cableco headend is immune from any of these satellite-related events, or do you think they get all of their programming via copper or fiber? How many outages did you suffer due to transponder loss while you had DBS?


I didn't have any outages because I had Primestar and then DirecTV. But I recall great weaping and wailing and nashing of teeth on the part of Dish subs who were facing that very problem, and waiting for a new bird to be built and flown.


> You must have had a lousy installation then... it takes a VERY LARGE storm between my dish and the sat to lose my reception.


That's what I am talking about. Thunderheads big enough/high enough to block my reception. I was living in an area which got such storms.


> No, I'm just responding to the BS marketing tone of the original post, e.g. '_Here are the facts_' and when I present a set of 'facts' in a similar tone you accuse the messenger of 'preaching to the choir'? ... last I looked, this is called _DBSTalk_, so you expected to find cable tv zealots here?


No, I expect to find DBS zealots here, and am seldom disappointed. But I always hope to find people who are willing to admit both sides have advantages and disadvantages, without their zeal blinding them. Like I said, I believe in and encourage a healthy competition between DBS and cable. It improves the product for all of us.


> Which is better, a pickup truck or a sedan? By and large, I encourage people to check out cable and satellite and make up their own minds- each has something to offer and neither is superior in a major way, but one may be better suited to your needs/wants. Some people have an excellent cableco, some have a lousy one in terms of service and/or price. In my area my cableco was just plain lousy, so I switched to DBS. If your cable experience has been a better one than DBS, then fine... there are plenty experiences on both ends of the spectrum to placate anyone with a pre-concieved notion of which is the better choice.


Very sensible statement. This is why I post here occasionally when the subject turns to cable, to rattle some preconceived notions that DBS has no problems and that *all* cable companies are evil. YMMV.


> By and large, the bogus marketing and distortion of "facts" (aka FUD) seems to be coming from the cable tv companies- I've yet to see that DBS is doing anything similar- they usually don't even mention cable tv, they just quietly keep increasing their customer base. Why do you think that is? How can they do that without even mentioning cable tv, whereas cable tv has to paint satellite as evil?


Last night I saw a DBS commercial which showed the local cable installer on the "day he hates most," mailing out the bills, with the whole neighborhood as an angry mob taking out after him. Very realistic. :lol: Then a DBS sub pokes his head out his window and runs down the reasons why DBS is so much better than cable. Same kind of "facts" as in the original post.


> You claim that cable TV has such limitless technology ahead of it compared to DBS... then how will people with no cable running past their house avail themselves of it? DBS participation limited only by your ability to see a spot in the southern sky.


When I had DBS it was because I had no other choice. I was one of those people who had no cable running past my house. I lived in the middle of an 18 acre lot. DBS provided me with a great service, although by the time I left there things were going downhill, especially from a CSR standpoint. I went with cable because that one wire coming into my house provides me with digital television, local and long distance phone service, and internet access. Because of the bundling my bill is significantly lower than buying the services separately. If any part of the combination was providing me with substandard service or was overpriced I would look for other options, but they aren't. If you have a lousy cable company, or are served by no cable company, I can understand your appreciation for DBS. But there are many here who would to deny to their death that some of the points made by cable ads do have validity. And as far as potential, DBS is and always will be limited in bandwidth.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

Mike Richardson said:


> When you pay for DBS you know you're gonna get everything on all of your TVs. With cable you'll get your basic blah blah no frills channels on all your TVs but why PAY for a guide, digital channels, premiums, blah blah, etc, when you STILL have to get a box for each tv you want that junk on?


Ok, has technology changed in the DBS industry in the last two years? When I had DBS you needed a box for every TV you wanted "all that junk on." Has that changed? Will one or two boxes now provide you with everything on every tv in the house, if you have more than one or two tv's?


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

Bill R said:


> One thing that cable is doing in MY area is moving all the stuff that MOST people want to their digital tier. All that they are going to have in their analog tier is the local broadcast channels (because of the FCC they HAVE to leave them unscrambled and in the basic tier) and the local access channels (which almost no one watches) and a few of the "basic cable" channels. Soon you will need digital cable to get anything worthwhile (and the costs of the digital cable box for EACH TV).
> 
> When you compare the cost for what MOST people want, cable (in MY area) is about $10 more a month than DBS.


In my area I have about 70 channels on the analog tier. Plenty of channels so that in the kitchen and in my office I am plenty satisfied. I can watch news, sports and lots of old movies and reruns. My digital package costs me about the same as DBS.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

jeffwtux said:


> That is why I compared the monthly price of digital cable in MY CITY(which clearly doesn't get as good of a deal as yours) on 2 TVs to DishNetwork of 4 TVs. DishNetwork on 4 TVs is cheaper than digital cable on 2. For the price you pay for a 2nd digital receiver in my city, you could buy a used 301 in a year and a half with the savings compared to the $4.99 second receiver fee from DISH. In my city a 2nd digital receiver is $7.95/month.


And that is why you need to look at a city by city basis, and at what your needs are, not just a blanket condemnation of every cable company in the nation.


----------



## cnsf (Jun 6, 2002)

I can't comment on TWC because I am serviced by Cablevision, so here are my comments on Cablevision.

D* and E* never uprooted my lawn and masonry work and took three months and 50 calls to fix - and didn't do it right in the end anyway.

D* and E* never sent a tech out to dig up property for the same problem a month apart (when it was fixed the first time).

D* and E* never charged me indefinitely for using a box and remote. Costs for equipment were finite.

Cablevision was MUCH more expensive monthly and wasn't even close to satellite offerings when I got it four years ago.

Satellite PQ was far superior to cable's static signal at that time.

E* and D* didn't take four years to upgrade their technology to provide me with the service Cablevision just started offering this year. I've now had it for four years and have become a loyal satellite customer.

Cablevision didn't offer YES Network until this year. They don't deserve my business as I am their last concern.

I had fewer picture outages with D* and E* than I ever did with cable based on four years of sat. service.

E* and D* never told me to go scr*w myself when I was dissatisfied with service.

IMHO, cable dug their own grave, including TWC and Cablevision. They don't deserve our business, especially when they have just "come up" to match satellite's offerings.


----------



## jeffwtux (Apr 27, 2002)

Bogy: and that's why I only advertise(I'm a Dish retailer) in cities with lousy 
cable deals. If I lived in your city, I'd probably have cable too.


----------



## jeffwtux (Apr 27, 2002)

Cable boosters: For the record, I believe I was the one who first made the point that
cable deals vary greatly city to city, and that in cities with good cable deals, cable IS better, but 
that's clearly not true everywhere. So don't go all "high and mighty" on me.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

jeffwtux said:


> Cable boosters: For the record, I believe I was the one who first made the point that
> cable deals vary greatly city to city, and that in cities with good cable deals, cable IS better, but
> that's clearly not true everywhere. So don't go all "high and mighty" on me.


Jeff, I recognize that and since I didn't mention it before, I respect your attitude. When I was a DBS sub I never appreciated the flame wars between Dish and DirecTV, or the cable bashing. MHO has always been that competition is a *good* thing. It makes things better for all of us. Some companies, no matter what the technology, will only do the bare minimum unless forced to do more. DBS has been forced to do more since its early days. It was the underdog, facing an established industry, in numerous markets. They could not get by with competing against the worst markets, but they had to compete against all markets. They actually had competition, which the cable monopolies didn't. Some cable companies have been much more responsive than others. If I lived in another city I might very well go back to DBS for my tv. My point is that DBS subs should be glad that cable is improving, it means DBS will also need to improve, or at least keep its service at a high level. The worst thing for DBS would be if cable did stay uniformly lousy, and if one DBS company bought out the other. There would no longer be any incentive for standards to be raised or improved. DBS subs who live in a city with poor cable service should be glad I have good cable service here in Omaha, because your provider is not just in competition with your local cable company, but they are also in competition with Cox in Omaha.


----------



## Mike Richardson (Jun 12, 2003)

Mike123abc said:


> *NOTE* Digital cable ready TVs are coming out. The standard has been approved now by the FCC. Soon you will not need a box to get digital cable on every outlet. I do not know how cable companies are going to price it, but still it will be easier to use a digital cable ready TV than an external cable/dbs box.


I think we might see one of the DBS companies make a box that outputs a signal that "looks like" digital cable to all the TVs. They could even offer an advanced model that has DVR stuff or even HDTV stuff.


----------



## Mike Richardson (Jun 12, 2003)

Bogy said:


> And as far as potential, DBS is and always will be limited in bandwidth.


How can you say always? Could you guarantee that from now until the end of time DBS will ALWAYS and FOREVER have less bandwidth than a cable company?

It cost TWC Houston, from what I could tell from their site and otherwise, "millions" and/or "billions" of dollars to upgrade to fiber and 750 MHz. Sorry but that's gonna run out sometime and they'll just have to spend a bunch more money to upgrade to the next level of space.

It doesn't matter if cable has more bandwidth right NOW but you can't say that cable will ALWAYS have more bandwidth.


----------



## Mike Richardson (Jun 12, 2003)

I think what pisses of so called "DBS zealots" so much is the fact that DBS was, and for the most part, still is, the innovator. Cable just trails behind. DBS had a digital signal first. Cable trailed behind. DBS had an EPG first. Cable trailed behind. DBS had (from what I can tell) HDTV first, or very early. Cable is still catching up. DBS has to actually fight to get signups. Many cable companies just sit around throwing out the bare minimum.

Cable has a history of trailing behind DBS in innovative new features and this pisses a lot of people off.


----------



## Mike Richardson (Jun 12, 2003)

Bogy said:


> Ok, has technology changed in the DBS industry in the last two years? When I had DBS you needed a box for every TV you wanted "all that junk on." Has that changed? Will one or two boxes now provide you with everything on every tv in the house, if you have more than one or two tv's?


The fact is, you are paying for the EPG, premium channels, VOD, PPV, digital channels, so called digital quality, etc, etc, etc, but you are only putting it on a couple of TVs. Some of us who pay for premiums want the bloddy things on every TV. When a TV is hooked up to DBS, it's got it all. When a TV is hooked up to cable you can add it on for free but you get maybe 70 channels. Your main channels yes, but not all the channels your paying for. Just to get all the channels you're paying for you have to shell out this box rental fee that's $2 more than DBS extra box fee in Houston.

To get 3 TVs with all of the digital channels here it costs $21 extra. Only $10 extra on DBS. (first box is free, 2 more box is $5.) If you have Dish DHP you can rent the receivers, this adds $5, but it's still cheaper. Otherwise you have to own the receivers or get them via a special free deal or something.

Let's say an equivelent digital package at cable and DBS is $50. You pay $50 for this package. We'll say the extra box charge is $7 for cable and $5 for DBS. You have 3 TVs, one is living room, one is in a game room or some room that still gets a lot of TV use, one is in like the kitchen and you just need a few channels in there.

On cable, you have to have at least one box or it's really foolish to get the digital package so that's $7. You do not need any more boxes technically. You could get the regular old channels on how many extra TVs you want. But what if YourFavoriteChannel is on digital and you want to see it on your game room TV? Must get another box. So that's $14. Your kitchen TV will only have regular stuff despite paying for a guide and all that stuff.

On DBS you get one box for no extra charge. If you want another box it's $5. But you have to hook up the kitchen tv too. That's another $5. You're coming out ahead in DBS and you have your 3 TVs hooked up!! And for less money you STILL get your guide, ppv, premium, etc, on your kitchen TV. You could add a 4th TV and DBS would only be $1 more expensive.

But if you want the guide on your kitchen TV with cable you gotta pay $7 more. That's $21 extra in total. In fact it's only after you total up digital boxes for cable and extra boxes for DBS, where you finally get equivelency. In this situation true equivelency is cheaper by $11 w ith DBS. Hell you could have 5 TVs on DBS and still save $1 over cable AND have ALL YOUR FEATURES on ALL YOUR TVS!

But even if you don't need equivelency DBS is still gonna be cheaper a lot of the time. Now if you have 6 TVs and only 2 needs digital then cable is gonna be cheaper. Go get cable but after you split it 6 ways I doubt your PQ will be too fantastic.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

Mike Richardson said:


> How can you say always? Could you guarantee that from now until the end of time DBS will ALWAYS and FOREVER have less bandwidth than a cable company?
> 
> It cost TWC Houston, from what I could tell from their site and otherwise, "millions" and/or "billions" of dollars to upgrade to fiber and 750 MHz. Sorry but that's gonna run out sometime and they'll just have to spend a bunch more money to upgrade to the next level of space.
> 
> It doesn't matter if cable has more bandwidth right NOW but you can't say that cable will ALWAYS have more bandwidth.


Ok, change that to "foreseeable future". Right now along with 9 HDTV channels and 26 premium digital movie channels (10 more non movie channels will be added on Oct. 28) that same cable provides my phone and internet. How many more HDTV channels do you thing DBS will be able to add?


----------



## Mike Richardson (Jun 12, 2003)

There's many free transponders on 105. If they all don't get filled up with locals (using non spot beam for locals is so inefficient but it takes a while to build a new spot satellite) then that's a lot of HD channels right there. Right now they have 2 HD channels per transponder on 105 but 8PSK is supposed to let them do 3 without much quality loss.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

Mike Richardson said:


> There's many free transponders on 105. If they all don't get filled up with locals (using non spot beam for locals is so inefficient but it takes a while to build a new spot satellite) then that's a lot of HD channels right there. Right now they have 2 HD channels per transponder on 105 but 8PSK is supposed to let them do 3 without much quality loss.


Right, you have put your finger right on DBS's problem. They first had the problem of space for all the locals. But in the forseeable future those locals are all going to be required to be HDTV. THAT is a lot of transponders. Cable has a practical advantage. Each system has to carry only its own locals. This is why some DBS subs were saying it was stupid for DBS to try to carry locals in the very beginning. But Charlie did it, and DirecTV had to follow suit. That is going to be a LOT of spots.


----------



## toad57 (Apr 23, 2002)

Mike Richardson said:


> I think what pisses of so called "DBS zealots" so much is the fact that DBS was, and for the most part, still is, the innovator. Cable just trails behind. DBS had a digital signal first. Cable trailed behind. DBS had an EPG first. Cable trailed behind. DBS had (from what I can tell) HDTV first, or very early. Cable is still catching up. DBS has to actually fight to get signups. Many cable companies just sit around throwing out the bare minimum.
> 
> Cable has a history of trailing behind DBS in innovative new features and this pisses a lot of people off.


One more: DBS had/has (integrated) DVR/PVR, cable trailed behind.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

toad57 said:


> One more: DBS had/has (integrated) DVR/PVR, cable trailed behind.


That is the one thing I am still waiting for anxiously. Hopefully they will be able to introduce one without bugs. :grin: :eek2:


----------



## davhol (Oct 29, 2002)

Just a simple question: how do cable head-ends GET their signals in the first place? Is it not via some form of satellite distribution? (except for the local signals)? (let the cat fight begin)


----------



## marko (Jan 9, 2003)

Bogy said:


> That is the one thing I am still waiting for anxiously. Hopefully they will be able to introduce one without bugs. :grin: :eek2:


For a time warner cable pvr box, to go along with my HD box, they wanted an extra $15. It was $8 for the box, and $7 for the PVR, and in some cases the PVR service would be $10. Not worth it, and this is still one of the reasons I think dish network is making a mistake. The free PVR was a selling point, but not anymore.


----------



## Mike Richardson (Jun 12, 2003)

Bogy said:


> That is the one thing I am still waiting for anxiously. Hopefully they will be able to introduce one without bugs. :grin: :eek2:


Don't get me started on cable boxes.

TCI offered Digital Cable back in 1998. Since we didn't know anything about DBS we just HAD to get this digital cable in the new apartment. They set it up. We were only offered one box and it cost $5 a month. The 2 other TVs got a very crappy 40 channel service about 15 of which were local channels. They set up the digital cable box (coaxial of course, why do they do that, when any other connection is so much better). The features were pretty nice, the box was slow, but the on screen display was pretty uncluttered and easy to use. But the digital channels would com in for about 5 minutes and then they would tile up and freeze. One tech came out and didn't know what to say. Some more techs came out and said the wiring was all bad, they were getting all these funky readings. Third tech (this is 2 or 3 weeks later mind you) brings a new box and that's the first thing he hooks up. The box works great, we're happy. It's kind of slow though and we couldn't remove channels we didn't want.

So then we move 6 months later into Time Warner territory. "Digital Cable?" they said. "Oh. We'll have that in a few months. Yeah." 3 years later we can finally get it installed. Two boxes this time. They hook them up (with coaxial. of course.) First thing I notice is that like 40% of the browse banner and 40% of most of the on screen menus are for ADVERTISING. Blech! Second thing I notice is that no digitals come in. On either box. So it wasn't the box. 2 techs and weeks later we find out it's their wiring or something at the street and they go and fix it. The box is twice as slow as the previous one and it's full of ADS. And there's all these channels we don't get that we can't remove (at least 20 spanish channels I think), 40% of the screen is ADs, changing channels is slow, turning on the box is slow. It's pretty bad. Analog PQ is bad.

So we moved about a year or so later. New house, new neighborhood. Time Warner. But there's NO cable lines installed. And there wouldn't be for 5 more months. We got DISH Network DHP at Sears in November. They put it in a few days later. Wow, fast boxes, no ads, you can take off the bloddy channels you don't want! Amazing. When cable lines were installed we got Earthlink Cable internet due to the unfortuniate fact that DSL would never be available here because "we have too many coils" (Southwestern Bell).

Heh, then they rolled out VOD. Tried it at my neighbor's house and it didn't work at all. Fast forward and rewind are very unresponsive and the free VOD shows rarely actually play, they usually just screw up with an error.

Digital Boxes:
- Are buggy.
- Are SLOW.
- Have fat ugly ads on them.
- Can't delete channels you don't want to see.
- Gotta pay more for them than DBS ($7 ea in TWC Houston, $5 for each one FIRST ONE is no extra charge.)

Of course, my opinion is not biased. Not the least bit


----------



## Mike Richardson (Jun 12, 2003)

Bogy said:


> Right, you have put your finger right on DBS's problem. They first had the problem of space for all the locals. But in the forseeable future those locals are all going to be required to be HDTV. THAT is a lot of transponders. Cable has a practical advantage. Each system has to carry only its own locals. This is why some DBS subs were saying it was stupid for DBS to try to carry locals in the very beginning. But Charlie did it, and DirecTV had to follow suit. That is going to be a LOT of spots.


They don't HAVE to be HDTV locals. They just have to start carrying the digital signal when the analog ones go dark. They can down rez and compress it as much as they want. Actually basing the DBS locals off of digital feeds would be good because it would mean better PQ (no analog degradion such as sparklies, ghosting, etc.)

Yes, carrying locals is gonna take a lot of bandwidth. But doesn't cable's VOD do the same thing? What if 100 people in a neighborhood (or a trunk) are watching a VOD show while using their cable modems? A VOD stream has gotta be a few mbps right? We'll say 3 mbps. That's 300 What if 200 people watch a VOD stream? What about HD-VOD? I mean, you "gotta" (some sarcasm here) have HD-VOD, right? Geez, that's like 10 mbps a stream even after you compress it to death. A whole gigabit if 100 people watch a HD-VOD stream.


----------



## toad57 (Apr 23, 2002)

Mike Richardson said:


> Don't get me started on cable boxes.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Of course, my opinion is not biased. Not the least bit


You're just trying to confuse the issue with the facts. Stop that! :slowgrin:


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

Mike Richardson said:


> Don't get me started on cable boxes.
> 
> Digital Boxes:
> - Are buggy.
> ...


Of course your unbiased opinion is based on experience with two cable companies. This of course means your experience is the same as for *every* cable system/box. My guide has no ads, I can delete channels, and they are as fast as my DirecTV boxes were. Yes, I do pay rent on my box, but when they roll out DVR's in my area I will exchange the boxes I now have for DVR's for the same rate.

Speaking of buggy boxes, didn't Dish once put out a buggy box?   :eek2: :lol: :sure:


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

Mike Richardson said:


> They don't HAVE to be HDTV locals. They just have to start carrying the digital signal when the analog ones go dark.


That's what I meant. When analog goes dark they are going to have to carry the HDTV.


> They can down rez and compress it as much as they want. Actually basing the DBS locals off of digital feeds would be good because it would mean better PQ (no analog degradion such as sparklies, ghosting, etc.)


Oh yes, over compression. That always makes for a better picture.  :eek2:


----------



## Mike Richardson (Jun 12, 2003)

Bogy said:


> Of course your unbiased opinion is based on experience with two cable companies. This of course means your experience is the same as for *every* cable system/box. My guide has no ads, I can delete channels, and they are as fast as my DirecTV boxes were. Yes, I do pay rent on my box, but when they roll out DVR's in my area I will exchange the boxes I now have for DVR's for the same rate.
> 
> Speaking of buggy boxes, didn't Dish once put out a buggy box?   :eek2: :lol: :sure:


I seriously doubt you will get DVRs for "the same rate". You will pay extra.

Yes, Dish has buggy boxes. DirecTV has buggy boxes. Cable has buggy boxes. Boxes are buggy. But at least dish boxes don't have bloomin' ads on them.


----------



## Mike Richardson (Jun 12, 2003)

Bogy said:


> That's what I meant. When analog goes dark they are going to have to carry the HDTV.


You're confusing HDTV with Digital. Digital means the ATSC format, which supports 480i but has a much better quality than NTSC which is also 480i. But digital was primarily created to facilitate HD resolutions such as 1080i and 720p. (and to a limited extent 480p but people say this is not true HD but just poor man's HD). Dish could carry 480i digital channels or downrezzed 720p/1080i channels as 480i and not require extra space.



Bogy said:


> Oh yes, over compression. That always makes for a better picture.  :eek2:


I didn't say they WERE gonna overcompress it. But they could. Just like cable.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

Mike Richardson said:


> I didn't say they WERE gonna overcompress it. But they could. Just like cable.


Why wouldn't they overcompress? That is the solution they have used many times in the past.


----------



## Mike Richardson (Jun 12, 2003)

Bogy said:


> Why wouldn't they overcompress? That is the solution they have used many times in the past.


They compress locals more, yes. But there is a line, where the overcompression is acceptable to deal with and then unacceptable.


----------



## fslove (Sep 14, 2003)

The biggest thing missing in this conversation is the fact that Cable has a inferior video quality to Satellite! Cable loves to tout they are "Digital" but they are of course lying for the most part because all but the premium channels are merely analog which is digitized and sent out! ALL DBS channels (with a few local channel exceptions) are digital from the source and it shows in the viewing results.

Also cable forgets to mention that the savings the consumer gets with programming with DBS more then pays for the equipment outlay!

Then you look at cables famous attrocious customer service and you have a real idea why satellite is a better option for most. 

Yes, there are a very few exceptions where a cable company is really low balling their prices but that is usually a two year process to try to bring in satellite and others and then their prices go right up to all the other cable company prices!

Let's not forget that with Satellite you get the leading edge technolgies like PRV's HDTV interactive guides, etc.. way before cable gets it.

In the coming 2 years or so cable is going to be suffering a bandwidth problem and this is where satellite is really going to cripple cable. When HD channels start coming fast and furiously cable is going to not only have to forego some of the channels but compress the hell out of the ones they can put on (as they are already doing with the few HD channels out there). Satellite now has 8PSK and other technologies like using video KA band to be able to put every local channel on satellite (even local HD)as well as 100+ other HD channels. I have a Comcast HD cable box and just my local HD channels (it $2 cheaper to have cable internet and the cable HD box w/local then to have just cable internet) are noticably inferior to the OTA local HD channels and Comcast only has 8 or 9 HD channels available.

I will give cable one HUGE undisputed advantage over satellite! Cable Internet is vastly superior to any satellite or DSL internet out there in speed and I don't see any way satellite can compete in this area. Although there is a company who wants to start a LEO (Low Earth Orbit) satellite fleet that would alleviate the one satellite problem of lag!


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

Mike Richardson said:


> They compress locals more, yes. But there is a line, where the overcompression is acceptable to deal with and then unacceptable.


*OVER*compression would indicate that it is being done to much. Like in "*over* the line."


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

fslove said:


> The biggest thing missing in this conversation is the fact that Cable has a inferior video quality to Satellite! Cable loves to tout they are "Digital" but they are of course lying for the most part because all but the premium channels are merely analog which is digitized and sent out! ALL DBS channels (with a few local channel exceptions) are digital from the source and it shows in the viewing results.


What inferior video quality? Once again, the myth that all cable systems have crappy quality. Actually, it is the myth that digital always provides a better picture than analog. There is no real reason for anolog not to provide a good picture. I get a great picture on my analog channels. Especially through my digital boxes. Not counting In Demand, sports, music and Spanish language channels, my channels are about half and half analog and digital, with the edge to digital and growing.



> Also cable forgets to mention that the savings the consumer gets with programming with DBS more then pays for the equipment outlay!


What savings? I pay virtually the same for what I get as I would for the same service from DBS.



> Then you look at cables famous attrocious customer service and you have a real idea why satellite is a better option for most.


Another myth. I have never spoken to an unpleasant CSR from my cable company. Of course, people are nice in Omaha, and the only time I did not speak to a CSR from Omaha I talked to someone in Texas, which must also have some nice people. When I have needed a tech, they have appeared almost magically. We had a remote go bad soon after our cable was installed, and an installer was at our door in half an hour with a new one.



> Yes, there are a very few exceptions where a cable company is really low balling their prices but that is usually a two year process to try to bring in satellite and others and then their prices go right up to all the other cable company prices!


Gee, I would be worried because I have been here for 2 years now, but my "lowball" prices are still the ones advertised on their website. Two years, no price increases, added channels, in fact on Oct. 28 we are scheduled to get 10 more channels with no price increase.



> Let's not forget that with Satellite you get the leading edge technolgies like PRV's HDTV interactive guides, etc.. way before cable gets it.


I've already admitted I am anxiously awaiting this one. But it looks like my wait is almost over. From a recent change in the Cox website I hope to have my DVR's very soon.



> In the coming 2 years or so cable is going to be suffering a bandwidth problem and this is where satellite is really going to cripple cable. When HD channels start coming fast and furiously cable is going to not only have to forego some of the channels but compress the hell out of the ones they can put on (as they are already doing with the few HD channels out there). Satellite now has 8PSK and other technologies like using video KA band to be able to put every local channel on satellite (even local HD)as well as 100+ other HD channels. I have a Comcast HD cable box and just my local HD channels (it $2 cheaper to have cable internet and the cable HD box w/local then to have just cable internet) are noticably inferior to the OTA local HD channels and Comcast only has 8 or 9 HD channels available.


Outside of your visual impression of one system, do you have any documentation to show that cable is about to run out of bandwidth?



> I will give cable one HUGE undisputed advantage over satellite! Cable Internet is vastly superior to any satellite or DSL internet out there in speed and I don't see any way satellite can compete in this area. Although there is a company who wants to start a LEO (Low Earth Orbit) satellite fleet that would alleviate the one satellite problem of lag!


Lag is one problem, bandwidth is the other.


----------



## fslove (Sep 14, 2003)

Geeez what a goof this Bogy is! :nono2: Everything is a MYTH when dealing with the negatives of cable! In his "WORLD" cable is perfect and satellite is the anti-Christ!

Yeah, cable having bad customer service is a myth. That is why both satellite companies have been rated above all cable companies since their inception!

I guess you assertion that cable has as good a video quality as satellite indicates your use of 13" TV's or the fact that you have a severe visual problem!

Cable is already compressing the heck out of HD channels down to 14Mb (not to mention SD channels) which give a most noticably lesser quality picture then satellite or OTA! Why would cable be doing any compression if they have this vast access to bandwidth? Cable is doing TV, Internet and phone service through their pipeline and they just plain will not be able to deal with vast numbers of high bandwidth HD channels when they are available. Dish Network on the other hand does all their HD channels at the full 19.2Mb and has the ability to do 50 more HD channels at the full 19.2Mb as well as add 100 more LIL markets as well when Echostar 9 is put in service next month. 

Your statement about satellite internet "Lag is one problem, bandwidth is the other" shows your total lack of knowledge of satellite technology because you would never make such a uninformed statement if you had knowledge of Ku Band satellites that can offer more internet bandwidth then cable could EVER do. And both Dish and DirecTV have Ku band satellites and more going up in the next couple of years.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

fslove said:


> Geeez what a goof this Bogy is! :nono2: Everything is a MYTH when dealing with the negatives of cable! In his "WORLD" cable is perfect and satellite is the anti-Christ!


Thank you for refraining from personal attacks. :lol: My point is NOT that either format is perfect or the anti-Christ. Both CAN be good, but it is only competition which will make them or keep them at their full current potential and beyond.



> Yeah, cable having bad customer service is a myth. That is why both satellite companies have been rated above all cable companies since their inception!


Yes, by J.D. Powers, which used to rate Primestar, the cable co offshoot #1 consistently. They also just ranked ATT dialup service #1. Imagine, ATT anything #1. :grin:



> I guess you assertion that cable has as good a video quality as satellite indicates your use of 13" TV's or the fact that you have a severe visual problem!


I had to think about it. I do still have a 13" (and even a 5") tv in the house, but it isn't even plugged in. I have my eyesight checked at least once a year. Perhaps you just haven't had the opportunity to see what is possible with a well run cable system?



> Cable is already compressing the heck out of HD channels down to 14Mb (not to mention SD channels) which give a most noticably lesser quality picture then satellite or OTA! Why would cable be doing any compression if they have this vast access to bandwidth? Cable is doing TV, Internet and phone service through their pipeline and they just plain will not be able to deal with vast numbers of high bandwidth HD channels when they are available. Dish Network on the other hand does all their HD channels at the full 19.2Mb and has the ability to do 50 more HD channels at the full 19.2Mb as well as add 100 more LIL markets as well when Echostar 9 is put in service next month.


One element that many just don't get is that cable would love to switch over *all* their channels to digital. They aren't keeping all those channels on analog because its their desire to provide a poor quality picture. They do it for all the people who refuse to switch to digital. The time might come when it will become more advantageous for them to simply give people the boxes and make them switch. Perhaps when everybody like me switches to DVRs they will be able to give the old boxes to the holdouts. Then they will be able to transform my 70 analog channels to hundreds of digital channels. Most cable systems which have upgraded to fiber have lots of room to spare.



> Your statement about satellite internet "Lag is one problem, bandwidth is the other" shows your total lack of knowledge of satellite technology because you would never make such a uninformed statement if you had knowledge of Ka Band satellites that can offer more internet bandwidth then cable could EVER do. And both Dish and DirecTV have Ka band satellites and more going up in the next couple of years.


This must be why I have heard about guys using satellite internet getting shut off for using the bandwidth I take for granted.

Again, let me repeat, I have nothing against DBS. I have had it, and I wouldn't hesitate to go back if I had to deal with companies like some here evidently have in their areas. I just want to point out that the problems of poor PQ, customer service, etc., have nothing to do with the format, and they are not true of every system. Speak to your own situation without making blanket statements that cable is the anti-Christ. Encourage competition. Do you really think that Echostar 9 would be going into service if Dish weren't being pushed by cable to do so? All those innovations are because cable is starting to wake up. Good for you, good for all the cable customers. Happy days.


----------

