RCN - Getting away with Extortion!

JPL

Where in my wording does it say that Comcast is required to continue providing analog service? Where did I say that? I said that there is no requirement for them to go all digital. I never said that they couldn't go all digital if they wanted to. The issue here is RCN - the point was made that RCN said that they are required to go digital, and someone responded that that was just a lie. I responded with a possible explanation - that they MAY be required to go all digital per this waiver requirement. If they were granted the waiver they HAVE to go all digital. Period. I don't care about Comcast in this regard since their waiver request was rejected and is totally ancellary to the conversation. Was RCN granted that waiver? I have no idea. But if they were, then they're telling the truth - they HAVE to go all digital per the FCC.

You asked for proof about this separable security requirement - which I gave. That first document wasn't a corporate document. It came from the FCC! You know, the very organization from which you requested information. It's an official FCC document. Not one from Verizon or any other corporate entity. One of the very provisos, in the very first paragraph in that document, is that the companies requesting the waiver promised that they would be all digital by Feb. 17, 2009. That was a stipulation that the FCC put on it.

As for Verizon's press release... you really want to make the case that they're LYING about that???!! What the hell are they lying about? That the FCC made this a requirement? That they're now all digital? What exactly are they lying about? This has been a topic of discussion on various fios tv forums (check out dslreports some time) for 18 months. This has been hashed out in great detail. This isn't something that I just made up off the cuff. And I have to ask - what possible purpose would I have for doing so? Why would I just make something like this up? The press release from Verizon is an official press release. Lying in that would be bad.

That doesn't mean that companies don't spin things. They do. Verizon used that requirement as a demonstration that they're committed to expanding bandwidth. They HAD to go through that process (eliminating analogs). The fact that it had the side-benefit of freeing up bandwidth is just that - a serendipity.

BTW, I'm still waiting for proof that what I wrote is in any way incorrect. There IS a requirement for separable security. There ARE companies that were granted a temporary waiver. And part of that requirement DOES include getting rid of all analogs. These are all facts. If you dispute that - fine... do that... prove me wrong.

JPL

And not to beat this already dead and decomposing horse into the ground, but here's part of that discussion on dslreports:

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/V...-Upgrade-99278

Again, note this little piece:

Verizon got an early jump on the FCC's deadline to transition to all-digital service by Feb.17, 2009.

So, either this is a grand conspiracy to provide bad information, or there really is a separable security requirement, and there really is a temporary waiver process, and that temporary waiver process requires the elimination of analogs (aka - all digital service).

electrictroy

That sounds really weird: RCN: "We were free to choose for ourselves if we wanted to offer analog, digital, or both. But instead we applied for a waiver so the government could force us to go all digital." That's a bit like saying, "I used to be free, but instead I voluntarily walked into a jail so the police could arrest me." Anyway, I think I'm finally understanding the issue:

- Cable companies are required to provide analog to their customers who have analog TVs.
- Cable companies are also required to let customers choose what kind of settop box they want (via non-integrated cable cards)
- Some cable companies didn't have non-integrated cable cards, so they asked for a waiver to lease their integrated boxes.
- As "punishment" for allowing that waiver, the FCC forced these companies to upgrade to a 100% digital signal.

P.S.

Why didn't you just explain that earlier???

__________________


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

You got it! That's (almost) exactly right! The only thing I would change in your description - the bit about non-integrated cable cards. It's really non-integrated cable boxes. The cable cards provide the mechanism for making the security non-integrated (the card itself is the security mechanism instead of having the security mechanism integrated directly into the box).

Like I've said before (including in that last write-up on dslreports - you'll see some comments by me in there) - the FCC sucks badly at communicating this stuff. Making everything converge on the same stinking date (2/17/09) just really makes matters confusing as all hell. When I told a friend (a Comcast customer) that Comcast announced that they were getting rid of all non-local analogs (to increase bandwidth) he looked really confused: 'I thought if I had cable I didn't need one of those box converter thingies they keep talking about on tv...' I said 'you don't... that's a separate issue...' That didn't help clarify things any in his mind . I've told a bunch of Comcast customers about those plans, and I got that glaze-eyed look. Some time later, as Comcast started getting rid of those analogs in this market (e.g. they just did away with AMC and I think Cartoon Network in analog), those very same people came back and screamed that they had to get a box to get the same channels they always got!

When I responded with: 'I told you that...' I get the response of: 'No, you didn't.'

Shark2k

That bolded part is just saying that a broadcast signal delivered in HD must remain in HD and cannot be downconverted to SD. That is simply all that means.

"Most states define extortion as the gaining of property or money by almost any kind of force, or threat of 1) violence, 2) property damage, 3) harm to reputation, or 4) unfavorable government action. While usually viewed as a form of theft/larceny, extortion differs from robbery in that the threat in question does not pose an imminent physical danger to the victim."

From here: http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/extortion.html

There is no violence, no property, no harm to reputation or no unfavorable government action in this case therefore this is not extortion. Any RCN customer has the option to change to a different provider (I'm sure there has to be at least one other provider for those customers).

And for what it's worth, I think everything JPL said, even before all his links, made absolutely perfect sense and nothing was worded poorly (maybe just a few misspellings )

-Shark2k

zip2play

The very FIRST Google definition of extortion is:

"AN EXORBITANT CHARGE." Since we are in a bulletin board and not a courtroom, I think common English is preferable to legalese.

The more sure you are of that, the more wrong you would be.
MANY people have access to a single provider and a single provider only, myself included.

Shark2k

Ok, so while I may be wrong about only having access to a single provider, there is always the option of using OTA or just not having TV. I'm not defending what RCN is doing, but I mean there are more important things to worry about in this current time. If this is something that is gonna be that big of a deal and you can live without TV for a while (or at least all the channels you currently get) you can go OTA and still get some channels or just go without TV. I know people are going to say "that's not the point blah blah blah," but with the way the economy is, you would be better off saving your money and reading a book or using the internet for entertainment. You could also join netflix and rent a bunch of movies.

And I'm sorry but I still don't feel that this is extortion. I've looked at many different definitions (and yours by the way is not the first on google) and I don't feel this constitutes extortion. But whatever. As you said, this is a bulletin board so why don't we just drop this and agree to disagree.

-Shark2k

JPL

I totally agree with Shark. I mentioned that there are a number of options, no matter where you live. Your local cable provider is just one. There is also OTA, and IP services like Sky Angel. There have never been more choices than you have today. I also like putting this in a bit of perspective. 10+ years ago I signed up for Comcast, giving me 70 analog channels for $29/month. I don't know how I remember that, but I do.

Cost per channel = ~$.41

Today, with FiOS I get 352 channels. Let's make this a bit of a more fair comparison, and eliminate the 99 digital music channels I get (Music Choice and Urge). That leave me 253 channels. Cost for Extreme HD (their top package) = $58/month. Price per channel = ~$.23. But you need a STB to get those channels, right? Well, let's add 4 HD boxes. Verizon charges $10/month for each. That puts my total at $98/month - price per channel = ~$.39.

What the hell? I thought prices were going up... And not only do I get all those channels, I also get: HD, VOD, access to PPV, digital music channels, and an interactive on screen guide. Yeah, what a rip-off. And if I bundle, I save even more. And I haven't even considered inflation in the mix...

electrictroy

The drawback of no analog cable is that you have to waste $5-to-10 a month on a converter box. Plus the new digital signal won't work with your old analog VCR or DVR. It's disheartening. And nothing to watch.

;-) - You argue that prices per channel went down, which is true, but the monthly cost has gone UP. From $30 to $70...or more.

I buy internet for just $15 a month, and I'd like to have the same option with cable. I don't want or need 300+ channels. All I need is about 5 cable channels (SciFi, USA, TNT, CNN) plus the locals. That's it. Show me the company that provides that cheap, budget-friendly $15 option.

__________________


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

With those particular channels? I believe Sci Fi is one of the most expensive for cable companies to provide. However, there is a new service coming out which is a mix of OTA and IP called Sezmi. Looks interesting. Apparently the box that they offer brings together OTA, internet, and linear TV feeds (fed over IP). Don't know where it's available, if at all yet, but it looks to be a moderate priced solution.

Look, I agreed with one point - if you want very basic service, there isn't much out there. These providers need to maximize their profitability, and as Americans, we want more and bigger. We want the most HD. Go over to the DirecTV forum - there's a thread asking the question whether DirecTV is still the HD leader. We really do seem to get worked up over that type of stuff. These providers are simply giving a supply per our (collective) demand. If you fall outside the mainstream with what you want, then finding options can be difficult.

The point of my post was simple - yeah, costs have gone up alot - but what you get for that money is so much more than what you got before.

makryger

I'm guessing what you're looking for doesn't exist. A la carte channel ordering would lower the profits of the cable companies, without any decrease in operating costs, so I doubt they will be doing that any time soon. But for what you're looking for, I think the cheapest option right now is Dish, TurboHD Bronze. That has all those channels you watch for $25, plus locals for $5, all in HD. $30 is better than the $70 you're paying now.

electrictroy

Or Bittorrent or Itunes or watching the shows directly at scifi.com, usa.com, tnt.com, et cetera.

This is why some people are abandoning cable and going to the cheaper option of internet video. $15 a month is a great deal for me, and I can watch anything I want.

__________________


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

tiger862

All cables companies seem to be doing what consumers hopefully will be noticed as unfair business practices. Here in Louisiana we had a channel go all digital. I have antenna as well cable since charter can't or won't carry one of the local channels in hd. The channel that went all digital is free over the air but charter has downgraded the signal on previous analog channel and charges for local hd channel . Come on now how is that good for business. I just don't understand how you can sell a digital package and it is analog then charge you for HD when it is only HD in primetime and digital the rest of time, if you don't believe me hook up and antenna and check the input signal. Wonder how long before the people get upset and tell them to turn it off. I just went to HD cable cause all I heard was how great a deal it was. Well I can tell you Charter is ripping everyone open. I just wish we could get ESPN on OTA LOL.

electrictroy

Huh?

tiger862

What I mean is now that the digital transition has happened we can see where cable companies have been ripping people off. They over compress the 480I signal and call it digital. If you have an outside antenna and a digital tv then you can see this. On analog you get 480I and on the digital channel you get either 720P or 1080I in either 4:3 or 16:9 but on digital cable all you get is 480I signal which is analog and we are paying them for digital. I didn't catch this until one of the local channels went off air in analog and only available in digital. The channel lineup didn't change on cable but the channel is still downgraded to analog when I am paying for digital. That is what I am talking about when I say that cable is taking people to the cleaners. We pay for digital and get analog, pay for HD and we get part time HD and this is supposed to be better for the consumer when actually it is better for cable profits.