how-to block ads
|
rds24a
Teach Your Children
Premium
join:2000-12-13
Springboro, OH
clubs:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Maybe its because digital cable sucks? Add in:
* You can't program out the shopping channels, advertising channels, etc. from the flipper rotation on the cable box.
* I already have 75 channels....how the &^(*&^@ many channels do you think I need?
* What used to be unnoticeable static on the old analog system becomes video stalls and loud audio screeches on the less-than-perfect cable signal (which TWC classifies as "within normal operating parameters").
Perhaps if they let me pick and choose which channels I want, then it might be worth messing with the box and the price. If I could drop the 20 channels of QVC in favor of Speed and the Fox Sports Nets, I might think about it....
--
»www.brittanyrescue.org | |
|  
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Maybe its because digital cable sucks? said by rds24a  :
* You can't program out the shopping channels, advertising channels, etc. from the flipper rotation on the cable box.
A friend of mine has DirecTV and he has a small group of "favorite channels" set up that he can jump to directly from the remote... I think its pretty cool. I stick with basic cable because for the number of watched TVs we have in the house, its actually worth the money (of course I've split the connection into oblivion, but that's a whole different story).
The major thing for me though is the necessity of a second remote. I can't explain to people how much I hate this. When I want to watch TV, I don't want to fumble through a bunch of remotes, and I don't want to use a universal remote that lacks the functionality of the original remote, I just want to sit down and watch TV. I do enough "rocket science" at work, I don't need to do it at home.
--
Pissed off at traitorous, ungrateful musicians? Don't just boycott them! Trade their MP3s and really screw them over! And don't forget, 2 out of 3 human shields agree! Saddam really is evil!
[text was edited by author 2003-03-31 09:46:58] | |
| | vfpguy
Alias Dotnetguy
join:2001-07-21
Wayne, NJ
| Re: Maybe its because digital cable sucks? I switched to digital cable because Cablevision was getting ready to add the Yankees and was going to switch the New York sports channels from family to premium. I was also able to get HBO without having to use a box and CV was getting ready to change that too. After doing all the math it was a toss-up between DirecTV and digital cable and a satellite install for me would definitely have been non-standard.
After I did the install I discovered that my HT remote wouldn't talk to the cable box and the cable box's remote wouldn't talk to the HT or the TV. Spent about $80 for a Sony programmable, learning remote. Now one button turns on the TV, cable box, and receiver and tunes to the news channel. Of course, I get off on the rocket science stuff.
--
"...a great, serene and peaceful future can slip from us quite as irrevocably by neglect, division and inaction, as by spectacular disaster." -- H. Truman, 6/21/56 | |
| 
footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| said by rds24a :
Perhaps if they let me pick and choose which channels I want, then it might be worth messing with the box and the price. If I could drop the 20 channels of QVC in favor of Speed and the Fox Sports Nets, I might think about it....
I've always wondered about that. How about creating an ala carte system where you can pay maybe fifty cents a month for whatever channels you want? For providers that force channel bundles, just offer them as a bundle. Maybe the ESPN channels could all come together for five bucks a month? Certainly the hurdle to creating that kind of TV service can't be the technology. Anyone know why there's no provider anywhere that's doing that? | |
| | vfpguy
Alias Dotnetguy
join:2001-07-21
Wayne, NJ
| Re: Maybe its because digital cable sucks? Because then no one (or very few) would subscribe to channels like Oxygen, We, ABCFamily, etc. If a cable company wants to provide ESPN or Disney, they have to take the 'lesser' channels as well.
--
"...a great, serene and peaceful future can slip from us quite as irrevocably by neglect, division and inaction, as by spectacular disaster." -- H. Truman, 6/21/56 | |
| | |
footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| Re: Maybe its because digital cable sucks? said by vfpguy :
Because then no one (or very few) would subscribe to channels like Oxygen, We, ABCFamily, etc. If a cable company wants to provide ESPN or Disney, they have to take the 'lesser' channels as well.
Agreed, but why does the cable or satellite company care what channels I watch, as long as I'm paying them? | |
| | | | vfpguy
Alias Dotnetguy
join:2001-07-21
Wayne, NJ
| Re: Maybe its because digital cable sucks? They care for advertising rates. The cable companies can charge more for advertising if they can guarantee a certain viewership number and the channel provider can charge more for network advertising.
--
"...a great, serene and peaceful future can slip from us quite as irrevocably by neglect, division and inaction, as by spectacular disaster." -- H. Truman, 6/21/56 | |
| | | |
|
