Social Feed

FKy.Guy
Last reply · posted in Cable Television and Fiber Providers
If this has already been posted in another thread I apolgize for the repeat,but saw this write up in the USA Today {today}.

FCC: Let users set cable TV lineups
By Paul Davidson, USA TODAY
In a sharp reversal, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission said Tuesday that the agency now thinks cable companies should stop forcing people to subscribe to bundles of channels and give them the option of choosing individual channels. (Related items: TVs turn into vending machines for programs | A la carte cable could be a tough sell)
Kevin Martin, FCC chairman since March 16, asserted that a la carte pricing could both allow parents to block offensive programming and lower their surging cable bills. His stance might push Congress to require cable and satellite companies to offer the option.

Martin said that a 2004 FCC report — which concluded most consumers would face higher cable and satellite bills under a mandatory a la carte system — "presented incorrect and incomplete analysis."

A new FCC report near completion "concludes that purchasing cable programming in a more a la carte manner in fact could be economically feasible and in consumers' best interest," Martin said at a Senate forum on indecency.

The news comes as Congress debates tough new indecency legislation that would drastically boost fines. The cable industry calls legislation unnecessary because set-top boxes let parents filter out channels with offensive content. Consumer advocates call that technology ineffective because subscribers must still pay for unwanted channels.

Under a la carte, consumers would have to subscribe to a basic tier that includes broadcast stations and channels such as CNN. Beyond that, they'd pay only for channels they want. Thus, parents could reject racy channels such as MTV or Comedy Central.

The 2004 FCC report found that the average cable household, which watches 17 channels out of 88 available, would see its bill rise 14% to 30%, assuming it ordered 17 channels. Only subscribers who pay for fewer than nine channels beyond the basic tier would save under a la carte, the study said.

Martin said the report mistakenly included the cost of the broadcast channels in the basic tier to arrive at the average price for additional channels. Omitting that cost would increase the number of channels consumers could order without a price hike, he said.

Kyle McSlarrow, head of National Cable & Telecommunications Association, called the a la carte mandate a "very dangerous idea." He said it would violate cable companies' free-speech rights. And research firm Legg Mason says it's unlikely Congress would pass an a la carte mandate because it would imperil cable channels that depend on widespread carriage by cable systems for advertising revenue.

"I would prefer to try and work out a voluntary ratings system and blocking and try and find some way to meet the demands of the family community without getting to mandates," said Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, head of the Commerce Committee.


See this link as well ................

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-11-29-alacarte-sell_x.htm

Just wondering what your varied opinions may be on this subject :confused:
36 Replies · 4488 views
dishcomm
markfp-1 said:
I think it would be a real disaster. If channels were a la carte, the most popular channels such as ESPN, USA and TNT would be subscribed to by most everyone. However more specialized channels and those related to the arts and sciences such as Discovery, Bravo, Turner Classic Movies, C-SPAN and the like, which have a lower pool of regular viewers, would take a hit and many would not survive. Even if they don't have as big a viewership as the "big boys" they deserve to survive and prosperand we deserve the chance to watch them.
Those groups behind this are only interested in controling what we all see and what we all see had better only be what they want us to see. I' wonder what would happen if they tried this with newspapers. Let's see, I only want the front page, sports section and the comics, so don't deliver anything else. Yeah, sure.

I say let the marketplace decide which services should survive.....c-Band programmers such as Programmers Clearing House offered a la carte services...
Charlie(E*) has been pushing for a la carte for years....
These little niche channels that few view are taking up valuable Xsponder space.
TV services should not be propped up by welfare state rules that force subscibers to pay fr them......Nope, free markets should decide who succeeds and who fails..
dishcomm
ultatryon said:
But the cable industry is already regulated up the wazzoo...
FCC mandates that calls be answered within xx seconds (something like 60 seconds), also mandates that installs must cost less then $xx (do you really think that it really costs $17 to install cable to your house?) or that installs must be done with x days.
It also regulates costs to the subscriber (but I dont know the details of that)
There is a very fine line between being competitive, generating a profit, and keeping within FCC regulations. Cable companies are always striving to find that fine line as it is, until this monkey wrench gets thrown in...
I just cant wait for satellite and telco providers to follow the same regulations..
Whoa!!!!!!!!!! I am pretty sure the cable industry has been de regulated.....Yes it still has to answer to the FCC but a s far as 'public utility' type regulations..no....Cable can do what they want..For example Time warner here in the Charlotte ,C area just announced a 2%increase..Third increase this year..That cite an increase in the NC tax on cable subscriptions...
dishcomm
Texanmutt said:
There is an easy way to deal with the problems you outlined. Charge an access fee. The access fee would cover the cost of infrastructure, then the price of the channel would cover the MSO's cost of the subscription. Charging people for installation (and not doing it for free) could also reduce some costs. Most people only watch 5-10 channels anyhow. They still should have package deals so that if you still wanted to buy an over priced package, you can. How much of the money for a package does an mso have to pay to the provider. Probably almost half. Imagine an access fee of $15 dollars and then an appropriate price for each channel. If things were done this way then E* would not haved to have dropped OLN. They could just charge more for that one channel and not f**k everyone else that doesnt watch it.

Ah yes..I would certainly like tohave te abilty ot charge custs for installation of extras..Right now because cable can pay their techs crap wages and offer nearly whoile house wiring for free, DN has to watch that and not charge either..SO I don't get paid for wall fishes ,pole mts etc...As DNSC sub contractor that is...On our retail deals we DO charger the custr for the custom stuff...I would lke to see the customers have to bear some financial responsibility here...
Texanmutt
dishcomm said:
Ah yes..I would certainly like tohave te abilty ot charge custs for installation of extras..Right now because cable can pay their techs crap wages and offer nearly whoile house wiring for free, DN has to watch that and not charge either..SO I don't get paid for wall fishes ,pole mts etc...As DNSC sub contractor that is...On our retail deals we DO charger the custr for the custom stuff...I would lke to see the customers have to bear some financial responsibility here...

Cable companies dont wire the house for cheap. Not at $20 per house wrap, $50 per wall fish and $40-$50 for installation.
Doctor Bob
Don't complicate things too much... :) the only reason for all of this, is simply that one group wants to control what another group is doing... Nothing more and nothing less... The Government (The FCC in this case) really doesn't want any part of the BS... They are being forced, by the different groups, to look into the "Squabble" :haha The Providers will find a way to make more money off of "You and I"... RONTGLMAO.... And guess what!!! Nobody give a damn what you watch, as long as you pay for it.... RONTGLMAO... Every time one group gets mad, the Providers make more money... What a Wonderful Circle this is eh!!!
b4pjoe
Pub Member / Supporter Cutting Edge
Last reply · posted in Computers and Gadgets
14 Replies · 322 views
Neutron
Another reason I'm glad we are swapping or Rokus out for Apple TVs. I was already planning on ditching the Rokus earlier this year and had been waiting on Apple to announce the new one last month. Our Rokus have had issues the last year or so with freezing video and reboots, and one with an HDCP issue randomly.
  • Like
Reactions: AZ. and navychop
TRG
TRG
Another reason I'm glad we are swapping or Rokus out for Apple TVs. I was already planning on ditching the Rokus earlier this year and had been waiting on Apple to announce the new one last month. Our Rokus have had issues the last year or so with freezing video and reboots, and one with an HDCP issue randomly.
Hmmm... I don't have any of those problems with my Roku devices. I have 3 of them.
  • Like
Reactions: reubenray
navychop
I suspect Fox will make me consider 2-3 more Apple TV STB purchases.
harshness
I suspect Fox will make me consider 2-3 more Apple TV STB purchases.
Until I can get a mortgage on an ATV, I doubt that's going to happen for me.

As much as the price has gone up, the complaints on the forums about this, that, and the other nits surrounding various limitations and Apple business decisions seem to be keeping pace.
Jimbo
Hmmm... I don't have any of those problems with my Roku devices. I have 3 of them.
I have the Roku's, 2 or 3, I just rarely use them ... I prefer the Google/Android Sony set up.

People tell me that the Apps on the TV will end thier usefulness as they age ... They are doing ok for me so far ... I also have the TV take the App Updates whenever possible ... then again, I don't know how often App updates come to it.

So, so far, I'm doing ok, but if they start to get sluggish, I'll eventually change to a Roku ... I don't want to, but eventually ... (Or buy another new TV :eeek:shh:clapping:biggrin
R
I suspect Fox will make me consider 2-3 more Apple TV STB purchases.
As long as my Roku Ultra works I will use it. I use it for all of my streaming apps except for Prime. I read that Prime works best with Android TV's.
navychop
Hmmm. Not watching much Prime, but it would be on our Apple TV STB.

You know of any drawbacks using Ultra and Prime?
osu1991
Hmmm. Not watching much Prime, but it would be on our Apple TV STB.

You know of any drawbacks using Ultra and Prime?
Prime seems to have a problem passing the DV/HDR metadata to Roku and Apple devices, but no problem with their Fire devices.
Scott Greczkowski
Staff member HERE TO HELP YOU! Cutting Edge
Last reply · posted in The Chit Chat Club
Sometimes a thread gets so many posts in it that is can cause issues for the server so that why today we introduce The Song Name Game Part 3!

So let the game continue!

The last song was added by Bobby who posted...

One Meat Ball - Andrews Sisters

CONTINUE ON AND HAVE FUN! WELCOME HOME TO SATELLITEGUYS.US!

Here are the original rules for the game as posted by WebbyDude back in 2006. http://www.satelliteguys.us/threads/68645-Song-Name-Game

Just name a song title and the band who performed it. The next person does the same thing, but needs to list a song title or band name which includes a word from the previous entry. Pick songs from any genre.

Example:

Long Live Rock and Roll -- Rainbow

Rainbow in the Dark -- Dio

Another example:

Ride the Lightning -- Metallica

Lightning Strikes -- Ozzy Osbourne


Get it?


An additional note: we all know that song titles, sometimes, use profane words. Because this is a family friendly website it is advised that you clean up that title up a bit. This is accomplished by using something like sh!t instead of the real word. Thanks....
68770 Replies · 2687257 views
  • Like
Reactions: c-spand
long_time_Dish
Really Wanna Know You - Gary Wright
H
Don't WANNA KNOW-Maroon 5
harshness
I Want to Know What Love Is - Foreigner
  • Like
Reactions: FTA4PA
Bobby
Oh What A Night For Dancing - Barry White
sdfntx
It's a Good Night for Singing - Jerry Jeff Walker
dfergie
Staff member HERE TO HELP YOU!
Last reply · posted in The Chit Chat Club
Stumbled across this ... http://www.gaspricewatch.com/USGas_ZipSearch.asp
I found no local prices, although it did show stations at my location...
Added these to this post...
USA National Gas Temperature Map
State By State Gasoline Taxes
Gas Buddy

Ethanol Free Stations

5569 Replies · 462441 views
Bobby
Regular$5.459​
Premium$5.899​
Diesel$7.999​
at Costco, Rohnert Park.​
  • Like
Reactions: harshness
dishstaller
Billboard along I-10 had reg at $3.81 and diesel at $5.54
Bobby
Regular$5.399​
Premium$5.899​
Diesel$7.999​
at Costco, Rohnert Park.​
osu1991
$3.55
R
$3.45 in Jane, MO.
K
Staff member HERE TO HELP YOU! Pub Member / Supporter Cutting Edge
Last reply · posted in DIRECTV Programming Forum
https://www.directv.com/insider/mysports-changes-the-game/
https://streamtv.directv.com/mysports/ (You might have to logout or open a private window to see the details)
As of now this is only available for streaming customers in select markets. Existing streaming customers can switch to it for $69.99, but they are not eligible for the $20 off for 3 months discount. More genre-specific packages will launch during the first half of the year.


At launch, MySports includes 40 sports and broadcast channels and is initially available in 24 metro areas, including New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco Bay Area, and others. Click here for more information and the list of initial launch markets. The availability of MySports will expand into additional markets as DIRECTV adds more local stations to the package.

The streamlined MySports package includes national and local channels in select markets, as well as live news channels.

National sports channels immediately available through MySports include ACC Network, Big Ten Network, DIRECTV 4K Live, DIRECTV 4K Live 2, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNews, ESPNU, Fox Sports 1, Fox Sports 2, Golf Channel, MLB Network, NBA TV, NFL Network, NHL Network, SEC Network, TBS, TNT, TruTV and USA Network. Local channels will initially include any stations owned and operated by ABC, FOX, and NBC, with additional stations coming online soon.

Additional networks, local stations and ESPN+, will be included in MySports at no extra cost in the near future.

Consumers who sign up online for the contract-free package before Feb. 28, 2025, can receive MySports for $49.99 monthly for the first three months, a $20 monthly savings. After the free trial, it auto-renews monthly, and consumers can cancel anytime.
75 Replies · 8268 views
K
They recently split the news channels off of MySports, so CNBC, CNN, FBN, FNC and MSNOW are no longer part of it.

MySports was decreased to $64.99, and a new "MySports+MyNews Duo" pack is $79.99, which will also give you Bloomberg, CNBC World, CNNI, the C-SPANs, i24 and Newsmax.

Tennis Channel also joined MySports at some point over the past year.
C
They recently split the news channels off of MySports, so CNBC, CNN, FBN, FNC and MSNOW are no longer part of it.

MySports was decreased to $64.99, and a new "MySports+MyNews Duo" pack is $79.99, which will also give you Bloomberg, CNBC World, CNNI, the C-SPANs, i24 and Newsmax.

Tennis Channel also joined MySports at some point over the past year.
AMC+ now included in MyEntertainment Pack. I guess we know why the $8 price increase.
K
Here's the Insider article. Shudder is now part of MyCinema and Fanatiz1 was added to the Spanish packages last Friday. PX Sports was also added a few weeks ago.

It's not just AMC+ driving the price increases on the genre packs, the rest of the AMC Networks (AMC, WE, IFC, Sundance, BBC America), along with Paramount/CBS, Hallmark, Weigel and others joined since they debuted last year.
K
MySports now has some CW affiliates, and MyNews now has some CW affiliates and the MyNetworkTV O&Os.

At quick check, it looks like the CBS and Sinclair owned CW affiliates are missing.
C
MySports now has some CW affiliates, and MyNews now has some CW affiliates and the MyNetworkTV O&Os.

At quick check, it looks like the CBS and Sinclair owned CW affiliates are missing.
No Hearst owned CW in Orlando
osu1991
Pub Member / Supporter
Last reply · posted in The Chit Chat Club

The number-one US state for EV growth, according to the June 22 Yardi report?
Oklahoma.


:eek


It has no ZEV mandates and "minimal" incentives, Yardi says, but also has cheap electricity, high multi-car household rates (so, for example, a non-Lightning Ford F-150 pulls their trailers), and a consumer base willing to switch.
121 Replies · 1320 views
osu1991

The Cybertruck was supposed to make the F-150 obsolete. It wasn't supposed to be boring, like a Ford or a Chevy. It was supposed to be "more truck than truck." It turns out, people just wanted trucks that were trucks, and CEO Elon Musk announced on X earlier this morning is that the Cybertruck is dying.


Ending production in middle of next year at gigatexas for cybercab production.
  • Wow
Reactions: dishstaller
dishstaller
IF they had made the cyber truck more like a conventional truck, more would have bought it. There is a REASON trucks all have a very similar layout....it's what people want AND it serves the purposes those of us who have a truck needs.
  • Like
Reactions: osu1991
harshness
There is a REASON trucks all have a very similar layout....it's what people want AND it serves the purposes those of us who have a truck needs.
As it is, most consumers buy trucks as comfortable transportation rather than commercial utility. The Cybertruck approach to that goal was way out in left field. It turned out to be more of an austere sedan with awful daily-driver attributes (visibility, parking). The expectations regarding truck durability were dashed early on.
  • Like
Reactions: osu1991
Neutron
Supporting Founder
Last reply · posted in Computers and Gadgets
Does anyone here use Apple Home/HomeKit with HomePods or Apple TV to automate smart devices in their house? We have had Amazon's Alexa set up in our house for the last 10+ years and I have been waiting to switch them out to Apple for a few reasons; We are already in the Apple ecosystem with our phones, tablets, and computers. I have never liked Amazon's stance on privacy and I really like that Apple has pushed for privacy for a long time.

I bought 4 of the new HomePod Mini 2 speakers to go in various rooms in our house and we have one of the new Apple TVs on preorder that will be the start of me replacing our Rokus. I have the HomePod Mini 2s set up and have an RPi that is running HomeBridge for our legacy smart devices that worked natively with Alexa but don't work with Apple Home natively. I had trouble with the older smart bulbs not keeping the brightness or light color consistent with what our routines were with Alexa despite trying every setting in HomeBridge with the bulbs just not shining very bright. I ended up replacing them with updated versions that are Matter compatible so they work in Apple Home natively. That in and of itself has been interesting to set up because I have my home network segretated with the IoT devices on their own vlan and wifi and pretty locked down. Matter requires IPv6 and due to how my home network is designed I had to do some digging with AI to figure out how to make it all work correctly.

Apple Home definitely has some shortcomings that Alexa does much better with but I am hoping Apple will continue to improve their Home products and introduce features that will bring it closer to the functionality of Alexa.
5 Replies · 88 views
b4pjoe
I tried HomeKit to be able to see my Ring cameras on my Apple TV as they are not supported natively on Apple devices. The best I could get was to be able to view the cameras live but I could not view any recordings. After the last major update version of HomeKit I could not even view the live cameras anymore. I gave up on it after that. If I were going to do it again I would only buy devices that can work on Apple devices natively as HomeKit didn't work well at all for me.
  • Like
Reactions: Neutron
Neutron
I tried HomeKit to be able to see my Ring cameras on my Apple TV as they are not supported natively on Apple devices. The best I could get was to be able to view the cameras live but I could not view any recordings. After the last major update version of HomeKit I could not even view the live cameras anymore. I gave up on it after that. If I were going to do it again I would only buy devices that can work on Apple devices natively as HomeKit didn't work well at all for me.
That's what I started doing after seeing legacy devices work hit or miss using the HomeBridge. At least Apple is following a standard now with Matter which is unusual for Apple. Looks like HomeBridge does allow you to see the live views but I haven't seen how to view past recordings. I'd really like to ditch Ring altogether due to their stance on privacy and if I had my choice I'd go with UniFi since that's what I use for my network and I like the idea of my camera recordings being all local and not in the cloud. UniFi doorbells and cameras are quite pricey though.

I'll try to access the Ring doorbells in Apple Home for now but I'll see if it's useful any.
Foxbat
I found that the IoT devices need to see the Apple TV to be able to use it as the HomeKit Hub. Unfortunately, that means being in the same IPv4 subnet.

I was thinking of getting a HomePod Mini for my Mother-in-Law to play music and set up HomeKit scenes, as well as make FaceTime Audio calls. When Apple announced their price rises due to RAMageddon, I kicked myself as they went up 50% in cost. I'll be curious to see the HomeView in person as this might not be a bad way to get her started on automation.

She asked about it because her friends have Alexa and they use it to control lights. But like you, I feel better putting in a HomePod or HomeView that's listening for commands instead of Amazon or Google.
b4pjoe
That's what I started doing after seeing legacy devices work hit or miss using the HomeBridge.
Homebridge is what I meant when I said HomeKit. Forgot the name of it.
harshness
I find that I don't interact with my home automation system (Hubitat Elevation) as much as I thought I would.

Apple made everything more expensive and less flexible with its "our way or the highway" approach. To be sure, a Homebridge server addresses some of the major deficiencies, but it seems like it will always be a battle to keep pasting things together.