Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Sling is Dish's stepchild. Same overly expensive nonsense.

Got a trial of Sling. Channel selection and interface sucks, at least on xbox one. Not gonna subscribe past trial. Maybe if they add support to TIVO boxes with DVR capability, I'd consider subscribing, but as it stands, blah.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
All this nonsense makes you wonder why anybody cares about TV to begin with. It truly is becoming an idiot box.
Huh?? What in the world are you talking about????
I watch movies on the "TV". How does that make it an idiot box?
I watch documentaries on the "TV". How does that make it an idiot box?
I watch nature shows on the "TV". How does that make it an idiot box?
If you don't want people to "care about TV", what should they do and what do you propose?
I'd love to hear from you or those who "liked" your comment to explain what it means and what the alternatives are. Should we only go to the theaters to watch movies"? Or perhaps movies should no longer be made. I guess if you do nothing but watch the shopping channels I could understand why you feel the way you do. But otherwise, your seems to be a crazy sentiment and conclusion.
 
Cable companies argue it would give technology companies unfair access to customer data and potentially disrupt deals that have been established for channel positioning, giving some programmers better spots in the lineup for higher payments.

Ahahahahahahahahaha!!!! Soooo cable companies say "Hey man don't rock the boat". I hope the FCC tips the mother effin boat over!
 
Got a trial of Sling. Channel selection and interface sucks, at least on xbox one. Not gonna subscribe past trial. Maybe if they add support to TIVO boxes with DVR capability, I'd consider subscribing, but as it stands, blah.

Well, that sucks to hear. Also wasn't aware that Sling was a sub of Dish. Apparently you have to be a sub of a provider to offer any channels?

I get that AOL bought Time Warner and that didn't turn out so well - but, if that's how the game is played, then why can't Apple just buy a provider? Or, as far as I'm concerned, just buy Disney, and we could send kids to iWorld instead?

Can anyone explain? I thought Steve had a major woodrow for AppleTV - then he died and Jobs S has continually proven to underwhelm at best.

Some actual innovative expansion wouldn't kill anyone.

I just want an AppleTV that lets me choose my subscriptions a la carte and bumps iOS gaming up to the next level. That would seem pretty cool.
 
Last edited:
Right, so now that ATT lost that battle against a minority of data abusers, they are effectively cancelling everyone's unlimited plan. Yup. Three cheers for FCC meddling. They sure helped out there
Strong logic there. People die in prisons, therefore we shouldn't punish people because they might die in prison.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2010mini
Be prepared once this happens the price of streaming movies and TV Shows will go up not sure why anyone wants this to happen I think we are fine without cable crap ruining the internet.
 
My biggest sticking point with going that way is live events, being able to turn on CNN, etc ... thanks to them being in cahoots with the cable companies, to watch it on AppleTV one has to have a cable subscription. What's the point? LOL

And things like when there's a debate on Fox News or MSNBC it makes it real challenging to find online.

True. I personally don't care for live events, and if something serious happens, it's likely I'll be away from my tv, so online and mobile is the way to go for me. Plenty of news sites out there, many which have video. Plus, there is always OTA, you just need an antenna.

Cutting the cord still has me covered for the way I live.
 
The NCAA sold out to ESPN, making all college bowl games broadcast over "cable". I'm not certain - but I'm guessing it's the same for "March Madness".

I don't even watch Live TV - and (at least thought) I was aware of every avenue to allow me to keep the cord cut.

So hey, as related in an earlier post, my complex currently provides "free" cable access, provided I rent some stupid "box" through TWC for $3/mo. But such is not always the case.

Also, iOS could easily make both worthless nextgen consoles (XB1 and PS4) seem pathetic in comparison - and AppleTV would dominate with break-through independent titles. And I hear there's some big money in them thar console games, popping $60 per title and spawning movie franchises.

But, rather than Job's Apple, we get "Apple S" - the s standing for inadequate successors - who sit high on their thrones of invincibility and allow these grand opportunities to slip past them.

"Thinner, lighter, better camera..." - yawn... introduce high-end gaming and the "S" team can crow about features with broader appeal to an expanded demographic, beyond the fervent brand loyalists who must line up to be first to behold the latest "amazing" iPhone.

Just an idea. Apple certainly has the power to innovate and make the AppleTV the ultimate hub for the home theater, and expand on that to managing devices throughout the home.

I miss Steve Jobs. He didn't like being embarrassed, appeared to have a drive to truly innovate and change the ease with which we interact with our world.

The "S" group is sadly left to toss away the fortune of his legacy on incrementally, exponentially less innovative products. Nothing has made me exclaim "Wow!" in quite some time.

I really liked "Wow!"
 
Last edited:
It sounds like the FCC is being the good guy, but they also removed the requirement for cable providers to stream local networks in unencrypted (clear) QAM back in 2012.

My local cable provider is starting to require houses without a cable box to get one even though I get an HD signal without one through Clear QAM on the local networks. They claim it's because they're going "all digital" which is BS. They're going all encrypted.

Letting you buy a box that isn't the junky ones the cable company sells you I suppose is some good deed on the part of the FCC, but the day we have to rent a cable box (which is soon) we'll just switch back to the antenna. You get better quality HD with an antenna where I live anyway.
 
See, this is the opposite direction I'd like to see...

I want Tivo, Sling, Vue, etc (Even Apple?) to make it easier for me to keep my Tivo, but change to Internet only services w/o loosing functionality...

It'd be great if Tivo, SlingTV and Vue could get together and develop Tivo apps that would allow my Tivo to see either SlingTV or Vue (or some future service - Apple?) like any other cable company (OnePass, Suggested Recordings, Guide listings, etc) It'd be great to just remove my tuning adaptor and CableCard, return them to the local cable co office, and keep using my Tivo with any of these serices.. If cutting the cord could look like little has changed to the family, same guide, same automated local recordings, etc, just a more tailored, ala carte channel selection, and better pricing through competition.... Give me *that*...

I won't hold my breath, but that's the real long-term solution I'm hoping for...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ladybug
I enjoyed my life through most of this century - so this must suck for everyone. I just now encountered this problem - and am only "bummed" that, rather than using my TV's intuitive controls, I have a separate remote for some stupid little box that seems totally un-necessary. My biggest complaint is accidentally hitting "channel up" on my TV control and losing the signal, switching back to the baby cable remote to find the channel again.

Hell, I don't even know WHY my TV has a numeric keypad or the ability to "setup" and "scan channels". And, so far, no "smart remote app" on my phone to even get around the idiocy. So I feel bad for y'all.

Hopefully, in a couple of decades, the FCC will have implemented their ruling - I'm certain Federal Corporate Communications has been given marching orders to ease all of our suffering as per the mandate of the Corporations that have worked it into their gameplan to make more money once the lobbyist complete their required payments to the Oversight Committee on pretending to give a damn about consumers?

I think the AppleWatch 4 will launch an app to let us all know when to expect action on this issue. Power to the people!

See, this is the opposite direction I'd like to see...

I want Tivo, Sling, Vue, etc (Even Apple?) to make it easier for me to keep my Tivo, but change to Internet only services w/o loosing functionality...

It'd be great if Tivo, SlingTV and Vue could get together and develop Tivo apps that would allow my Tivo to see either SlingTV or Vue (or some future service - Apple?) like any other cable company (OnePass, Suggested Recordings, Guide listings, etc) It'd be great to just remove my tuning adaptor and CableCard, return them to the local cable co office, and keep using my Tivo with any of these serices.. If cutting the cord could look like little has changed to the family, same guide, same automated local recordings, etc, just a more tailored, ala carte channel selection, and better pricing through competition.... Give me *that*...

I won't hold my breath, but that's the real long-term solution I'm hoping for...
 
I could never go back to the old way of watching TV. I have to watch ten+ episodes in a row now to be happy. And they need to be IN ORDER. Old TV played re-runs and I missed half my shows. With Netflix and Hulu+Showtime I can watch everything in order. I set a personal goal to watch all 67 of The Walking Dead episodes on Netflix before I had to return to work after Christmas and I achieved it. Charter could never give that to me. CUT THE CORD
 
  • Like
Reactions: JamesPDX
Go to your local public library and get a card and ask about services: They more-than-likely have a decent DVD selection. Many libraries are now offering digital content accessible from home. (Hoopla, etc.)
 
Eh, TV shows are mostly junk nowadays, and watching actual channels is outdated, so I don't care what happens to cable. I can watch Rick and Morty on demand without ads on my laptop, and that's all I "need". Except I don't even need that because I usually practice my duduk when I'm bored.

You're still stuck with cable if you watch sports... The solution is to be like me and not give a crap about sports. Huge waste o' time.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sabretooth78
Eh, TV shows are mostly junk nowadays, and watching actual channels is outdated, so I don't care what happens to cable. I can watch Rick and Morty on demand without ads on my laptop, and that's all I "need". Except I don't even need that because I usually practice my duduk when I'm bored.

You're still stuck with cable if you watch sports... The solution is to be like me and not give a crap about sports. Huge waste o' time.
That's all and good for some, while others have other interests and do other things.
 
I'll make this simple, this is NOT the solution we are looking for. What I want is the following channels:
BBC America
Disney Channel & ABC Family (or whatever they want to call it now)
HGTV
Food Network & Cooking Channel
History Channel
Travel Channel
and possible Animal Planet

And that's it, no extra channels that I don't want, just a few simple channels at a reasonable cost, I would pay about $10 per month for this line up, assuming there are limited commercial interuptions.
ig you think all that content is only worth 10 dollars... this is what the consumer problem is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: co.ag.2005
If they wind up allowing this, it should include language that forces STB's that want to participate (like Apple TV), must implement the FULL cable interface (even if through a programming interface), which would allow the cable companies to maintain control of what and how they offer the content and give the STB's a way to also provide other methods of content accessing (Hulu, Netflix, Network Apps, etc)....

We already have regulations defining a standard STB-slot which allows the cable-cos to deliver their secure content ; and at the same time (potentially) allows the user to easily swap out a dumb-box by just plugging the receiver module in another box, even a DVR(TiVo). The cable-co's have done their best to sabotage this in any possible way (for technical reasons of course).

And this initiative is just as doomed as the standard receiver/encryption slot. In this respect Europe is way ahead (England being the exception); they already have a defined CAM (conditional access module) specification (essentially a PCMCI card which handles decryption), even the key is standardized as a credit-card size (same as any ATM card with a chip).

To conclude, it would be nice - has been tried already and failed - probably will never happen.
 
Making net neutrality that much more important. Think about it, using your cable company for internet to bypass their monopoly on cable channels is a major incentive to throttle or totally block your ability to bypass them.

Utter BS. It's this kind of argument that exposes the mentality where people either don't understand the issue, or the "me generation" attitude of "I want it so I have a right to it" is given priority over everything.

People keeping making statements like "monopoly" and how "net neutrality is no different than what deregulation did to electricity utilities - both of which are some of the most inaccurate and dumb comments I've ever heard around technology.

In the US, no cable company has a monopoly. Period. End of discussion. Just because you only have one choice does NOT mean that there is a government supported monopoly. It may well mean that the market will not support additional choices due to cost. I'd guess you won't find a Bass Pro Shops in the middle of the Sahara Desert. Does that mean that if somebody sets up a one room fishing store there that they have a monopoly? No. It means nobody else is stupid enough to invest money when the return on investment makes no sense. Why don't you have 10 internet providers in a municipality? Because the cost to deliver does not financially support it. Period.

Cable and associated Internet is exactly the same. Forcing MSOs to provide "open internet" like it was "electricity" for anybody to sell is ridiculous. Comparing the two is like comparing a school bus to the price of rice. No relationship whatsoever. Splitting electricity transmission and distribution from supply did NOTHING except allow for trading of electricity - which a universal commodity. There is no "quality" of electricity. There is only quality of electricity transmission and distribution. When you change electricity suppliers you're not getting different electrons. You're getting the same friggin electricity produced from the same friggin generation plant you always did. The only difference is that back on the trading floors (taking a little liberty here) electricity supply is being traded and money got moved from one pile to another. In other words, what your local power company actually delivers IS NOT A DAMN BIT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THEY EVER DID. That is, with the exception of what state and federal governments have imposed from a regulatory perspective- but guess what? Who pays for that? You do. The consumer. By law, all of those regulatory imposed investments are passed along to the consumer. Directly. Which quite frankly has had the effect of over-capitalization of utilities, because they not only get reimbursed, but by law actually earn a profit on capital investment. How exactly does that lower consumer cost? Hmmmmmm.....

Try that with Internet. With network services. They in fact DO have quality measures, and differentiation in service and features. Not at ALL like electricity as a utility. Those supporting "separating the pipe from the content" speak as if this will lower costs to the consumer, increase competition, and increase quality. Please provide details - and I mean technical details - as to how. The only technical means I can determine to even ATTEMPT to separate pipe from content would be to have every internet provider use private networks over existing pipes, allowing the cable MSOs to effectively function as utility transmission/distribution, and have the actual "Internet providers" operate private networks over that infrastructure. But even if you could do that (which frankly has extensive complexity and downside from the carrier perspective) you subsequently reduce capacity due to overhead, and increase costs.

I frankly can't stand the MSOs. I'm one of their biggest critics. But I'm not a hypocrite, and I understand the industry. I want to hold them accountable, but "Net Neutrality" is a joke. And this constant barrage of people claiming "monopoly" are IMHO just examples of how some people are exposing a lack of comprehension of the product. There is a fundamental trend where people don't like something, and demand government intervention to force private commerce to deliver it - which usually results in lowered quality at higher costs.
 
They should force the breakup of content and infrastructure. They were given basic monopolies to do business, that should be restricted to wire service not the stuff that goes on it. This ******** about disallowing unbundling should be an instant anti-trust lawsuit.

Absolute total rubbish. If you know so much, please provide an explanation of technically how they would do this, and your definition of "given basic monopolies".

Before you do, I'd advise you to read the Telecommunications Act, and what they are actually permitted to do. There are SO many misconceptions of this "monopoly" theory from people who have not educated themselves.

Here is a primer to help you understand this.

1) By federal law, since at least 1996 (with the ratification of the Telecommunications Act of 1996) exclusive agreements with a provider are illegal. That is in every municipality of every state and territory in the US. Period.

2) "Franchise Fees" have no impact on cable companies/MSOs. This is because 100% of the franchise fee is passed directly on to the consumer. Period.

3) Since 1966, the FCC effectively even removed the "quality" component from being within the purview of any Franchise Agreement. Frankly the only real issue with municipal Franchise Agreements have to do with support of local TV - meaning local channels such as your school district or city/township local stuff - not local broadcast affiliates.

4) Your Franchise agreement does not - and by FCC rule - CAN not - even discuss internet.

5) The only reason there are not more "competitors" in each area is due to cost.

6) Forcing MSOs to allow anyone else to use their physical infrastructure after they spent billions of dollars installing it and maintaining it is nothing short of government theft. Seizure. There are forms of government that endorse this. I would hope the US is not one of them.
[doublepost=1453981390][/doublepost]
I have the same setup. It's empowering owning my equipment. I think before TiVo (years ago mind you) I was paying something like $21 a month per box for HDDVR service... that's $504 per year for antiquated technology. Shameful. So I got the TiVo and yeah, dealing with Comcast to get everything paired the first time is annoying, but quite simple once you get someone on the line that knows what they're doing.

My gripe with Comcast is I have the Tripple Play. Every 6 months I have to call in because my bill will go from $130 to $180 because "the promotion expired" and I have to threaten to leave then have them dial it back.... and the bill goes back down but usually $5 more per month... then the next six months, repeat.

I have phone\cable\internet... I don't WANT phone, but they say if I cancel my phone line my bill will go up $10... which made sense back in the day when it was pay per use calling, but there's no logic to it today.

I'm at the point now where I don't like the idea of ditching my cable TV and going to just internet, because then I'd have to download and\or stream my shows, which the cable company also is Comcast NBC Universal so they control the TV shows I like too. Makes me insane!

I have 2 Tivo Roamio Pros and 4 Tivo Minis. That requires 2 cablecards. I previously also had Tivos, and other DVRs as well. Cablecard is not easy and presents challenges to both the cable company, the third party device manufacturer, and the owner. And current cablecard is unidirectional - meaning that with a few rare exceptions, "on demand" is not available (meaning for example Verizon FiOS On Demand content).

Let's also be clear, however. With Tivo you have to buy your hardware up front. It's relatively expensive. And you have to rent cablecars per month. And you have to pay Tivo service fees per month - or pay a high "lifetime" cost (which is being discontinued by Tivo, BTW). To put my entire system in brand new, the up front cost - in cash - is

$600 each for Roamio Pro - times two = $1200. Includes one year of Tivo Service.
$150 each for Mini - times four = $600. No service required.

So, I'd have to spend $1800 up front.
Then cablecard rental of $4.99 each times two per month - so another $9 per month.
Then after the first year, it's $14.99 per Tivo Roamio Pro per month for Tivo Service, plus the cablecard rental.

Also, after initial warranty, I bear the cost of any repair and/or replacement of hardware.

it's worth it to me but let's at least be honest about the comparison. Not even considering the warranty and up front cash costs, averaged over 3 years a single Tivo Roamio pro costs the consumer $31.65 per month to use it. $599.99 purchase plus 36 months of cablecard rental plus 2 years of Tivo service fees (first year included).
 
Last edited:
I cut the cable cord 3 years ago. But I am still stuck with comcrap as my only option for Internet service. And to ad salt to the injury it is actually more expensive to have standalone internet service versus a bundle with their crap channel lineup.

Anything that leads to breaking up the monopoly I support 100%. If I had any way to get a different Internet provider, I would be there yesterday.

Btw - with appletv we already have all the infrastructure needed to break the cable bundle monopoly. Any content provider can create an app to deliver their content through Apple TV. Even comcrap has an app to do this but will not allow it on the ATV4. The problem is not technical and it's not user experience.

The problem IS the monopoly and the greed.
 
Once again, another misrepresentation of the term "monopoly". Please define exactly how there is a "monopoly".

Please don't use emotional based arguments, or just expose "what you don't like" but in fact use actual facts and data.
 
Absolute total rubbish. If you know so much, please provide an explanation of technically how they would do this, and your definition of "given basic monopolies".

Before you do, I'd advise you to read the Telecommunications Act, and what they are actually permitted to do. There are SO many misconceptions of this "monopoly" theory from people who have not educated themselves.

Here is a primer to help you understand this.

1) By federal law, since at least 1996 (with the ratification of the Telecommunications Act of 1996) exclusive agreements with a provider are illegal. That is in every municipality of every state and territory in the US. Period.

2) "Franchise Fees" have no impact on cable companies/MSOs. This is because 100% of the franchise fee is passed directly on to the consumer. Period.

3) Since 1966, the FCC effectively even removed the "quality" component from being within the purview of any Franchise Agreement. Frankly the only real issue with municipal Franchise Agreements have to do with support of local TV - meaning local channels such as your school district or city/township local stuff - not local broadcast affiliates.

4) Your Franchise agreement does not - and by FCC rule - CAN not - even discuss internet.

5) The only reason there are not more "competitors" in each area is due to cost.

6) Forcing MSOs to allow anyone else to use their physical infrastructure after they spent billions of dollars installing it and maintaining it is nothing short of government theft. Seizure. There are forms of government that endorse this. I would hope the US is not one of them.
[doublepost=1453981390][/doublepost]

I have 2 Tivo Roamio Pros and 4 Tivo Minis. That requires 2 cablecards. I previously also had Tivos, and other DVRs as well. Cablecard is not easy and presents challenges to both the cable company, the third party device manufacturer, and the owner. And current cablecard is unidirectional - meaning that with a few rare exceptions, "on demand" is not available (meaning for example Verizon FiOS On Demand content).

Let's also be clear, however. With Tivo you have to buy your hardware up front. It's relatively expensive. And you have to rent cablecars per month. And you have to pay Tivo service fees per month - or pay a high "lifetime" cost (which is being discontinued by Tivo, BTW). To put my entire system in brand new, the up front cost - in cash - is

$600 each for Roamio Pro - times two = $1200. Includes one year of Tivo Service.
$150 each for Mini - times four = $600. No service required.

So, I'd have to spend $1800 up front.
Then cablecard rental of $4.99 each times two per month - so another $9 per month.
Then after the first year, it's $14.99 per Tivo Roamio Pro per month for Tivo Service, plus the cablecard rental.

Also, after initial warranty, I bear the cost of any repair and/or replacement of hardware.

it's worth it to me but let's at least be honest about the comparison. Not even considering the warranty and up front cash costs, averaged over 3 years a single Tivo Roamio pro costs the consumer $31.65 per month to use it. $599.99 purchase plus 36 months of cablecard rental plus 2 years of Tivo service fees (first year included).
Your first cable card is supposed to be free. Or at least that is what the folks on Tivo Community will tell you...
Did TiVo remove the service fee for the Mini's? I have to pay 6 or 7 a month for mine, would have needed to pay 150 for lifetime service on top of the 99 cost for the box.

I think the encryption issue, plus the content flags are what would prevent a software solution from thriving. What is funny is even the current set top boxes that the cable companies provide, now use cable card (it is just not removable).
 
It's a nice idea and I'd love to see it work, but we already went through this with the requirement for cablecards. The cablecos dragged their feet and adopted tech that made it next to impossible to use them, the government handed out waivers like candy at halloween, manufacturers didn't build the devices to use them (other than TIVO), and the whole thing collapsed.

A lot of this pricing stuff is just a red herring. Yeah, if this goes through, you can save $5. You can do that now if you buy a TIVO. You can unbundle the channels now by just buying the shows you watch on Amazon or whatever a la carte. Oh, but no sports. And there's the rub. The big issue with multichannel prices going through the roof is sports. Until companies are willing to drop ESPN and the local sports channel from their package and people are willing to accept that, nothing is going to change in cable pricing.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.