you don't have to vote for them,

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Jan 29, 2016 8:27 am

but, if you could at least realize they do good things, it would be a start:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fcc ... 4e3703b26e

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Jan 29, 2016 9:10 am

Shooting your load a little early? The vote isn’t till Feb 18th.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Jan 29, 2016 9:53 am

my point is that Bernie, and others, actually work for the people of the nation. Not a load of mealy-mouth lip service, nor plans to further enrich the wealthy disguised with BS about 'job creation', actually trying to save the people some bucks. That is what regulation of commerce is, or ought to be, about. Further worth noting is that Bernie is doing this work AND managing to run a Presidential campaign at once. Marco, Ted?

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Jan 29, 2016 2:11 pm

Yea, sounds real good on the surface, but let me explain what will probably happen if this little bit of liberal feel good goes into effect.

You will probably continue to pay just as much for your service…but actually receive less support.

Let me explain how that works:

Number 1: The content providers will find a way to make up for the lost revenue by adding a little here and a little there to their other services.

Number 2: Your content provider will no longer have to provide support for third party hardware that they don’t sell or rent, that means…when you call your provider if you have a problem…guess what….they are going to tell you there is a problem with your STB and you will have to go to the seller or the manufacturer for support, it will also mean that you won’t get hardware or software updates from the content provider.

The precedent for not requiring utilities to provide third party hardware/software support was set decades ago. But if the FCC breaks precedent and requires the providers to support third party hardware/software, then you will simply see your monthly rental fee turn into a maintenance fee, because there is no way the provider will support third party hardware/software without compensation.

So you better buy a real frackin high quality STB with plenty of factory support.

So what you have here is basically consumer choice, which is seen as a good thing, except we have a country full of uneducated consumers, and if the liberals screw things up for the consumer, you won’t hear a peep out of anybody, except maybe “well we tried” and since most if not all watch groups are liberal, you won’t hear a peep from them either.

It will just quietly become the new normal, and at some point in the future liberals will figure out a way to blame business or Republicans…

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Tue Feb 02, 2016 12:22 pm

Hm. I currently already use a third-party solution rather than my cable company's set-top-box.

I use a networked CableCard tuner to create my own distributed 6-channel-distributed-HD-DVR system at home. It saves me at least $30-40/month, although I have to do all my own support, and it required some up-front expenditure when I set it up.

What's interesting, and what seems to contradict the article above, is that my cable company actually encourages the use of third-party CableCard tuners (they give me a discount for using one).

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Feb 02, 2016 12:38 pm

Foil wrote:Hm. I currently already use a third-party solution rather than my cable company's set-top-box.

perhaps a regional thing. One cannot do that with the providers in this area(Delaware valley) that I'm aware of. Thanks for the insights.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Tue Feb 02, 2016 12:51 pm

It's across the U.S., as far as I know. According to Wiki, the FCC requires U.S. cable companies to support CableCard 2.0. Cable companies challenged this, but it went into effect in 2007.

As to whether or not it ended up encouraging competition and innovation, I'm not sure. There are a number of third-party CableCard products out there, but it's still a small niche market.

Do you have a link to the details about this newest proposal?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Feb 02, 2016 1:28 pm

nothing to update the original article, Foil. Now, does yours work with traditional cable AND fiber optic? Out here, it's ALL fiber optic. I have friends in CT with old-school cable technology(Charter, a horrible provider). I'll ask them what the deal is up there.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Tue Feb 02, 2016 2:10 pm

My setup uses traditional cable, but that's more than enough to run six simultaneous HD channels (distributed around my home), which is more than the set-top-boxes from my provider offer.

[ Update: Took a moment to find, but here's a summary of the new FCC proposal. Looks like a software-based replacement for the CableCard system. ]

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Feb 02, 2016 2:20 pm

we don't even have the OPTION here, anymore, to have access to traditional cable, HD or otherwise. Fiber optic is mandated and the market is limited to two providers(Comcast and Verizon). My friends in CT(rural, eastern part of state) have ONLY one cable option, and, as I noted, it is a dreadful one.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Feb 02, 2016 2:47 pm

I didn’t see anything in that letter requiring content providers to support third party software/hardware, so pretty much what I pointed out in my above posts still stands.

Foil...the pdf says this...

"for software, devices and other innovative solutions to compete"

So I would have to assume, they are talking about software and hardware.

In case you missed that. And thanks for the info.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:20 pm

I also have a question…when will the consumer information pamphlet arrive after you get all of this new choice, so we can all be sure to make the right choices.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Tue Feb 02, 2016 7:23 pm

Good to see that the prices might actually be lowered for consumers. 185% is just hilariously absurd. No wonder services like Netflix scare the absolute crap out of cable companies.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Tue Feb 02, 2016 8:40 pm

Spidey wrote:I also have a question…when will the consumer information pamphlet arrive after you get all of this new choice, so we can all be sure to make the right choices.

Ha. If it's anything like CableCard, which was essentially the previous iteration of the "open standard to encourage competition", there will never be any such thing.

It will be up to the third-party companies to advertise, and users will typically have to manage their own support (which includes, among other things, techs who show up at the house, but don't know anything about how the third-party systems work).

[Edit: To clarify my position here, I'm generally supportive of the proposal, as it provides some leverage against anti-competitive practices in that market. And I like the idea of being able to run some of these services on my own platforms at home. But based on my experience with CableCard I'm very skeptical about the end results being anything like the consumer savings the advocates are claiming.]

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Feb 03, 2016 9:33 am

callmeslick wrote:nothing to update the original article, Foil. Now, does yours work with traditional cable AND fiber optic? Out here, it's ALL fiber optic. I have friends in CT with old-school cable technology(Charter, a horrible provider). I'll ask them what the deal is up there.

I have Charter here in MI and I have no problem with it. So why is it horrible where you are at?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Feb 03, 2016 10:10 am

they are not here, Woody. They are in rural Connectict, and I have heard so many complaints about dropping programming, bad internet, etc from everyone there as to figure it was a corporate failing. Perhaps, it is a function of lack of competition in that market.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:13 pm

My fiber to the house internet has disconnected less in the last year than the Charter cable disconnected in the average day. If there was real competition in the broadband markets in America, I bet you wouldn't see as much lazing around on such century old technology.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:30 pm

Krom wrote:My fiber to the house internet has disconnected less in the last year than the Charter cable disconnected in the average day. If there was real competition in the broadband markets in America, I bet you wouldn't see as much lazing around on such century old technology.

But Krom, it costs money, that these companies don't want to spend, to put in all that infrastructure. They'd rather sell you the content on their crappy old antiquated hardware that barely works, when it works at all. Tough sh*t about the speed and reliability.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:44 pm

Don't know where you are at but I game a fair bit online (currently into WOT) and one of my comp. stays connected to the internet all day long. Charter doesn't seem to ever drop or disconnect.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:45 pm

You aren't stuck with either Comcast or Century Link.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:51 pm

Thankfully no

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Wed Feb 03, 2016 5:15 pm

You can come out here and try out our crappy internet if you want to see what it's like to be beholden to what your cherished private enterprise sticks people with.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Wed Feb 03, 2016 7:50 pm

woodchip wrote:Don't know where you are at but I game a fair bit online (currently into WOT) and one of my comp. stays connected to the internet all day long. Charter doesn't seem to ever drop or disconnect.

Look at your cable modem logs for T3 or T4 timeouts, either one will disconnect all active internet sessions even if it only takes 15-30 seconds for the modem to reboot and reestablish connectivity. Used to get those once or twice a day, and there was nothing anyone could do about it, was just a fault letting noise in somewhere in the massive system of cables throughout town that would be impossible to track down.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Wed Feb 03, 2016 8:26 pm

I know a lot of people ★■◆● about Comcast, but my internet connection has been pretty stellar, at a location with few options. It's a bit expensive, but they've kicked up the speed a couple times without raising the bill. I think I started out at 25/5, and they kicked it up to 50/5 and then 75/5 for ~$70/mo.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Thu Feb 04, 2016 6:38 am

no real beef with Comcast here. Don't really do games myself anymore, but others in the house do, and with the grandkids' little tablets, a bunch of devices running at once.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Thu Feb 04, 2016 8:10 am

People rag on Comcast here in Philadelphia all of the time.

The pattern I can see forming just from these few posts is…the problems are probably regional, due to regional issues, rather than company issues, per se.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Feb 19, 2016 4:46 pm

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news ... /80551100/

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Fri Feb 19, 2016 5:11 pm

Another source: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/18 ... ox_ripoff/

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Fri Feb 19, 2016 5:21 pm

You just know that Comcast will figure out a way now to shove pop-up offers on your TV screen for their cable boxes if you go out and purchase a third party box and ditch theirs. They already throw pop-ups in the middle of people's browsing sessions in an effort to upsell them to a new Xfinity modem to those who own third party modems.

http://www.engadget.com/2016/01/12/comc ... em-upsell/

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Feb 19, 2016 5:54 pm

TC, use Mozzella firefox, disable pop-ups...problem solved.

you don't have to vote for them,

you don't have to vote for them,

Re: you don't have to vote for them,

Re: you don't have to vote for them,

Re: you don't have to vote for them,

Re: you don't have to vote for them,

Re: you don't have to vote for them,

Re: you don't have to vote for them,

Re: you don't have to vote for them,

Re: you don't have to vote for them,

Re: you don't have to vote for them,

Re: you don't have to vote for them,

Re: you don't have to vote for them,

Re: you don't have to vote for them,

Re: you don't have to vote for them,

Re: you don't have to vote for them,

Re: you don't have to vote for them,

Re: you don't have to vote for them,

Re: you don't have to vote for them,

Re: you don't have to vote for them,

Re: you don't have to vote for them,

Re: you don't have to vote for them,

Re: you don't have to vote for them,

Re: you don't have to vote for them,

Re: you don't have to vote for them,

Re: you don't have to vote for them,

Re: you don't have to vote for them,

Re: you don't have to vote for them,

Re: you don't have to vote for them,

Re: you don't have to vote for them,

Re: you don't have to vote for them,