Slashdot Mirror


Time Warner Cable Suspends Broadband Upgrades After Merger (dslreports.com)

Karl Bode, reporting for DSLReport: Time Warner Cable has confirmed that the company has suspended its "Maxx" broadband and TV upgrades while the dust settles from Charter's $79 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks. Time Warner Cable's Maxx upgrades not only deliver faster top speeds up to 300 Mbps, but a notably overhauled improvement to the company's set top box interface. But Time Warner Cable has been telling company support techs and engineers that the upgrades were actually put on hold as of May 26. "[...] All speed increases and customer communications were placed on a temporary hold beginning Thursday, May 26," states the internal communication. "Once the updated launch schedule is determined, updated hub schedules will be posted to KEY and area management will be notified. Customers will continue to receive notification when the new speeds are available in their hubs."

72 comments

  1. A few more mergers by blackomegax · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A few more mergers and they can begin rolling speeds back until netflix is unusable and nobody has any choice on how to consume media.

    1. Re:A few more mergers by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A few more mergers and they can begin rolling speeds back until netflix is unusable and nobody has any choice on how to consume media.

      It really is insane to think that the same companies that supply the pipes can also supply the content.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    2. Re:A few more mergers by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      I have no problem with that as long as they don't actively hamper competition.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    3. Re:A few more mergers by lgw · · Score: 1

      More to the point: a company with a government-granted monopoly to supply the pipe should be forbidden as part of that grant from providing the content. Make last mile a public utility, and Net Neutrality becomes a non-issue.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:A few more mergers by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      The problem with those that supply the infrastructure being allowed to supply content, is that they will always strive to hamper competition, subvert legislation and run that infrastructure as cheap a manner as profitable, to the point of collapse as long as this quarter looks good and the network collapse occurs after they run with the money. The only thing that makes sense to actively limit their activity to network connectivity only by law.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    5. Re:A few more mergers by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Burn the Communist!

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    6. Re:A few more mergers by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      ... nobody has any choice on how to consume media.

      Fuck that piglet-on-the-teat nonsense.

      I'm old-school. I read, or listen to music, or watch video.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    7. Re:A few more mergers by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      You know that none of these companies have a government granted monopoly, right?

    8. Re:A few more mergers by Anguirel · · Score: 1

      Depends on what you consider a monopoly, and where you live. I know in some regions I have lived previously, my low-latency internet options, as allowed by city ordinance, were ADSL (128kbit) from a single company allowed to operate phone lines in the area, or cable service from a single company allowed to operate in the area. My high bandwidth options were satellite (download bandwidth only, as upload would have been via a phone-line modem of some sort through the above-mentioned single phone company allowed to service the region) or cable. If I wanted both low latency and high bandwidth (or high upload bandwidth), there was only a single cable company allowed to offer that service. That sounds suspiciously close to a government granted monopoly (or duopoly, if you prefer).

      --
      ~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
      QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
    9. Re:A few more mergers by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      as allowed by city ordinance, were ADSL (128kbit) from a single company allowed to operate phone lines in the area, or cable service from a single company allowed to operate in the area.

      Monopoly franchises haven't been legal since 1992. If another provider wanted to enter your market, it certainly would be allowed to (subject to reasonable requirements that they show sufficient financing to actually build the network, and agree to the same buildout requirements as the incumbents, i.e. not cream skim only rich areas).

    10. Re:A few more mergers by lgw · · Score: 1

      Most people live someplace that the cable is provided by a cable company with a government-granted monopoly. I was talking about cable companies. What are you talking about?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    11. Re:A few more mergers by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      Most people live someplace that the cable is provided by a cable company with a government-granted monopoly. I was talking about cable companies. What are you talking about?

      There are (virtually) no "government-granted monopolies" for US cable companies (there may be a very few for developments where the HOA is a quasi-gov't).

      If Comcast wanted to start building cable plant in New York City, or Time Warner Cable wanted to build plant and deploy service in Chicago, there's no legal barrier to doing it. There are several providers (RCN being the best known) that have had this (overbuilding) as their business model. It proved to be a terrible business model, but there's no legal barrier to it.

    12. Re:A few more mergers by lgw · · Score: 1

      Say what? Local governments control the right-of-way that cable companies need in order to offer service. In many places, that local government has made a deal with one cable company or another granting them exclusive access. It's corrupt local politics at its finest, and its very common.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    13. Re:A few more mergers by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      Say what? Local governments control the right-of-way that cable companies need in order to offer service. In many places, that local government has made a deal with one cable company or another granting them exclusive access.

      It's not common in the slightest - exclusive deals haven't been legal for over twenty years. Cable companies are natural monopolies, but a new entrant can get pole attachment and RoW usage rights on comparable terms to the incumbent anywhere they want. Of course, they have to agree to the same deal (i.e. pay franchise fee, etc.), but there's no significant legal barrier to cable overbuild. It's an economic barrier.

  2. Merge merge merge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    the bigger you are, the bigger is your dick to ass rape your customers with!

    1. Re:Merge merge merge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn I'm unlucky, the bigger I got the more my dick disappeared.

  3. customer communications by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    were placed on a temporary hold....until we are all fired.

  4. We gotta recount the beans!! by wierd_w · · Score: 2

    OMG! Our beans and their beans got put into a newer, bigger pot! We cant trust those other bean counters, or their balance sheets! We have to recount all the beans!!

    Nevermind the already outstanding obligations we have, or the cost studies conducted showing the upgrade would be fully funded, and would make us money in the long run-- Those could all be lies!!

    We have to recount all the beans, first and foremost, then decide who gets what, and how many! That's what's really important here! Providing promised service comes second! ........

    God I hate corporate culture.

    1. Re:We gotta recount the beans!! by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      Always remember, no matter who gets screwed, senior management and the lawyers always get paid.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:We gotta recount the beans!! by Immerman · · Score: 1

      > and would make us money in the long run-- Those could all be lies!!

      More importantly, those studies were done before the merger, when there was a greater threat of competition. Change one of the base assumptions, and you change the optimal course of action. As for those "obligations", so what? Worst case they get fined a few million bucks for squeezing extra billions out of the market. Like Microsoft's repeated anti-monopoly penalties - until there's a real threat of the cost being greater than the profit, it's just a cost of doing business.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    3. Re:We gotta recount the beans!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Always remember, no matter who gets screwed, senior management and the lawyers always get paid.

      A few judiciously placed bullets could fix that little problem.

    4. Re:We gotta recount the beans!! by bjwest · · Score: 1

      Except for the lawyers. Lawyers always get paid.

      --

      --- Keep the choice with the user..
    5. Re:We gotta recount the beans!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG! Our beans and their beans got put into a newer, bigger pot! We cant trust those other bean counters, or their balance sheets! We have to recount all the beans!!

      Nevermind the already outstanding obligations we have, or the cost studies conducted showing the upgrade would be fully funded, and would make us money in the long run-- Those could all be lies!!

      We have to recount all the beans, first and foremost, then decide who gets what, and how many! That's what's really important here! Providing promised service comes second! ........

      God I hate corporate culture.

      Well, yeah. The VPs and other C?Os must get a huge pay bump for doing absolutely nothing that has to do with the company's success before customers can get a benefit to retain and gain. I was going to switch to Cincinnati Bell Fiber but opted not to because TWC will "have more than 50mbps soon". Why, when I see something that seems too convenient, do I still think it's going to actually happen? Don't answer that, please.

  5. Not News by jratcliffe · · Score: 5, Informative

    Charter management said they'd be doing this back in April. The broadband upgrades are part of a general system upgrade, which includes going all digital for video (freeing up the spectrum that was used for analog video), which requires putting some sort of box on every TV. Time Warner Cable had been using very simple digital-to-analog adapters for this. Charter's being putting a full-fledged digital set top on every TV. So, they're putting the Time Warner rollouts on hold until they can restart the process using the full set tops (i.e. the Charter model).

    1. Re:Not News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TWC required set-top boxes for all regular TV in the past year.

      The boxes cost $X per month, per TV, but don't worry! They're free for the first year!

      And the boxes are slow as hell. Today's youth won't know what "channel surfing" is, because it takes them 1 second per channel change. Hooray 'progress'.

    2. Re:Not News by plover · · Score: 3, Funny

      But your rational, fact-based explanation doesn't match my outrage as to what is obviously a conspiracy theory based on my preconceived notions of anti-competitive behavior! How can I get all paranoid and weird about this now?

      Wait, I know. First, I'll call you a shill, and then post my fanciful rants anyway!

      --
      John
    3. Re:Not News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post is the only useful one on this entire story. Slashdot has gone down the drain with hype and its only value now is from valuable contributors who are few and far between.

    4. Re:Not News by Shatrat · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is true even of over the air digital TV. A digital signal has to buffer to the next I-Frame before it will start playing, and will never change as fast as an old analog TV. TWC might have worse delay than usual depending on their multicast / unicast setup and whether they are using D servers for quick channel change and where those D servers are located.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    5. Re:Not News by ohieaux · · Score: 1

      Here in rural Ohio we still have analog and limited HD on our Time Warner cable. No set top boxes required to get analog. Only if you want premium channels, do you need to have a box. We ditched the box.

      With no OTA channels in here, we're at their mercy. This doesn't sound like a positive development.

      --
      Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.
    6. Re:Not News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Charter management said they'd be doing this back in April.

      Yes, they made it clear that (ex)TWC management and plans and statements would no longer be binding at closing.

      Every company, for any merger/acquisition, will review how the acquired companies scheduled expenditures and commitments fit into the new corporate priorities. To *not* do so would be to demonstrate incompetence.

      As part of (New) Charters approval in at least a few states, they had to commit to 60 (not the MAXX 50) Mbps service within one year for all digital areas (and in NY, they had to commit to providing 300Mbps as an option within a few years). So it might make sense to make sure that what they roll out, and when, aligns with the approvals (plus if they change the MAXX 50's to Spectrum 60's, they show how wonderful the merger is for customers, and how they are meeting their commitments, all of which requires the ability to schedule the spin (I mean, the press release)).

      Of course, Charter pricing is not exactly aligned with the (ex)TWC pricing, but that should not be surprising. Nor should (New) Charter customers be surprised when the pricing does get aligned.

    7. Re:Not News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can (and some tuners do) beat this by having two or more decoders & two or more tuners, the others just follow the adjacent channels. When you push "next" the next frame is pulled from the decoder for the next channel.

      On the other hand, the "youth of today" don't need channel surfing. Why would you "surf" when you can be given a list of possible things you'd want to see next based on your previous behaviour?

    8. Re:Not News by ProzacPatient · · Score: 1

      I am a TWC customer and was forced to switch to these DTV boxes. They're made by Cisco and the interface for them is bare basic and worse than the TV's built-in but now useless QAM tuner, but what really grinds my gears is that I'm forced to lease them if I want to continue to get TV. Wasn't there a landmark case some time ago in the 60's about such practices by AT&T/Bell?

    9. Re:Not News by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Correction - a cost-cutting system not designed for fast channel changes will never change as fast. There's no reason you couldn't preemptively buffer one I-Frame gap worth of signal for the next several channels while channel surfing. Needs a more sophisticated (or multiple) tuners though, plus enough additional memory to hold the buffers.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    10. Re:Not News by djrobxx · · Score: 2

      This is true even of over the air digital TV. A digital signal has to buffer to the next I-Frame before it will start playing, and will never change as fast as an old analog TV. TWC might have worse delay than usual depending on their multicast / unicast setup and whether they are using D servers for quick channel change and where those D servers are located.

      You should check out AT&T U-verse IPTV (sometime before it goes away completely in favor of the DirecTV). They somehow figured out a way to do digital channel changing that's nearly as fast as analog cable. The picture quality wasn't the greatest due to bandwidth limitations, but the channel changing speed was surprisingly impressive, especially since it was having to join multicast streams from external servers.

    11. Re:Not News by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Charter management said they'd be doing this back in April. The broadband upgrades are part of a general system upgrade, which includes going all digital for video (freeing up the spectrum that was used for analog video), which requires putting some sort of box on every TV. Time Warner Cable had been using very simple digital-to-analog adapters for this. Charter's being putting a full-fledged digital set top on every TV. So, they're putting the Time Warner rollouts on hold until they can restart the process using the full set tops (i.e. the Charter model).

      Translation: Your new set-top box will cost three times what it used to.

      Per TV of course, monthly recurring. Don't think for a second they'll let you actually own a fucking thing in the future.

      It's times like this I'm rather glad I cut the cord long ago and enjoy life outside the boob tube.

    12. Re:Not News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One second per channel change is best-case. It can take 3-4 seconds sometimes, presumably it's Java doing its garbage collection. The best thing about trying to surf at analog speeds is when the box gets out of sync with its own stupid self, ending up showing the content of one network while displaying the channel ID of another.

    13. Re:Not News by evilviper · · Score: 1

      There's no reason you couldn't preemptively buffer one I-Frame gap worth of signal for the next several channels while channel surfing.

      There are several dozen reasons why you, in fact, couldn't practically do that.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    14. Re:Not News by evilviper · · Score: 1

      They somehow figured out a way to do digital channel changing that's nearly as fast as analog cable.

      There's nothing complicated about it. You can arbitrarily increase or decrease the GOP size quite easily. Decrease the GOP size and the video will start sooner, but at the expense of requiring a higher bit rate for video. If you want faster channel-surfing, at the expense of lower picture quality, you can have it.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    15. Re:Not News by evilviper · · Score: 1

      And the boxes are slow as hell. Today's youth won't know what "channel surfing" is, because it takes them 1 second per channel change. Hooray 'progress'.

      Today's youth won't know what static is, either. You're acting that that's a bad thing. I only wish I could have hit a button on the TV remote to get a full listing of what shows are on all available channels right now, and coming up for the next several hours...

      Hell, pretty soon kids won't understand what a "TV Channel" or "commercial break" is, either, and that won't be a bad thing at all.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    16. Re:Not News by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Oh? Name one, other than cost.

      In the most wasteful extreme you just build multiple complete tuner/decoder systems into the TV and cycle through them. If the gap between I-FRames is one second, then ten tuners will let you cycle through ten channels per second.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    17. Re:Not News by realcheese · · Score: 1

      In Central New York, we were just forced to get the boxes with the promise that it would free up bandwidth for upgraded internet speeds. The upgrades were supposed to happen in June. It looks like we are double screwed... we get to pay for the boxes after the first year and will probably never see the speed increases...

      We'll see if Spectrum does the right thing or I think i'm headed to FIOS. Just can't stand Verizon...

    18. Re:Not News by Drethon · · Score: 1

      I prefer my TiVo, though it was like pulling teeth to get Charter to give me a cable card that mostly works.

    19. Re:Not News by evilviper · · Score: 1

      You can't "buffer signal" at all.

      You don't just need 10 tuners, you need 10 full decoders running.

      The delay time switching between those multiple tuners would be non-zero.

      You need a decent bit of very fast storage for those 10+ HD channels constantly buffering.

      Picking the 10 channels would be impossible. You're assuming a few above/below, but ignoring Favorites/Customization, channels being keyed in, guide usage, etc.

      Scaling up the decryption modules to 10+ would be extremely difficult. Would require multiple cablecards, which means multiplied monthly fees.

      Content producers would object to extra-contractual and excessive usage of their content.

      Cable companies couldn't prevent 3rd party device manufacturers from utilizing similar features to make bulk-recording DVRs or a single set-top box which feeds multiple TVs different channels.

      This scheme couldn't work at all for less popular channels which are multicast to certain viewers like OnDemand content, instead of broadcast.

      Customers would object to not just the expensive box, but the significantly increased monthly fees, and very high electric bill for these unwanted features.

      The set-top-box would have to be substantially larger to accommodate all of this.

      Support costs would go up dramatically as the complex boxes result in innumerable viewer problems from minor glitches to major freeze-ups.

      But that's just for starters. Once you go deeper into the actual design of such a thing, then it really gets complicated.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    20. Re:Not News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't "buffer signal" at all.

      It's data, sure you can. That's the whole POINT of a digital signal, no? How did you expect a multi-tuner set top box records multiple content streams?

      You don't just need 10 tuners, you need 10 full decoders running.

      No, you don't, you decode the I-Frame from the chosen channel on selection and display it until the live I-Frame is received - instant ability for the eye to pick up what's onscreen and choose an action.

      The delay time switching between those multiple tuners would be non-zero.

      So is the human eye. No-one is suggesting it should be instant, just that it shouldn't be multiple seconds to see and recognize an image.

      You need a decent bit of very fast storage for those 10+ HD channels constantly buffering.

      Ten I-Frames per second, at 1080p assuming no compression and 32 bit colour is 80MB of data; call it 128MB including headers and the like. Compression usually drops that by 50% but even ignoring that, you need less than 256MB of storage at 80MBps throughput - that's probably less than $1 in pre-DDR1 SD-RAM (the data is by definition volatile). The horror.

      Picking the 10 channels would be impossible. You're assuming a few above/below, but ignoring Favorites/Customization, channels being keyed in, guide usage, etc.

      User clicks favourites? Load the top ten channel I-Frames over the next 1sec then proceed as above - you could even show the I-Frame as a thumbnail preview. Guides are (in my experience anyway) text only. The whole guide should be less than a single I-Frame. Keyed in a number? Load next I-Frame and go as it is now. Key takeaway: it's never worse, and it's sometimes better.

      Scaling up the decryption modules to 10+ would be extremely difficult. Would require multiple cablecards, which means multiplied monthly fees.

      It's the same client-side key for all the channels, you're grasping at straws unless this is a cablecard architecture problem - I don't know.

      Content producers would object to extra-contractual and excessive usage of their content.

      What is this ... I don't even... Content companies will object to people watching the content for which they paid?

      Cable companies couldn't prevent 3rd party device manufacturers from utilizing similar features to make bulk-recording DVRs or a single set-top box which feeds multiple TVs different channels.

      This doesn't change a thing. Either the box can decode or it can't.

      This scheme couldn't work at all for less popular channels which are multicast to certain viewers like OnDemand content, instead of broadcast.

      On the surface at least - I agree. Congratulations, there's a case for which this doesn't work, so obviously all other possible use cases shouldn't be optimised or changed at all. Got it.

      Customers would object to not just the expensive box, but the significantly increased monthly fees, and very high electric bill for these unwanted features.

      Idling set top boxes already chew power like candy, because users want instant-on, updated channels, guides etc.

      The set-top-box would have to be substantially larger to accommodate all of this.

      The insides of a set top box are often 50% empty space.

      Support costs would go up dramatically as the complex boxes result in innumerable viewer problems from minor glitches to major freeze-ups.

      Because current boxes are so sweetly programmed, optimised and bug-free.

      But that's just for starters. Once you go deeper into the actual design of such a thing, then it really gets complicated.

      So basically what you're saying is "engineering is hard". Yeah OK. CAPTCHA is "evolve", perhaps that was a suggestion to the parent poster...

    21. Re:Not News by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Hand-waving away the actual, difficult problems involved doesn't get rid of them, no matter how frequently you repeat the assertion. Still, I'll take a quick stab at just a FEW of the ignorant assertions before I give up on this ignorant lot, entirely...

      How did you expect a multi-tuner set top box records multiple content streams?

      Not by just tuning the frequency. There are quite a lot of demodulation and decoding steps to recover the correct digital bitstream. That requires a lot more hardware than is being claimed here. Look at the most basic TV tuner card which doesn't do decoding or anything, and they're all about $40 per tuner. It requires quite a bit of hardware to do just the first step of this idea, and falls completely apart very quickly after that.

      DVRs have an unlimited buffer, so doing this circular rotating multi-channel grab is actually MUCH more difficult than building a 10-channel DVR would be (have you seen any 10-channel DVRs lately?). You can't tell your box to just store from the last I-Frame without almost entirely decoding the multimedia stream (particularly PTS/DTS/SCR/PCR), so that you can even determine where the I-Frame is and when the next one has arrived.

      you decode the I-Frame from the chosen channel on selection and display it until the live I-Frame is received
      [...]
      Ten I-Frames per second,

      That's NOT what GP had previously suggested, and what's more it bears no resemblance to "channel surfing". People aren't going to want to stare at a single still image for two seconds. That's hardly any better than nothing, and you're going to sell them some massive, $1,000+, power-hungry monster to give them this trivial anti-feature?

      You can't just route an extra I-frame to your decoder. It's busy with the new data coming in, and can't figure out when to show a disjointed I-frame. Correctly forging metadata of the incoming stream to tell it exactly when to display it and how to sync it with the audio requires a hell of a lot of smarts in your STB. A full-fledged MPEG video file editor is what you need, working much faster than real-time, inside your giant, power hungry set-top-box.

      Idling set top boxes already chew power like candy, because users want instant-on, updated channels, guides etc.

      And you want to increase that power consumption by a factor of 10, all just to give them a still image to stare at for two seconds, for the single use-case of up/down channel-surfing, which people don't actually need to do in an age of on-screen guides.

      I don't know.

      That's really the sum total of your reply. I never understood why those who are the most ignorant of a topic feel the need to shout the loudest.

      you're grasping at straws

      No, it's actually called being knowledgeable about the subject at hand. I can understand how complete ignorance of the subject would give you the wrong impression, though.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    22. Re:Not News by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "No, it's actually called being knowledgeable about the subject at hand."

      Then you've got zero knowledge, so let a former cable tech chime in.

      Nothing you say makes much sense excepting PPV channels.

      No 10 channel DVR? Mine handles 50 simultaneously. Ever hear of SnapStream? Hell, you can buy 64-channel simultaneous DVRs from Alibaba for $3,000 and they work as long as you have ONE SINGLE CABLE CARD.

      Increased power consumption? The set top boxes of today are WAY MORE EFFICIENT than the old Scientific Atlanta analog boxes, on the order of one or two degrees of magnitude.

      " People aren't going to want to stare at a single still image for two seconds."

      Yet people spend far longer than that doing EXACTLY THAT on Imgur.

      "inside your giant, power hungry set-top-box."

      As a baseline, an average TV set top box consumes less than 12-kilowatt hours (KwH) of energy per month. Based on the average American household energy consumption of 903 KwH per month, a TV set top box is responsible for just 1.3 percent of a typical household’s energy use. Compare that to 46 percent for heating and cooling. Power hungry my ass.

      Well, you keep talking nonsense. Meanwhile, those of us that have been inside these boxes, repaired them, and even rebuilt them from the board-up, will continue to mock your ignorance.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    23. Re:Not News by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Ah, good old Khyber spouting nonsense again. Don't remember seeing you since you got kicked off of SoylentNews.

      Being a minimum wage, cable installing subcontractor, doesn't give you any insights into designing demodulators, MPEG decoders, buffers, etc. Yeah, I believe you've opened up a STB and swapped a fan or two, but that's about it.

      a TV set top box is responsible for just 1.3 percent of a typical householdâ(TM)s energy use.

      That's actually a very significant and expensive amount of power... particularly when you multiply that by how many TVs are in one home.

      Hell, you can buy 64-channel simultaneous DVRs from Alibaba for $3,000

      You're talking about surveillance camera DVRs. Those don't do QAM or ATSC decoding. Completely different tech.

      they work as long as you have ONE SINGLE CABLE CARD.

      You've completely made that up. It's not even remotely possible.

      Goodbye

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    24. Re:Not News by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Maximum HDTV broadcast bitrate in the US is 19Mbit/s. Times 10 channels = 190Mbit/s = 24MB/s Encryption isn't going to effect that much, so you could actually buffer a full second of encrypted content from over a hundred channels in one 256MB stick of RAM costing less than $10. The tuners to capture the individual channels simultaneously might be a bit expensive, but there's no technical limitation, and no additional load on the distributor - every channel is simultaneously broadcast to every subscriber regardless.

      Decryption and decoding need actually only be done on the channel being viewed, which would require a faster decryption/decoding engine to minimize lag, but remove any multi-channel decryption limitations that might be imposed by the broadcaster. Eliminate that limitation, which Khyber challenges above, and you could decode a few channels ahead (channel surfing is typically sequential) to further reduce lag using slower engines.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    25. Re:Not News by dyslexicbunny · · Score: 1

      I didn't know that. I'd observed that signals didn't quite sync between a tv in my dad's house with a DVR and one with a converter box and didn't know why. Learn something new every day!

      Now I wonder why my Uverse boxes in different places in a house weren't synched. Perhaps because it's run from a central hub to other receivers.

    26. Re:Not News by evilviper · · Score: 1

      You'd need several times larger storage, actually.

      Attempting to decrypt a stream even just a couple seconds later would not reliably work.

      I explained to the loud-mouthed AC in a decent bit of detail why decoding later is very, very difficult and not realistically possible. Saying "just use a faster one" is about as good a solution as saying "just sprinkle some fairy dust on it."

      Getting your technical information from Khyber is the batshit crazy nutjobs leading the blind...

      I'm now very tired of this worthless topic and dispelling lots of magical thinking for no purpose. Do let me know when you get your box built...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    27. Re:Not News by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Not unless I completely misunderstood you you didn't.

      Buffer the raw digital signal, which will be, at most 19Mbit/s. Don't decrypt it, don't decode it, just buffer it raw. That part is easy.

      Then, when you need to, feed it through the decryption/decoding engine. It's not doing anything else, because you just cut off it's previous feed, just as though you had switched channels. It has no idea it's dealing with buffered data - it's just a data stream. You don't have to forge any metadata - it's being fed the complete stream exactly as it came in a second ago.

      You don't even really need to actually decode it - just decrypt it and skim through the stream to find the last I-Frame and decode from there. Which you can do arbitrarily quickly by using a faster processor instead of the just-barely-powerful-enough CPU normally used in TVs as a cost-saving measure. Put a $300+ signal-processing CPU on the job instead and it will be able to decode far faster than real-time.

      In fact, since you typically get ~10 IFrames/second, that last bit is really all you need to do for much better channel surfing if the you're dealing with an unencrypted signal. Presumably the encryption has its own "keyframes" to begin at, which may be much less frequent and would be why you might *require* buffering.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    28. Re:Not News by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Experience is overrated. I'll take wisdom over knowledge any day.

    29. Re:Not News by Bengie · · Score: 1

      I can already change channels in less than 1/2 a second with my IPTV fiber service. What benefit do I gain for all of this expensive stuff, allowing me to change channels 2x faster? Ohh wait, we only use the guide anyway, so changing channels up and down is moot. This has got to be one of the most useless hypothetical discussions in a long time.

    30. Re:Not News by Bengie · · Score: 1

      I also have Cisco boxes, but my first two boxes are free and only $5/box after. Basic TV service starts at $15. Our TV guide interface is quite nice. Even get a bunch of free on-demand that comes with that $15 service. Mostly children's stuff, but includes recent movies in 1080p.

    31. Re:Not News by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Yes, it does seem you completely misunderstood.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  6. Re:Greedy kikes by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    Discuss.

    Okay! You're an asshole.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  7. They're still not done with that yet? by Kargan · · Score: 1

    They upgraded my area almost exactly a year ago, I figured they'd be done with the rollout by now.

    Apparently it helps a bunch to have Google Fiber as a competitor.

    --
    Palaces, barricades, threats, meet promises
    1. Re:They're still not done with that yet? by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      They upgraded my area almost exactly a year ago, I figured they'd be done with the rollout by now.

      Apparently it helps a bunch to have Google Fiber as a competitor.

      Oh yeah. Competition really helps.

      I got Verizon fiber run to every unit in my condo complex (>70 units), to give Time-Warner some competition.

      It took a couple of years, but it's working. And with Verizon selling its fiber-service to Frontier (in some States), prices are getting even better. So far, Frontier call-center staff have been very good. Frontier also provides un-bundled services for reasonable rates – unlike Time-Warner or Verizon.

  8. TWC is AHEAD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was a TWC subscriber in Charlotte and a Charter subscriber in Atlanta. TWC gave me 15Mbps for something like $50, whereas for the same price, Charter gave me 50Mbps. In fact, TWC had several tiers, starting at 2Mbps, whereas Charter just had something like 50Mbps and another higher speed - forgetting how much.

    What I would really appreciate is both of them having an IPv6 rollout

  9. Cable Companies are fucked by plague911 · · Score: 2

    Once "6G" come out. The cost (both reasonable and excess due to their own mismanagement) of upgrading physical cable will make them unable to compete in a few technological generations. I cant wait for the day when I piss on their corporate grave.

  10. Informative Murder P*rn by Idisagree · · Score: 1

    The customer is always our bitch.

  11. Paid shills are here in full force, huh? by Rujiel · · Score: 1

    You're arguing that it's a conspiracy theory, and implying that there is no anti-competitive behaviour on the part of cable companies... which there absolutely is and has been, though maybe it's not evidented by this particular story. Thank you for being so (unintentiomally) transparent.

  12. TWC customer in Yuma by Archfeld · · Score: 1

    I just got a new Arris cable modem in the mail from TWC. Has a dual band wireless internal network @2.5 Ghz and 5.0 Ghz, and a 2.5 Ghz outward facing wireless network. I assume they are aiming at a Comcast/Xfinity style network. During the self install setup I disabled all the wireless stuff, and changed the internal address to what fit my needs, and then followed the online activation procedures using the mac address and serial number which worked flawlessly. Once configured I can no longer access the external facing wireless management tools but the internal ones stayed inactive. I'm not a 'wireless' customer according to TWC, I run an internal wireless LAN which is locked to outside access and managed from internal addresses only. I can still see the internal facing tools and they've not been activated. I assigned a new login and password to the cable modem which is different from my router. I periodically check and expect at some point TWC or Charter or whomever will want their external network online for their wireless customers use similar to the xfinity users ability use that network with a password that works anywhere there is one of their modems. Glad I took advantage of the 'free' upgrade when I did, it even included free shipping back of the elderly equipment we were on.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  13. The best part by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 3, Funny

    The best part of this situation is the the market will sort things out.
    If you don't like your ISP because of their offerings or service then simply switch to a compeititor.
    With a vast array of high quality ISPs to choose from I fail to understand the constant complaining here on /.

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    1. Re:The best part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are out of touch with reality. I live in a city north of San Diego and the only broadband choice I have is TWC. I can't even get ATT broadband.
       

    2. Re:The best part by wap3com · · Score: 1

      Please tell me what planet you live on.
      I live is South Texas, with a city monopoly, sorry City Franchise, who is TimeWarner.
      And soon to be Sabotage, or what ever the new overlord will call it.
      That on the other hand does not modify the Franchise.
      Yes, by politics, we have choice-----
      ...Dial Up - oops Verizon just got bought and no infrastructure for anything.
      ...DTV - pure digitized crap signal.
      ...Satellite - speed, price, and latency are a ROFL.
      ...Cell phone for internet but they are not cost effective for gigs/month - I do computer repairs.

    3. Re:The best part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its sad how many people can no longer understand subtleties. This was sarcasm people.

    4. Re:The best part by uolamer · · Score: 1

      I have lived in a few Cities where the only options are TWC and usually AT&T DSL (there has been times when that wasn't even an option). AT&T DSL is garbage compared to TWC. This is not an endorsement of TWC but thus far they have not had any data caps, so I will give them that.

      --
      s/©//g
  14. Re:Greedy kikes by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    Thank you for that dazzling insight, (((Anonymous Coward))).

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  15. Why all the mailers, then? by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

    So why do they send me a speed-upgrade offer in the USPS mail at least once a week?

    Something is not clear to someone in their marketing department, or perhaps by the Poster in interpretation of the announcement.

  16. My Time Warner Speed Dropped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back in March, I received an email from Time Warner stating "Faster internet speeds are here at no extra cost..." My download speed went from about 2.5 MB/s to almost 7 MB/s, (about 55 Mb/s). Yay! I was at nearly First World speeds for only $60 per month. A few weeks ago, I noticed things were slower, but I just assumed it was on the server side, and didn't think much about it - until I saw this article. I did some testing, and found I was back down to the original 2.5 MB/s.
    So I gave Time Warner, (or whatever their name is now), a call to see what was up. After a "hard" reboot, which includes disconnecting the co-ax cable, something I hadn't thought of, I was up to 5 MB/s, still shy of the 7 MB/s I was getting before, and half of what I'm paying for - 100 Mb/s, or 12 MB/s. The support person switched me to the next lowest plan, their 50 Mb plan, to see what speed I'd get, and I got the same exact speed. She offered to leave it there, saving me $10 per month, but I want that damn speed!
    In the end, she couldn't do anything about it, but clearly their 100 Mb plan isn't giving that. Does this have anything to do with the merger? I have no idea.