# Why I don't like cable...



## thebigjp (Jan 21, 2003)

There are many reasons why I hate cable, but here are a few...

1. Not availible in many rural areas.
2. have you seen the rising costs, as compared to DBS services
3. Not availible in many rural areas.
4. The trailer park 0.1 miles away has cable, but it would be "too expensive to expand our cable lines in to an area that is already dominated by satellite dishes" THERE IS A REASON WHY OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS DOMINATED BY SATELLITE DISHES!
5. Not availible in many rural areas
6. No current plans to expand in to our area until 2019 (in 1990 they said by 2004)
7. Will never be availible in rural areas
and lastly, but not leastly.
8. is not availible in THIS rural area., but again the trailer park 0.1 miles away has cable.

and also, if cable ever does come to our area, no one is going to subscribe, why because COX has played with us long enough!

People held out hope that the cable lines would be expanded here (especially when Wireless One was leaving town) but now people are so mad at COX that people here are now trying to lure people away from wired cable and trying to show people the light (satellite).

any contributions, as I get madder, and madder at cable I will contribute

Wireless One entered our market in 1993
left our market 8/30/2001

converted all of its customers to DirecTV July/August 2001.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

Is cable available in your area? 
I subscribed to DBS when I lived in the middle of an 18 acre lot. For some reason the cable company wasn't interested in me either. I was very glad for the service they provided. However, to hate all cable forever because your local cable co. doesn't find it cost effective to expand to your area when you have DBS available seems a little self destructive. Are you that envious of those of us who have the opportunity to subscribe to cable?


----------



## thebigjp (Jan 21, 2003)

actually, I am more mad at the fact that DSL/Broadband may never be availible, and that the setup fee for satelite internet is about $800.And I will not hate all cable forever, just the wirebound cable companies, I have very much respect for the wireless cable companies still in operation.

and in response, to your last line, live in an area where cable and dsl may never be availible, and see how you feel.

But like I said I am over that now, but I still do not like cable, and will do everything in my power to convert current subscribers.


----------



## dtcarson (Jan 10, 2003)

My big pet peeve right now, with my cable company, apart from the crappy picture, is their misleading radio advertisements.
They have one that has a guy stressing over reading a sat contract, and the commercial voiceover basically refutes the points with reasons why cable's better than sat.
Examples:

'average consumer reading contract': 'Local channels not available in all areas?'
VO: With Time Warner Cable, you can easily get all your local channels for no extra cost.
Truth: Didn't the cable companies fight like heck to *prevent* sat companies from getting locals? So TWC would be more truthful in saying Yes, you may not be able to get locals with sat, but that's because we had congress in ourpocket and had them write some laws that helped us.

joe consumer: 'Satellite requires a 250$ cancellation fee, what the?!?!'
VO: With cable, there's no contract, no cancellation fee.
Truth: True, there's no contract, I'll give them that. But really, so many other things have contracts, that that's not an automatic veto. Cell phones, gyms, universities, cars, homes, all those you have to sign a contract. Re: the 250$: I've only experienced Dish, but I'm pretty sure the 'cancellation fee' TWC alludes to here is the 'contract breaking fee', again, which most contracts have. To cancel, once you've satisfied your contract, is free [please correct me if I'm wrong.] That to me is very misleading. 
That said, I do have cable now, because Dish couldn't get me a signal. Their DVR has name based recording, which is nice, and I got an HD digital box for no extra charge, which is quite cool, but the reception on most non-HD channels really sucks, regardless if it's through the HD box, the DVR box, or no box, on my 60" tv or the 13" one in the kitchen. PQ is woefully poor, overall, compared to Dish's.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

thebigjp said:


> and in response, to your last line, live in an area where cable and dsl may never be availible, and see how you feel.


I thought I had explained that I *did* live in a location where cable was not an option, and neither was DSL. I lived just out of DSL range, expecially by the time you got all the way up to my house. So I know what you feel. I was stuck with dial-up until I moved.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

dtcarson said:


> My big pet peeve right now, with my cable company, apart from the crappy picture, is their misleading radio advertisements.


Mine is with the current radio ad being run by Dish. It goes on and on about how we should all stop "feeding the cable pig". And that may be a problem in some areas, but as I have said in another thread, that's not the case here in Omaha and that is where the ad is running. They may actually convince some people that their cable bill has gone up, when it hasn't. Unless they are looking ahead to the possible increase that may be caused by the ESPN hog.


----------



## dtcarson (Jan 10, 2003)

Bogy said:


> Mine is with the current radio ad being run by Dish. It goes on and on about how we should all stop "feeding the cable pig". And that may be a problem in some areas, but as I have said in another thread, that's not the case here in Omaha and that is where the ad is running. They may actually convince some people that their cable bill has gone up, when it hasn't. Unless they are looking ahead to the possible increase that may be caused by the ESPN hog.


Haven't heard that one--must be locally oriented [like the cable one I mentioned.] The only Dish/DTV commercials I've been hearing recently seem to focus on the 'free receivers/install' which is fine.
Depending on how they phrase the rest of the 'cable pig' commercial, I can kinda see that--historically cable has been rather monopolistic, and I believe they do have a history of raising rates more often than the satellite companies. It might not fit your market, so it sounds misdirected, and I have only recently re-gotten cable, so I don't have much of a history for cable here either, but before Dish, when I did have cable, it seemed like every couple months there was 'fine print' raising something or other.
I'm all for advertising your product, but tell me why your product is better than theirs, and tell me honestly.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

Hmmm.... if anyone can come up with "Myths about DBS that the Cable Companies play" list, I can put it up.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

Mark Holtz said:


> Hmmm.... if anyone can come up with "Myths about DBS that the Cable Companies play" list, I can put it up.


Well, there is the myth the DBS companies keep pushing that they are all digital, all the time.


----------



## thebigjp (Jan 21, 2003)

is bogy by any chance anti-satellite?????


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

thebigjp said:


> is bogy by any chance anti-satellite?????


You haven't been paying attention, have you. I'm not anti-satellite. I'm pro-competition. I've had both DBS and cable. Both can offer very good products. I'm better off with cable right now because of what they can provide me, and the price they provide it at. But if the service turned crappy, or the price rose dramatically, I would go back to DBS with no hesitation. I just like to provide an alternative point of view here when the subject turns to cable. Kind of a "devil's advocate". !devil12: I don't get to do that very often.  :sure:


----------



## dtcarson (Jan 10, 2003)

Bogy said:


> Well, there is the myth the DBS companies keep pushing that they are all digital, all the time.


Aren't they? It's my understanding that digital merely refers to the method of transfering information [versus analog]. Digital != HD, or even 'good picture'. Hence the name, Digital Broadcast System [or whatever it stands for.] 
HD has to be digital, but digital does not have to be HD.
I'm not hugely technical, but that's been my understanding. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Mark Holtz:
Here's a few, based on my local cable co's 'Why Cable?' page http://twc-nc.com/digital_cable/cable_vs_satellite.htm
And I'm not anti-cable [well, I'm anti-the fact that they fight hard to remain a monopoly for as long as they did], I'm anti-lies and pro-educated consumer.

Sat:
Satellite dishes may call for up-front, out-of-pocket equipment expenses, plus the additional cost of installation. 
Cable:
Fast, easy, low-cost installation by certified professionals.

How is 'low cost' different from 'additional cost'? Most sat companies offer free install, and my cable install cost me a hundred bucks. This should be tossed as a 'YMMV-install costs vary', but their phrasing is misleading.

Sat:
To install it yourself, the instructions alone could scare you.

That's just stupid.

Sat:
Bad weather can cause you to lose your satellite reception. Rain or high winds can block a DBS signal or push a dish out of alignment.

True, I guess. The same can be said for cable, and at least with a dish, you have more control over your own dish, whereas if cable goes out, it's up to them to get it back on. I had sat go out 3 times, and 2ce was when the power went out for the whole neighbourhood.

Sat: And, you have to pay extra for local channels and specialized equipment. Plus, you don't get all of the local channels that Time Warner Cable provides. 
Cable: You get all the local channels, at no extra charge, including community access channels.

Does anyone actually watch these local channels, with shows like 'In Bob's Basement?' The big one we have is a 24-hour local news network, which to me is a non-feature.
Also, like I said earlier, isn't this because the cable companies fought like mad to have Congress enact legislative hurdles in front of the satellite companies, so they *couldn't* carry the locals in many cases? This is like the IRS saying Here's a refund, get excited, when they took the money out of your wallet in the first place.

Cable:
Plus, there's Road Runner High Speed Online service.

Irrelevant--you can get satellite internet, dsl, dialup, or other broadband [if offered.] TWCNC no longer charges non-cable-subscribers a premium, so you can get RR if you have cable, sat, or nothing [which in fact we did.] Actually, even then you could get it anyway, you'd just have to pay a few bucks more a month. Why this is a 'benefit' of Time Warner Cable, I don't know, unless they're preying on people's assumptions that you have to have cable to get RR.

Sat:
To watch something different on another TV in your home, you have to buy an additional receiver. 
Cable:
No extra equipment to buy and little to no monthly fees for additional outlets.

True--sat requires a receiver for each tv, and cable doesn't. But on those non-boxed tv's, you only get like the 15 basic channels. Once you add a box, that adds about 12 bucks/month to your monthly fee, because of all the tiers, box rental, and remote rental. Which, one you buy or get another receiver, is all included in the mirror fee for satellite. To get the same channels on all three tv's that I currently have on only one, and have roughly what i had with Dish, would cost me, I think, between another 16 and 23 dollars/month, instead of the 4.99x2 mirror fees. [I've got a great price because they had a 'satellite buyback' promotion, but I think my bill will go from ~60/month to ~135 after the 1 year promotion period ends, if I keep what we currently have--which we won't, not for 135 bucks.

Cable:
And, with Digital Cable you can get over 250 channels, including commercial-free, CD-quality digital music channels, pay-per-view movie channels and sports packages, and other exciting products you can only get from cable service.

Um, can't you get all that with either DBS company [I'm not counting Voom in here yet.] I count ~210 channels in Dish's Top 150, not counting the duplicate sports listings, plus 31 premiums. ~241 in all. According to the TWCNC channel listing guide, I totalled up 289 channels--2 are 'coming soon' HD channels, 4 are Fox sports channels [not sure if you get one or all], multiple digital feeds for the local networks [2 or 3 each times 4 networks]; 14 of those are 'InDemand-Movies or Sports' which don't count as channels to me; 8 are, er, adult.

And, of course, the DBS companies have simple to understand packages:
level 1, level 2, level 3, locals for X, add'l receivers for X, premiums for X.
TWCNC has this new thing called 'DigiPic' which is just a stupid name, imho, and the rest of their price structure, to me, is very confusing:
http://twc-nc.com/rates/cary.php
Ah yes, and they have a pdf for next year's rates, which of course are going up.

And again, I'm not inherently against cable, although I don't like some of their business practices; and they did save me ~200$ by giving [er, leasing] me an HD box for no extra charge [of course, I'm paying ~7$/mo for the DVR, which I wasn't before with Dish, so I guess that's a wash.] I just like truth in advertising, which admittedly is in short supply nowadays. And if I see/hear Dish/DTV having misleading adverts, I'll call them on it too.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

dtcarson said:


> Aren't they? It's my understanding that digital merely refers to the method of transfering information [versus analog]. Digital != HD, or even 'good picture'. Hence the name, Digital Broadcast System [or whatever it stands for.]
> HD has to be digital, but digital does not have to be HD.
> I'm not hugely technical, but that's been my understanding. Please correct me if I'm wrong.


No, I believe it stands for Direct Broadcast System. The digital part is only in reference to the signal up to the satellite and back down to your receiver. The signal that gets sent up to the satellite may very well be analog before it is converted to digital, and we all know that you only get as good a signal as you start with. On the other end, unless you have a digital TV, your receiver is going to turn the signal back into analog. So all the BS about how DBS is so much better than cable because some of the channels is just that BS. A good analog signal can be just as good as digital, and many times better. The advantage for DBS to use digital is to be able to compress the signal, jamming more channels in the same space. Over compression of a digital signal does not a good picture make.



> Sat: And, you have to pay extra for local channels and specialized equipment. Plus, you don't get all of the local channels that Time Warner Cable provides.
> Cable: You get all the local channels, at no extra charge, including community access channels.
> 
> Does anyone actually watch these local channels, with shows like 'In Bob's Basement?' The big one we have is a 24-hour local news network, which to me is a non-feature.
> Also, like I said earlier, isn't this because the cable companies fought like mad to have Congress enact legislative hurdles in front of the satellite companies, so they *couldn't* carry the locals in many cases? This is like the IRS saying Here's a refund, get excited, when they took the money out of your wallet in the first place.


I think what you are referring to is that cable lobbied to have the legislation that if they carried one local channel they had to carry them all. They couldn't cherry pick and leave out the marginal local channels. This did indeed cause hassles for the DBS companies, especially if they had one local channel that wanted to be a SOB.



> Sat:
> To watch something different on another TV in your home, you have to buy an additional receiver.
> Cable:
> No extra equipment to buy and little to no monthly fees for additional outlets.
> ...


YMMV, but I get about 65 analog channels. That means that I can get most everything but movie channels (I do get the basic HBO on analog) that we normally watch on analog. For my wife that's almost non-stop TLC.



> Cable:
> And, with Digital Cable you can get over 250 channels, including commercial-free, CD-quality digital music channels, pay-per-view movie channels and sports packages, and other exciting products you can only get from cable service.
> 
> Um, can't you get all that with either DBS company [I'm not counting Voom in here yet.] I count ~210 channels in Dish's Top 150, not counting the duplicate sports listings, plus 31 premiums. ~241 in all. According to the TWCNC channel listing guide, I totalled up 289 channels--2 are 'coming soon' HD channels, 4 are Fox sports channels [not sure if you get one or all], multiple digital feeds for the local networks [2 or 3 each times 4 networks]; 14 of those are 'InDemand-Movies or Sports' which don't count as channels to me; 8 are, er, adult.


C'mon, DBS counts just like cable, counting everything including their own promo "channels" as "channels".


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Bogy said:


> No, I believe it stands for Direct Broadcast System.


 Direct Broadcast Satellite

JL


----------



## JohnL (Apr 1, 2002)

Bogy said:


> Well, there is the myth the DBS companies keep pushing that they are all digital, all the time.


Myth, really. How do you explain the MPEG Digital compression on every single channel on DBS. I Guess that means every channel is digital.

If you mean that the picture quality is uneven across the board of both providers, well that is because both Companies use Statistical Multiplexing (Meaning bandwidth is reassigned on the fly). This allows channels to get more or give back bandwidth so high action sequences and low action seqeunces only use the needed amount of bandwidth. On occasion the needs of a channel or group of channels on one particular channel outstrip the bandwidth available when this happens you will see Digital artifacts.

Cable companies do the same thing. BTW both Digital and analog distributed channels have their own trade offs in terms of PQ. In the end a Digital channel will never have snow, Multipath Ghosts, Herringbone and the like if the signal a provider gets is clean to begin with.

John


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

JohnL said:


> Cable companies do the same thing. BTW both Digital and analog distributed channels have their own trade offs in terms of PQ. In the end a Digital channel will never have snow, Multipath Ghosts, Herringbone and the like if the signal a provider gets is clean to begin with.
> 
> John


Of course they do the same thing. And of course everything has tradeoffs. An analog channel will also never have snow, multipath ghosts, herringbone and the like if the signal a provider get is clean to begin with and keeps its system up to date. But the point is that if any system gets a crappy signal to start with it doesn't matter how it is transmitted, its going to stay crappy. A digital transmission will not magically transform it into a great picture.


----------



## dtcarson (Jan 10, 2003)

Bogy said:


> Of course they do the same thing. And of course everything has tradeoffs. An analog channel will also never have snow, multipath ghosts, herringbone and the like if the signal a provider get is clean to begin with and keeps its system up to date. But the point is that if any system gets a crappy signal to start with it doesn't matter how it is transmitted, its going to stay crappy. A digital transmission will not magically transform it into a great picture.


True--but where is that promised? What I recall hearing, from both DBS and cable, is something like '100% digital picture'. Which is true. Yes, it might look like crap because theres 1500 channels over this one shared bit of bandwidth, but it's digital nonetheless. 
The Outer Limits original tv series is on 'dvd', digital versatile disk, but its picture isn't that great. 
I guess it could be called 'misleading' the way all the companies hype the 'digital'-ness, and imply a better picture, but that's a little subtle for my taste. When I heard 'digital tv', I did some research to see what that actually meant.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

dtcarson said:


> True--but where is that promised? What I recall hearing, from both DBS and cable, is something like '100% digital picture'. Which is true. Yes, it might look like crap because theres 1500 channels over this one shared bit of bandwidth, but it's digital nonetheless.
> The Outer Limits original tv series is on 'dvd', digital versatile disk, but its picture isn't that great.
> I guess it could be called 'misleading' the way all the companies hype the 'digital'-ness, and imply a better picture, but that's a little subtle for my taste. When I heard 'digital tv', I did some research to see what that actually meant.


Right. Digital this and digital that. The implication is that if it is "digital" it must be better. But it ain't necessarily so. An MP3 sounds great in my car as I barrel down the road at the speed required by the state, or some approximation thereof, but depending greatly upon the rate at which it was compressed, it won't compare with a vinyl record in good condition, with good equipment.

DBS PQ has gone up and down over the past few years, as compression rates have varied with the number of channels crammed into the bandwidth has grown and compression rates have been pushed and improved. Those of us who had DBS back in the early days remember the PQ from those days fondly. Digital does not necessarily mean better.


----------



## jdspencer (Nov 8, 2003)

You can thank the requirement to broadcast your locals for the PQ fluctuating.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

jdspencer said:


> You can thank the requirement to broadcast your locals for the PQ fluctuating.


Yep. Blessing or curse? When locals were added in St. Louis it was a convenience for me to have them available on the guide, but it wasn't a necessity for me. I was living on top of the 2nd highest point in St. Louis County. Receiving OTA was not a problem. But obviously it was for many. Whether adding locals was a good move can still be debated, but from the standpoint of the DBS providers its strongest selling point was that it took a point of criticism away from the Cable Companies. Of course, most cable companies never charged you extra to get your local channels.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

_"...COX has played with us long enough!"_ :lol: :lol: :lol:

_"wireless cable"_ A classic oxymoron! :grin:


----------



## waydwolf (Feb 2, 2003)

Bogy said:


> Is cable available in your area?
> I subscribed to DBS when I lived in the middle of an 18 acre lot. For some reason the cable company wasn't interested in me either. I was very glad for the service they provided. However, to hate all cable forever because your local cable co. doesn't find it cost effective to expand to your area when you have DBS available seems a little self destructive. Are you that envious of those of us who have the opportunity to subscribe to cable?


Charter Cable has been known to run .5in. hardline and line amps over a mile into private property to reach ONE subscriber. Cablevision has had areas where a node was serving only five homes. I've worked places in CT that are as rural as you can get without leaving for Montana and the nearest gas station is a half hour away and they had cable. There are people whose property is totally surrounded by state forest land and they have cable. It's not as big a problem for most people.


----------



## waydwolf (Feb 2, 2003)

Bogy said:


> No, I believe it stands for Direct Broadcast System. The digital part is only in reference to the signal up to the satellite and back down to your receiver. The signal that gets sent up to the satellite may very well be analog before it is converted to digital, and we all know that you only get as good a signal as you start with. On the other end, unless you have a digital TV, your receiver is going to turn the signal back into analog. So all the BS about how DBS is so much better than cable because some of the channels is just that BS. A good analog signal can be just as good as digital, and many times better. The advantage for DBS to use digital is to be able to compress the signal, jamming more channels in the same space. Over compression of a digital signal does not a good picture make.


And I've NEVER seen ANY cable system with overcompressed MPEG-2 streams. EVER. And my system hasn't even gone from 64QAM to 256QAM yet.



> I think what you are referring to is that cable lobbied to have the legislation that if they carried one local channel they had to carry them all. They couldn't cherry pick and leave out the marginal local channels. This did indeed cause hassles for the DBS companies, especially if they had one local channel that wanted to be a SOB.


But cable can't exactly cherry pick either so neither should satellite.



> YMMV, but I get about 65 analog channels. That means that I can get most everything but movie channels (I do get the basic HBO on analog) that we normally watch on analog. For my wife that's almost non-stop TLC.


On this we have something in common. If you don't have a Discover store anywhere near, be thankful. Else she might drag you in to go on about signing up for Trading Spaces and you REALLY don't want those people to redesign your home.



> C'mon, DBS counts just like cable, counting everything including their own promo "channels" as "channels".


Let's not forget that you're not likely to ever see locals in HD in Waukeegan... EVER.

BTW, DirecTV still screws over Fairfield County, CT subs with NY locals INSTEAD of actual CT locals and Dish Network STILL doesn't offer locals in CT period. I don't know of a single cable company whose premium offerings don't totally outstrip both DBS services. DBS is going downhill because of the incompetence of the people representing and leading it at the big two.


----------



## waydwolf (Feb 2, 2003)

Nick said:


> _"...COX has played with us long enough!"_ :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> _"wireless cable"_ A classic oxymoron! :grin:


Wait till MVDDS has your kids watching MTV2 while you drive and DBS is on the brink of Chapter 13. You'll understand wireless cable more fully when that happens.


----------



## Brett (Jan 14, 2003)

waydwolf said:


> BTW, DirecTV still screws over Fairfield County, CT subs with NY locals INSTEAD of actual CT locals and Dish Network STILL doesn't offer locals in CT period. I don't know of a single cable company whose premium offerings don't totally outstrip both DBS services. DBS is going downhill because of the incompetence of the people representing and leading it at the big two.


It was SHVIA language that prevents DirecTV from offering Hartford/New Haven stations in Fairfield County.

DirecTV and Dish never bothered to get the same cable treatment in the in between regions, likely because there are likely not that many households in the overlap market areas, compared to the number of households that are solely in one television market broadcast viewing area.

Some examples where people are used to getting 2 markets:

Fairfield and New Haven County, CT - cable carries both NY & Hartford/New Haven
Ocean and Mercer County & southern Middlesex/Monmouth County, NJ - cable carries both NY & Philly
Cecil County, MD - cable carries both Baltimore & Philly
Kent County, DE - cable carries both Philly and Salisbury(WBOC, WMDT).
Chester and Berks County PA - cable gives Philly along with WGAL 8(NBC) Lancaster.
Lancaster County PA - cable carries both Harrisburg/Lancaster and Philly
Howard, Anne Arundel, Carroll - cable carries both DC and Baltimore

The new HDTV recording DirecTivo model to be available next year, should be able to integrate over the air, and satellite local into local. This could alleviate those in between city customers (like Trenton NJ customers in between Philly and NYC), who are used to seeing both nearby cities television stations, like how the digital cable EPG may include.

The problem though still remains. TV stations wont provide much service (in terms of news, etc.) to counties that are out of DMA, when laws like SHVIA prevent the stations from claiming those homes.

Ocean County will get a subpar television service compared to Mercer County (within Philly DMA). Even though Philly stations send a Grade B signal there and are on cable there, Philly wont cover them much (unless a big news segment like a forest fire), and NYC stations arent going to cover them either because of distance. NYC stations are paltry when it comes to NJ coverage (and CT coverage). NJ legislators have fought for stations in the state, and better news here/ Fairfield County, CT residents get screwed the same way. The New Haven/Hartford stations wont cover Fairfield County to the same extent as they would New Haven County because of the DMA issue.


----------



## CrankyYankee (Feb 19, 2003)

Any cable company that is thinking of putting its service into a new area is going to do a survey to see how many "houses per mile" there are and how many of those houses have some kind of a dish in place.

Cable, just like satellite, wants to gets its money back for the start-up of a new customer, and begin making money just as soon as possible.

They budget for the "build" of a new system.

Then, when the cable ends going down a street or road, that's usually "it" for a long while before that line is extended.

That's when somebody builds a house two phone poles away from the end-of-the-line and wants cable and is told "sorry".

Does everyone realize that cable companies must pay "pole rent" for the honor of hanging their wires on phone poles? Plus, there may be more than one power company that services an area, and negotiations between each company must be hashed out to set what the "pole rent" rates will be.

Cable companies also must add stations that qualify for local carry, even when the picture looks less than swell, but qualifies with enough signal strength at the headend receive location.


----------



## paulh (Mar 17, 2003)

If you want broadband, and have a line of site to someone with broadband available, then I've heard of people paying the "lucky" neighbor for his cable modem service(the neighbor's perk), then setting up a modified wireless LAN (i.e. better antennas) to receive the service at the "unlucky" house. There's even info on the web about people using old Primestar dishes to send wireless LAN up to 10 miles if LOS is available.

Technically, the "lucky" house would need a business class service (usually only available with DSL) to be fully legal, though.


----------



## Mike Richardson (Jun 12, 2003)

Bogy said:


> Yep. Blessing or curse? When locals were added in St. Louis it was a convenience for me to have them available on the guide, but it wasn't a necessity for me. I was living on top of the 2nd highest point in St. Louis County. Receiving OTA was not a problem. But obviously it was for many. Whether adding locals was a good move can still be debated, but from the standpoint of the DBS providers its strongest selling point was that it took a point of criticism away from the Cable Companies. Of course, most cable companies never charged you extra to get your local channels.


Cable charges for locals are buried deep in the package: At TWC Houston, locals really cost $13.60, http://www.twchouston.com/cable/packages2002.html#digital2

You MUST have locals with every other package. MUST. At least DBS lets you take them off.

DISH Network locals are $5.99 and if that's all you buy then $5 access fee comes out to $10.99. Now if all I wanted was locals I'd probably go OTA but if you want a guide or something then DISH for locals is pretty good. (oh, BTW, cable's locals only package has no guide or payperview or any of that. oh well.)


----------



## dtcarson (Jan 10, 2003)

Mike Richardson said:


> Cable charges for locals are buried deep in the package: At TWC Houston, locals really cost $13.60, http://www.twchouston.com/cable/packages2002.html#digital2
> 
> You MUST have locals with every other package. MUST. At least DBS lets you take them off.
> 
> DISH Network locals are $5.99 and if that's all you buy then $5 access fee comes out to $10.99. Now if all I wanted was locals I'd probably go OTA but if you want a guide or something then DISH for locals is pretty good. (oh, BTW, cable's locals only package has no guide or payperview or any of that. oh well.)


Gotta love the fine print--again, one of Cable's forte's.
Digital Basic, for instance, runs 39.99/month, for basic/standard, digital basic, 'access to ppv' [whoopee], music, and the IPG....But--"Price does not include digital set-top box and remote control, 7$/month per digital outlet." Pretty sneaky. That's like saying Here's a nice new car for only 14k. Steering wheel, however, is an extra 15k. And their HDTV converter is an add'l 7$/month, which may or may not be added onto the other box fee. And a 49.95 install fee, even though it should just be able to use the existing digital lines, shouldn't it?


----------



## dtcarson (Jan 10, 2003)

Nothing like a price hike...
Just got my first cable bill--total bill, 326.19, but that is for 10/28-01/11, and includes a wall fish as part of the install. We had paid 142 at the install, so that got applied.
On the back is nice little note:
"We understand the need to keep our prices competitivewhile offering the best possible choice, service, and value." And then proceed to jack up costs on almost everything.
A few new channel arrangements, for channels I've never heard of [Tennis Channel and Fuel, and Home shopping/QVC moving to basic, whoopee.]
Breakdown:
what was will be in 2004
Standard combo 82.95 86.95
digital combo 92.95 95.95
premium combo 102.95 107.90
etc etc
remote control .35 .34 [wow! thanks!]
digital cable box 6.60 7.61
And more of the same, the only thing that went down is
Digital Extra went from 2.50 to .50, but they also took 2 channels away from it.
When you charge me 7.61 for a digital box, and an add'l 6.95 for the DVR service on the same box, you can stop bragging about 'no mirror fees.'
Customer service, however, seems to be good--I usually don't usethem much, but I called about a ~30 install charge that I didn't think should be on there; before we were done talking, I lost my phone connection and he called back and left a message saying he took it off and to 'please call if I can help you any further.' Now to call back and see about this 11.95 for The Erotic Network block that I didn't order...


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

dtcarson, thanks for making me feel even better about my cable company.


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

When you do a LOS with a PrimeStar dish to receive/transmit a signal with a distance of up to 10 miles, what kind of speed do you get on the receiving end with a 2 MB connection from the sending end? How far can you transmit that type of signal and what are the costs of sending a signal a long distance?


----------



## paulh (Mar 17, 2003)

Here's the article I saw about using the Primestar dish:
http://www.wwc.edu/~frohro/Airport/Primestar/Primestar.html
(The Mac Airport wireless hub is just an 802.11 device at 2.5 GHz)

A link in there to the Cornell prof got a 24Mbps connection at 1000 feet, so I do not think you'd really slow down a typical broadband Internet connection.

The beauty of the Primestar type solution, is you are using standard 802.11 equipment (you just need to be able to connect an external antenna, which may not be possible with all wireless access points/router/etc.). You are not amplifying the (free!) 2.5 GHz signal, just using the physics of parabolic concentration, thus there is no airtime fees / costs. Your only running cost is the minimal electricity needed to operate a standard wireless router / WAP.


----------



## DS0816 (Mar 29, 2002)

The cable system in one's area -- some actually have more than one (mine does) -- is a determining factor in whether to go with cable or satellite. I'm in the Detroit area, where Comcast is dominant, and there is a second choice with Wide Open West. But I prefer cable not for programming -- satellite feels superior -- but for Internet service.

Broadband issues aside, there's no denying people want more bang for their buck. For example, I have an aunt in Fort Collins, Colorado -- part of Denver DMA -- and she's with Comcast (she used to be serviced by AT&T which was bought by Comcast just like AT&T bought out, a few years earlier, TCI). I'm in area with an analog cable system that's on fiber-optic wiring. Comcast has between 55 and 60 non-premium cable channels on its system in my area, while WOW has 60 (two or three wasted on beyond-reasonable home-shopping channels). We have a system with, say, 83 individual channels (a few more than that with WOW, actually). Compared to my aunt, well Detroit has it better from Comcast than Fort Collins. Her area's cable system has 66 individual channels (a little over 40 of which are non-premiums; her older system does not generate analog-level programming services such as HGTV and The History Channel).

My aunt pays the same amount, pretty much, for her [analog] cable: $35-plus, per month. That, in my opinion, is a rip-off, because she is not getting a lot for the monthly fee she pays. (Comcast has been heavily promoting its digital cable roster, including miscellaneous and rental fees; it will not upgrade its analog system with fiber optics and is still on copper wiring.) My aunt is an individual who may be more satisfied dumping her cable provider and opting for one of the minidish companies: Echostar's Dish Network or Hughes Electronics' DirecTV. Whichever one is a personal choice for her, but she and I have talked about it -- but she's also one who thinks getting it all set up (she lives in a condo but not one that is a part of an historical area) is more complicated than it actually is :nono2:.

So this whole thing with cable vs. satellite still comes down to personal choice. It depends on what your after. And it also hinges on whether you're concerned about expenditures and/or other conveniences.


----------



## thebigjp (Jan 21, 2003)

for some strange reason i feel this thread deserves being reintroduced... BUMPING


----------



## ypsiguy (Jan 28, 2004)

I have Comcrap and the PQ is definitely worse than Dish. Therefore, for TV service I go with Dish. I will soon give Comcrap a shot on broadband service. That is one thing that they do have over satellite, no 2-3 second latency and cheaper startup cost.


----------



## cclement (Mar 22, 2004)

I have had Dish since '99. Last April I tried Comcast's Digital and broadband service Package. The cable was terrible, the PQ was very poor, I cancelled the cable the next day and hooked my Dish back up. Hoever, the broadband modem is the greatest! I would not trade the cable broadband for anything! I'll give Comcast a thumb's up for broadband.


----------



## Mike Richardson (Jun 12, 2003)

If you are in a Time Warner area like myself then you are lucky, you can get Earthlink Cable modem for only $42/mo, you don't have to have cable TV at all. So we get a Time Warner bill each month for $42 for our Earthlink Cable Modem. The RoadRunner modem would be $50 (without cable TV, $45 with analog and $40 with digital) and DSL would be $45 for poorer service so it's a great deal.

Even if we had digital cable and got the $40 roadrunner the price of having digital receivers in all the rooms would still exceed the cost of AEP and 3 receivers. Time Warner doesn't even have a DVR.


----------



## hax0r (Aug 10, 2002)

Bogy said:


> Well, there is the myth the DBS companies keep pushing that they are all digital, all the time.


Hmm... Sounds more like the "Digital Cable" myth (i.e. when you subscribe to "Digital" Cable, you think all of your channels are going to be digitally transmitted; what the cable company doesn't tell you is that only a few channels are actually digital; the rest, including most of the ones you want, are still analog and full of noise and interference).


----------



## hax0r (Aug 10, 2002)

waydwolf said:


> And I've NEVER seen ANY cable system with overcompressed MPEG-2 streams. EVER. And my system hasn't even gone from 64QAM to 256QAM yet.


Forgive me if my sarcasm detector is on the blink, but surely you can't be serious?

I had Comcast Digital Cable for a few days. I cancelled it because 1) most of the channels were still analog (and full of snow and herringbone), and 2) the channels that were digital had lots of glitches and visible compression artifacts, MUCH worse than anything I've ever seen on Dish Network.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

hax0r said:


> Hmm... Sounds more like the "Digital Cable" myth (i.e. when you subscribe to "Digital" Cable, you think all of your channels are going to be digitally transmitted; what the cable company doesn't tell you is that only a few channels are actually digital; the rest, including most of the ones you want, are still analog and full of noise and interference).


My cable company makes it very clear which channels are analog and which are digital. They make it part of their marketing that you will be able to watch the analog channels on any tv in the house. As far as the analog channels being full of noise and interference, the signal supplied by my digital boxes have a very comparable signal on ALL channels, which is very good, depending upon the quality of the signal they are sending. Only my old Primestar dish possibly provided better quality.


----------



## ypsiguy (Jan 28, 2004)

hax0r said:


> Forgive me if my sarcasm detector is on the blink, but surely you can't be serious?
> 
> I had Comcast Digital Cable for a few days. I cancelled it because 1) most of the channels were still analog (and full of snow and herringbone), and 2) the channels that were digital had lots of glitches and visible compression artifacts, MUCH worse than anything I've ever seen on Dish Network.


Sounds like my local Comcrap cable. It's grainy, snowy and has regular interference problems. I had their "digital" for a bit. Nat Geographic channel was so badly pixelated it was unwatchable. I still have them for lifeline basic (for OTA channels) and not much has changed.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Bogy said:


> My cable company makes it very clear which channels are analog and which are digital. . . .


There is always *one* good system. 

JL


----------

