Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cable Industry Responds Regarding HD TiVo Problems

Posted by samzenpus on from the just-wrap-some-duct-tape-on-it dept.

Lauren Weinstein writes "The day after the issue of cable system incompatibilities with the new HD TiVo and similar devices was discussed on Slashdot, the cable television industry has responded with a workaround proposal in a new FCC filing, though key issues remain to be fully resolved."

7 of 91 comments (clear)

  1. IANAL but by dreamchaser · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wonder if there are grounds for a Class Action lawsuit, the Class being everyone who has had any problems using a third party box with their cable?

    1. Re:IANAL but by mh1997 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wonder if there are grounds for a Class Action lawsuit, the Class being everyone who has had any problems using a third party box with their cable?
      Yes, a class action lawsuit is just what is needed here. A law firm getting millions of dollars while the chumps that signed on for the lawsuit get a coupon for $5 off their next cable purchase.

      My favorite tech related class action lawsuit was against Iomega where Iomega agreed to pay legal expenses of at least $650,000 while the losers that signed up for the lawsuit got product discount offers, free dedicated technical support. Oh yeah, Iomega also paid a $1,000,000 charitable donation to someone but I didn't feel like researching the recipient.

  2. Open letter to the NCTA by ivan256 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In its comments to the FCC Friday, the NCTA opposed the CEA's proposal, saying it would "strip away the most exciting interactive services and features that distinguishes [sic] cable from its competitors."


    Dear Cable Companies,

    Features which are implemented in a set-top-box are not features of your network. You do not have some "right" to charge for features implemented in a device that is attached to your network unless that device is: A) Creating traffic on your network, and B) you charge the customer per unit traffic. Your proposal would strip away the most exciting services (the ability to pay once for things your company charges a recurring fee for) and features (the ability to skip commercials, and other crap that you haven't thought of) that distinguish the makers of competing set-top-boxes from you and each other.

    Nobody with more than half a brain is fooled into thinking you have anybodies best interests but your own in mind, but the FCC's job is to look after the public's interest, not yours.

    Love,
    Your reluctant, but trapped, customers
  3. Re:Are cable companies trying to be cell carriers? by edmicman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just like a cable modem allows you to steal cable Internet access? I can buy my own modem and not have to pay the lease fee from the cable co, but they still have to authorize it and provide access. Why should the TV aspect of it (cablecard) be any different?

  4. Re:Blog promotion sucks. by jlarocco · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Umm... The article isn't much better.

    Linking to the original article isn't done for quality. It's done because blogging tards don't deserve credit for ripping off other people's work.

    --
    Maybe not
  5. Re:One Post to Clarify Many by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Sure. And someone could have come and competed with Standard Oil, if they'd just had the money to drill enough holes in the ground.

    There are many kinds of monopolies. Infrastructure is usually considered a "natural" monopoly, in that it doesn't make sense to have a hundred power lines (for an actual, historical example) running to each home. However, since a market can't function under a monopoly, we have to replace market regulation with government regulation.

    So yes, cable is a (local) monopoly, under the legal definition. That's why the franchise agreements exist--they're the local government regulation that are supposed to prevent abusive practices. That someone with big pockets like AT&T (with existing physical plant) or Verizon (with FiOS) could one day compete changes nothing. 99% of consumers still have no choice in the matter.

  6. Re:One Post to Clarify Many by SillyNickName · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Third, and slightly off topic, but the word monopoly irks me to no end; somebody said cable companies are monopolies. Strictly speaking - WRONG! Cable companies have to sign franchise agreements with every city, and may be fined, or even kicked out for violating those agreements. However ANY company is free to come in and compete. Verizon FIOS and AT&T are doing just this. DirectTV is there with Satellite.
    In most places only one company has the legal right to use the required right-of-ways to operate a cable system. The idea that just ANY company is free to come in install their own system is just not true and anyone foolish enough to try such a stunt would be arrested and taken away. This constitutes a government protected monopoly, NOT free competition. Strictly speaking.

    Yeah, other companies compete indirectly, but then again all companies indirectly compete with each other for the same dollar. That still doesn't mean that there are no such things as monopolies.