cable or dish

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Praetor

Originally posted by: Dari
EDIT: It's another reason why the gov't wants everyone to go HDTV. That way, it will free all the frequencies and they can license those frequencies (and make huge sums of money).

EDIT2: It may not be law, but I think it's at least an FCC ruling.

So basically, you were talking out of your ass because you don't know.

Law or FCC ruling, that's what all cable companies have to abide by. Can you honestly tell me that your company has NO UNSCRAMBLED CHANNELS? If not, do you think they have those unscrambled channels out of the goodness of their heart or because they are required to? Do some homework before you make an ass out of yourself.

 

[Praetor]

Oh, and this might be a bit of an interesting read for you, it points out links to the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

An interesting read all around. I went through it when it was first published way back when.

 

[Praetor]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Praetor

Originally posted by: Dari
EDIT: It's another reason why the gov't wants everyone to go HDTV. That way, it will free all the frequencies and they can license those frequencies (and make huge sums of money).

EDIT2: It may not be law, but I think it's at least an FCC ruling.

So basically, you were talking out of your ass because you don't know.

Law or FCC ruling, that's what all cable companies have to abide by. Can you honestly tell me that your company has NO UNSCRAMBLED CHANNELS? If not, do you think they have those unscrambled channels out of the goodness of their heart or because they are required to? Do some homework before you make an ass out of yourself.

We are not arguing about unscambled channels. The arguement is whether or not the companies must provide at no charge access to the redistribuited off-air channels.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Praetor
Just a little bit of info....

The 1992 Cable Act established a process whereby cable equipment and "basic" tier cable rates would be subject to regulation by state and municipal governments in those areas where effective competitive was absent. For regulatory purposes, basic tier service includes broadcast signals, local public, educational, and government access channels and other services the system operator chooses to include in the same package with these channels. Basic tier service is typically the lowest price tier of service that all subscribers receive. The cable programming service tier, includes all video programming distributed over a system that is not on the basic service tier. It is this cable programming service tier that will no longer be subject to regulation after March 31, 1999. The Commission will continue to process complaints regarding service offered prior to March 31, 1999.

Stupid, that said AFTER March 31, 1999. Now, what cable company that has offered such service for over 40 years going to backtrack? Furthermore, as I've stated earlier, it is not illegal for him to run the cable himself (if he has RR). He mus at least have some type of cable service in his apartment. Every direct connection after that is free. Finally, he is only charged a monthly fee for the direct connection IF the cable was installed by a technician. EDIT: That makes it eligible for service (which is almost always free).

 

[Dari]

And the stuff about HDTV is true because the gov't wants all it frequency licenses back so that it can re-sell them at a much higher price (for something else). Since HDTV is the future, and since people won't get most of their viewing via over-the-air channels, the sees dollar signs when the FCC tells everyone (from tv makers to broadcasters) to have HDTV mostly in place by 2005 (or 2007, I forget).

 

[Praetor]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Praetor
Just a little bit of info....

The 1992 Cable Act established a process whereby cable equipment and "basic" tier cable rates would be subject to regulation by state and municipal governments in those areas where effective competitive was absent. For regulatory purposes, basic tier service includes broadcast signals, local public, educational, and government access channels and other services the system operator chooses to include in the same package with these channels. Basic tier service is typically the lowest price tier of service that all subscribers receive. The cable programming service tier, includes all video programming distributed over a system that is not on the basic service tier. It is this cable programming service tier that will no longer be subject to regulation after March 31, 1999. The Commission will continue to process complaints regarding service offered prior to March 31, 1999.

Stupid, that said AFTER March 31, 1999. Now, what cable company that has offered such service for over 40 years going to backtrack?

That quote was used to emphasize the FCC's definition of "basic" tiers, and it clearly states that it is only working on previous reported complaints. Where's this talk of 40 years coming from?

Furthermore, as I've stated earlier, it is not illegal for him to run the cable himself (if he has RR).

Where'd you mention anything about running your own cable? And again, this argument is soley about having to pay for basic channels.

He mus at least have some type of cable service in his apartment. Every direct connection after that is free. Finally, he is only charged a monthly fee for the direct connection IF the cable was installed by a technician. EDIT: That makes it eligible for service (which is almost always free).

Right. And here we go. He wasn't paying for video, only internet access. Prior to this, he was getting the video side due to slow roll-out of the video traps, an error on the installer's part, whatever. He wasn't paying for it.

We're not discussing individual companies' policies regarding pricing structure for outlets and costs of service. Let me quote myself here:

We are not arguing about unscambled channels. The arguement is whether or not the companies must provide at no charge access to the redistribuited off-air channels.

 

[Praetor]

Originally posted by: Dari
And the stuff about HDTV is true because the gov't wants all it frequency licenses back so that it can re-sell them at a much higher price (for something else). Since HDTV is the future, and since people won't get most of their viewing via over-the-air channels, the sees dollar signs when the FCC tells everyone (from tv makers to broadcasters) to have HDTV mostly in place by 2005 (or 2007, I forget).

I believe that it is supposed to be 2006, but with all the issues that they've been having regarding HDTV roll-out, who can be sure anymore?

 

[Emveach]

damn....all I wanted to know was which was better, cable or dish.........jeesh

 

[Praetor]

Originally posted by: Emveach
damn....all I wanted to know was which was better, cable or dish.........jeesh

Heh. 😛

There have been a few threads detailing the pros/cons of each, I posted in one such thread.

 

[Insane3D]

I may be wrong here, but while the channels themselves must be free, they come to you over the cable companies wires and infrastructure, which they should have a right to charge for. If you get it the old fashioned way through rabbit ears, it's free, but otherwise, you should have to pay.

🙂

 

[edfcmc]

back to the original question concerning DSS/cable and rain fade. From what I read on other forums, rain fade isnt really problem if the installer spents the correct amount of time properly aligning the dish. With that being said, I do not know as I live in a pretty sunny place. Here, digital cable sucks and suffers from a considerable amount of outages due to the constant upgrading of the cable network. Cox seems to utlize the highest compression possible so the picture quality looks like crap. Furthermore, Cox charges 53.85 for their four tier digital cable package which in my mind is the equivalent to Directv total choice plus package + 3.85 per digital receiver.
But if you want to see more about rain fade go here:

Link to discussion about rain fade