Cable Industry Responds Regarding HD TiVo Problems

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."

Comments

IANAL but

[dreamchaser]

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?

Re:IANAL but

[mh1997]

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.

Open letter to the NCTA

[ivan256]

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

Re:Are cable companies trying to be cell carriers?

[edmicman]

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?

Re:Blog promotion sucks.

[jlarocco]

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.

Re:One Post to Clarify Many

[SillyNickName]

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.