RCN - Getting away with Extortion!

zip2play

Or NOT:

“Because of the conversion, we are able to add 45 new channels, of which 25 are HD,” RCN spokeswoman Lisa Barder said, adding that customers will gain access to up to 180 channels compared with the previous 80, as well as additional video-on demand programming.

Uhhh, last time I checked TIVO was a box connected to cable, in commoner parlance a CABLE BOX that requires a monthly RENTAL that I can add to the cable card MONTHLY rental...that way I get to pay 2 companies for the cable box!

Now THERE'S an idea...buy a QAM set, pay $42 a month and watch your LOCAL channels though the Comcast wire. WOW, I hadn't thought of that.
Yeah, I really did but it is cheaper to use NO cable and NO QAM tuner to pick up the local channels in crystal clarity with a set of UHF equipped rabbit ears...a cute 50's deco model that I found in the trash.


Why would cable companies forego encrpytion on their basic channels?
Perhaps one reason might be customer convenience BUT THEY WANT TO RENT THE BOX FOR EVERY SET so the customer convenience and loweer cost takes a rear seat.
They purposely mangle even the analog locals in my area so that a settop box is required for for a watchable picture. Thus, they are not even ready for CABLE READY SETS an issue that was settled in court decades ago.

Thread title premise is still correct: Demanding that every set has a cable box even though the technology does not demand such is EXTORTION or more properly, restraint of trade.

JPL

Again, your arguments are inconsistent. I mentioned the option of going with tivo, but then you griped about having to pay tivo for their service. Your point all along has been that the CABLE company has been engaging in extortion. If I go and pay tivo for their service, how is that an example of my CABLE company engaging in extortion?

As for WHY RCN is converting everything to digital, welcome to the world of spin. Verizon sold it as a method for increasing bandwidth as well. Go back and look at the FCC regulation that went into effect on 7/1/07 (there goes that pesky FCC 'deregulating' again). What does it say? It says that all cable companies are required to offer seperable security for their cable boxes. What else does it say? It says that smaller cable outfits who request it are given a temporary waiver from this requirement. What stipulation does it put on those smaller companies that get this waiver? It requires that they get rid of ALL their analogs - including LOCAL analogs - by Feb. 2009.

Again, you're barking up the wrong tree. The federal government is the only ones who can stop this extortion, and yet they were the driver behind this change that RCN is going through. But, yeah, let's give them even MORE control over that. That'll fix it!

I have an idea though - why don't YOU go start a cable company. Then you can offer every channel with no box. Until then, these are PRIVATE companies looking out for their own best interests. Are they saints? Of course not. But their not sinners either - they're companies... this is business... and they're looking out for THEIR interests... Don't like it? Fine.... this is a free country - drop their service. Go totally OTA... sign up for DirecTV or Dish... or go with a service like Sky Angel... or just do what one of my co-workers does and get everything over the web.

What sickens me most of all with this line of reasoning is that it assumes we're all hapless victims... that without the beneficence of the federal government why we'd all end up as slaves to these companies. Give me a break. You don't like what they offer, here's and idea, don't give them your money!

Personally I like what my cable company (Verizon) offers. I like it alot. I want alot more channels. So I will gladly continue to do business with them. If they get too expensive, or if I think they're starting to slide... no problem... I can go back to DirecTV... or go with Dish... or Comcast... or do what I did for several years after I first got married, for the sake of saving as much money as I could, and go without (for years my wife and I lived on watching TV on an ancient 19" which we inherited from her parents, complete with rabbit ears, and renting videos when we wanted to watch something different - it's an amazing thing - we survived!).

Or better yet, like I said, start your own cable TV business and change the industry in the way you want.

marcallo

I am personally against theft of service in any capacity. So Cable renting boxes isn't a bad thing. What I DON'T understand is why it cost an additional 9.95 a month PER box to have DVR service activated. They're like doubling the rental fee essentially.

Honestly I wish it was like cell phones where every 2 years I could upgrade to the latest and greatest if I "Wanted" to or just live with what I had for a while. As it is they are making X amount per month and I don't see them upgrading the boxes anytime soon so where does that money go?


I love having the best packages and all the options I just always wonder why the box and DVR prices are what they are and where it comes from. There has to be a formula in there somewhere.

JPL

That I do agree with. The costs for these boxes are too high. I'm hoping that we'll see the advent of third party boxes showing up - that's about the only way to drive down the prices of these boxes.

marcallo

I actually wonder if the DVR fee a percentage of that goes to the networks. Wasn't there a fee on VHS tapes back in the day because people could copy movies and fast foward commercials? I'm only 28 so there's a lot of history I'm not 100% on when it comes to this stuff. Though I DO remember the original rented boxes, they had a long wire and a bunch of buttons you'd press to change channels.

makryger

There's this misconception that the Feb 2009 transition has nothing to do with cable companies- only Over the Air broadcasts. This is completely wrong. Cable companies are bound to the destiny of OTA through "must-carry" laws. Basically, whatever is provided free over the air must be provided free to basic cable subscribers. These have been revised to dual must-carry laws (or digital must-carry laws), which will take effect after the digital transition date. In that case, large cable companies must provide local channels without signal degradation (ie HD must remain HD), just as is provided free over the air.

I have gotten mixed answers to this question, but I am pretty sure that means that local HD channels must be provided in the clear. Currently, RCN is providing the low quality versions of local channels through clearQAM, because OTA still provides it. Once OTA goes all digital, RCN theoretically should allow for clearQAM local HD channels.

Right now, I cannot just plug in my cable connector to my QAM-TV tuner, and get local HD channels. I would have to upgrade to RCN's digital tier service, buy an HD box, and thus spend about 50 extra a month. I have contacted RCN about this, and they have not really answered my question as to what will happen post-transition. I think they will try to get away with continuing to encyrpt HD, and leaving lower quality "analog" versions in clearQAM.

Shark2k

Being digital does not mean it is HD though. The SD versions of the channels are digital also. HD has technically existed when movies started. Film has basically infinite resolution (basically is put because there is obviously a limitation at some point). You can take any old movie (let's use Star Wars for example), scan that movie in (as they call it) at a specific resolution (because that is how digital works) and then make it 1080p. Now, a lot of companies scan in at 4k resolution. One company did an 8k resolution. Bottom line is, film (which is analog) has a ridiculous resolution because of the fact that it captures everything and doesn't compress. So SD can be digital also. Think about when you convert a video tape to DVD. You just made an SD source digital. So your theory doesn't really hold up. Especially considering someone (on this forum) believes that what the cable companies need to carry in the clear are what the broadcaster considers the "main" channel, which they could easily make the SD channel.

About your first point, just because OTA is going all digital, does not mean the cable companies need to go all digital. You only get a handful of channels using OTA, let's just say 10 to make what I'm gonna say easier to explain. So, before the transition those 10 channels are broadcasting in analog. They also send a signal to cable companies for them to send to their customers. Now after the transition, those 10 channels are no longer analog, but digital. They now send the cable companies the channels, but are digital. Ok, so where am I going with this you might ask. There are many other channels that cannot be received OTA. For example sake, let us say TBS is still transmitting in analog to cable companies. They are not being affected by the 2009 transition. If they were than you could say this transition is affecting cable companies. But it's not. The FCC is going to make everything turn digital at some point, but it is not next year. It will probably be between 2010-2012 is my guess.

Either way, this transition does not affect cable companies. The reason the cable companies are deciding to go all digital around the same time though (or at least starting around the same time) is because it will free up so much bandwidth for them. More bandwidth equals more channels (especially HD channels), which means their customers hopefully staying with them because they offer just as many HD channels as their competitors.

-Shark2k

makryger

I'll agree with the fact that the cable companies decision to go all digital has nothing to do with the digital transition date, but as I mentioned before, the digital transition for OTA does have implications for what cable companies are required to carry.

The regulations specifically say that the signal must be broadcast without signal degradation in comparison to the source- ie an HD signal must remain HD. Of course, all of these things are a little vague, so they are open to interpretation, so who really knows.

I can't post hyperlinks yet, but copy and paste this:
hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-193A1.pdf
This document is actually an exception to the rule for small cable companies, but it still explains is pretty well.

electrictroy

I'm confused.

Why are some of you defending RCN's decision to force all customers to rent a box? My local provider moved TCM from analog to digital, and then offered to rent me a box for $5 a month to restore the TCM. I wasn't happy but at least I still had my analog cable service.

It sounds like RCN is eliminating analog completely, and forcing customers to rent an expensive box for an extra $10/month and $120/year. I think this is reprehensible.

__________________


TV Band/whitespace Devices will block my Baltimore/Philly stations. No more channels 2,3,6,10,11,12,13,17,35,45,57,61,65

JPL

First off, I'm not defending RCN's position here. I'm saying that they're likely forced to go this way by the FCC. Look at my postings on the seperable security requirement waivers. I'll bet, given their size, that RCN was one of the companies that got that waiver, and as a result they are REQUIRED to get rid of ALL analogs (including locals) by 2/17/09. As for their rental structure - that I can't speak to. When Verizon did this they offered all analog customers a free box - it was very bare bones - no guide, no VOD, but it was free.

I think RCN is also required to carry their locals in the clear, so if you have a TV with a QAM tuner you shouldn't need a box if you're just going for local channels.

makryger

I can tell you first hand that RCN is definitely not carrying their HD channels in the clear. In fact, I have had several arguments with them about why they aren't. Hopefully they will change this policy after the digital transition, as it will be the law.

zip2play

I agree 100%, it is reprehensible.


I think the reason that some are defending the cable company practice of demanding that everyone rent a box for every set regardless of the level of service is that some are being paid by cable companies to do so.
I read recently that several cable companies, Comcast specifically, in order to increase it's image amongst the public (it could hardly get worse) has hired employees to respond to bloggers and make sure cable companies' interests are well represented on bulletin boards dealing with TV and internet issues.

I would HOPE that those being paid to post would make very clear that they are working for cable companies.

JPL

I didn't say local HD channels. I said locals. I don't believe there's any such requirement for local HD.

JPL

Yeah, I work for RCN... that's it... that's why I'm a FiOS subscriber. Come on. Is it just possible that I'm a free market guy who believes a company can require what they want for their services? Why yes, that's exactly it! BTW, I find it interesting that people are using words like 'extortion' to describe what RCN is doing. Extortion? Reall? RCN is putting a gun to your head, and saying 'get a digital box from us, or else!' Um no... they're not doing that.

But these poor people have no choice! Really? Go to zap2it, and put in my zip code (19380) under tv listings, and see how many providers come up for me (and I'm in RCN territory).

I'm a believer that competition, active, real competition, is the best way to stop these companies from engaging in utter stupidity. I think it's reprehensible that they're charging for a box for locals, but I don't work for RCN... I'm not a share-holder... I have no involvement with them at all, so what right do I have to tell them that they can't do that?

zip2play

Have I mentioned anyone by name?

It does not change my feeling, nor discount what I've read, that cable company employees are frequent posters and these posters are PAID to paint their companies in a favorable light no matter WHAT the situation.

I realize that there are still some "free marketers" around who feel that whatever any private company does is perfectly fine without regard for consequences to customers and that any regulation of a utility, even a monopoly utility or a fraudulent bank, is anathema.

But given the horrific service and rapacious pricing of cable companies I imagine that the paid cable defenders are more prevalent than the laissez faire idealogues.
And it would be nice if they admitted it in their posts...otherwise they are just another form of advertising.


I liver in the largest city in the most densely populated state. I have two choices for TV signal reception: Over the Air or COMCAST.
Some competition.