Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (
More info?)
mattack@gmail.com wrote:
> In article <de39s5$18ui$1@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu>,
> Randy S. <rswitt@NOSPAM.com> wrote:
>
>>Others still offer nothing but analog service ...
>
>
> That's funny, I consider that an advantage. I'm not sure if you're anti-
> analog service, or just the analog services that have outages.
Digital quality is better than analog, I think you'd have a hard time
disputing that, as long as you don't try to bundle in other factors.
> We had a bad signal on some stations for a while, but finally complained,
> especially since the cable modem was also going out sporadically. (I was much
> lazier than I would have been during the main season with more first run
> shows I wanted.) They've since fixed that and I actually now get a better
> analog signal than I ever have.
Well, that's good I suppose, but one of the benefits of digital is the
error correcting. You basically get a perfect signal or none at all.
> I just like the ability for my Tivos and other devices to tune directly
> with no box.
Ahh, now *that's* a different issue. Yes the fact that an SA Tivo can
directly tune analog cable stations is an advantage for now. One that
will hopefully no longer be one, once cablecard 2.0 is stabilized and
Tivo can release a compatible unit. But that really has nothing to do
with picture "quality", does it?
> When the Tivo software comes out for the Comcast DVR, I'll likely try it out,
> since the dual tuner feature is a great plus for me. But there isn't much
> on digital that I'd be willing to pay for. (For years and years and years,
> I was an HBO subscriber with _no box_. That was awesome. I'd probably still
> subscribe to HBO if I could get it without a box.)
An integrated Tivo receuver (like the Directivo) would solve this issue,
as would a cablecard compatible unit. Either would be better than the
status quo.
>>But the sad reality is that they've (the cable companies) have had it so easy
>>for long as an unregulated monopoly,
>
>
> They're not unregulated, at least not in the entire country. Some cities
> switch cable companies every few years.
What does that have to do with being regulated? The cable industry was
deregulated in 1996 (see
http
/uspirg.org/uspirg.asp?id2=10531&id3=USPIRG& ). Cities can switch
companies if they want but there's a lot of inertia involved, plus the
reasons for the local government to choose a cable provider is not the
same as how a single consumer would decide. Since cable was only
relatively recently deregulated, it is fairly easy to contrast the
deregulated industry vs. the regulated one, and the degulated industry
doesn't compare well.
>>One of these days there will be direct competition between the phone
>>companies and the cable companies as they're really is no functional
>>difference between the services that they can provide.
>
>
> Well, today there was news about SBC picking companies to make their DVR
> boxes. I presume you'll only be able to use their box, not have any way to
> decode a plethora of channels onto a regular analog cable to use existing
> Tivos.
Who know, this is *really* early speculation. Maybe they'll standardize
early on, the way cable standardized on DOCSIS cable modems (yes, it
still took a bit for that to settle out). But I'd guess you're probably
correct, at least at first.
>>Speaking of which, does anybody know anyone who's tried the new Wildblue
>>satellite service? I know several folks (including my Father) outside
>>of cable and DSL range, and they can't even get 56K speeds (26.4 Kbps at
>>best). Wildblue still isn't cheap ($50 per month, $300 equipment, $150
>>setup all for 512/128 service), but it's way cheaper then existing sat
>>service. They don't offer it in this area yet.
>
>
> Wow, that's expensive, compared to SBC's $14.95/month for a year for DSL.
> But my house can't get it.
Yep, Sat's expensive. That's why only people who can't get cable or DSL
usually consider it.
Randy S.
Facebook
Twitter