Reply With Quote
lol Ludite.
They seem to have good reviews, but you should do your due diligence and check reviews, etc. I personally prefer to run wire whenever possible, but it's an alternative.
lol Ludite.
It's Luddite, tbh... GFY
Damn. At least the playoffs will be here soon and the games should be on the local channels I can receive OTA.
It looks like Fox hasn't reached an agreement with TWC to carry the Fox Sports app yet. They took awhile with WatchESPN as well.
Anyone know if these can be used with TWC?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16815706004
You can get cable cards from TWC, so probably.
I says it works with switched channels, but it's not clear if it fully supports 2-way cards. I don't know if you will get stuff like Navigator and On Demand through that.
According to this video, it does support Time Warner (look at the included sheet):
Not sure how you hook that to a Roku though...
Lol, you can't even buy the damn CableCard, you have to lease it.
http://www.timewarnercable.com/conte...ecard-and.html
I already have a tv tuner card in my HTPC, so I'm just going to set up a PVR for local OTA channels. Someone has written a Roku channel for NextPVR, so at least I can record local tv and stream it.
Can't wait to take 30+ lbs of hardware back to TWC and dump it at the service counter.
That device was a bit pricey and you actually have to lease the cable card.
Yeah, cable cards are finicky setups as well. Would rather have a box even if I had a card ready TV.
It always been like that. You also probably need a Tuner Adapter to plug into the Ceton if TWC is using SDV (switched digital video).
Lastly, once you have the card, the TA and the device, you need to call them one more time to give them all the numbers and activate the whole thing. Sometimes they'll just send a tech to do all that for you.
Looks like TWC charges $2.50/mo for the CableCard:
http://forums.timewarnercable.com/t5...FAQs/td-p/4750
Also looks like Ceton with TA is supported:
http://www.timewarnercable.com/en/re...cablecard.html
Apparently, the TA is free from TWC:
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb...d.php?t=482263
All that said, look around for reviews of other people using TWC CableCards with Tivo and the like... I've heard some horror stories with the whole tech...
EDIT: check the 2nd comment on this story:
http://stopthecap.com/2013/09/17/cab...-tivos-roamio/
ugh
Last edited by ElNono; 03-03-2014 at 08:42 PM.
I think I'll try going without any TWC hardware for a week and see if the family can survive the "horror" of no pause button, at least for live TWC content.
Frustrated Cities Take High-Speed Internet Into Their Own Hands
College Station is right in the middle of Texas — a few hours by car from Austin, Dallas and Houston and home to Texas A&M, a major research university. But if you're in the market for high-speed Internet access, College Station can feel like the middle of nowhere.
"It's been pretty bleak. You get too far from the university, and it's nothing," says Andrew Duggleby, co-founder of Exosent Engineering, a company that designs and builds tanker trucks for the oil industry.
"We're doing three-dimensional computer-aided design, big 3-D models," he says. "So here we are, this super-advanced engineering company, with all these technologies — but then it can't get past the walls."
There is not high-speed Internet access in Exosent's part of College Station, Duggleby says. If he wants to show one of his 3-D models to a client for review, he has to copy the files onto a portable hard drive and put it in the mail.
James Benham, a city councilman in College Station, is worried that high-tech jobs are fleeing to Austin and other cities with faster and cheaper broadband. "We have lost countless companies to other towns because we cannot provide the level and cost of connectivity," Benham says.
Even in central Texas — not exactly a hotbed of activist government— cities are thinking seriously about how to upgrade their broadband infrastructure.
"We have to deliver consistent electricity and water. I think we have to lump [connectivity] in with the critical infrastructure that we at least have an obligation to think about and plan for," Benham says. "The worst thing, I think, a city could do is sit back and do nothing and wait."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechcons...s?sc=17&f=1001
"The reconstruction of New Orleans provided the impetus to build a metro-scale wireless broadband network to deliver free public Internet service alongside communications for government and emergency services. Bell South threatened the city with legal action[citation needed] if the New Orleans municipal network continued to be run by the city. Consequently, the network was sold to a third-party company"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_broadband
... more evidence that USA is owned and operated by Corporate-Americans, not by Human-Americans.
" BellSouth has long waged war against any city wiring itself for broadband, but the battle has been particularly fierce in Louisiana.
The voter-approved community-fiber project in Lafayette still hasn't gotten off the ground because of constant BellSouth lawsuits. Recall the controversy when a BellSouth exec hinted they'd have to pull a 1,300 person local Cingular call-center if the city went forward with the project, something BellSouth also denied. BellSouth also lied to local voters via push-pollsters, as we've do ented.
As for the New Orleans mesh network, Meffert says he's not shutting it down, law nor not. "If I have to go to jail, I guess I will," he says. "We simply cannot turn off these few lifelines we have to our city and businesses."
BellSouth has been charging $70 for emergency Wimax service in the area if users don't subscribe to telephone service (otherwise $29.95)."
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/73020
I broke down and bought a SiliconDust HDHomeRun PRIME, which has 3 TV tuners. People are actively working on getting this device to stream to the Roku. There is already one working solution, but it is for iOS only. I'll hack away at it until I get it to work from my Windows 7 HTPC.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...55#post7267355
thread les are the same, ElNono=Boutons tbh
US telecoms giants call on FCC to block cities' expansion of high-speed internet
USTelecom wants to block expansion of popular networks in Chattanooga, Tennessee and Wilson, North Carolina
The US telecoms industry called on the Federal Communications Commission on Friday to block two cities’ plans to expand high-speed internet services to their residents.
USTelecom, which represents telecoms giants Verizon, AT&T and others, wants the FCC to block expansion of two popular municipally owned high-speed internet networks, one in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and the other in Wilson, North Carolina.
“The success of public broadband is a mixed record, with numerous examples of failures,” USTelecom said in a blogpost. “With state taxpayers on the financial hook when a municipal broadband network goes under, it is entirely reasonable for state legislatures to be cautious in limiting or even prohibiting that activity.”
Chattanooga has the largest high-speed internet service in the US, offering customers access to speeds of 1 gigabit per second – about 50 times faster than the US average. The service, provided by municipally owned EPB, has sparked a tech boom in the city and attracted international attention. EPB is now pe ioning the FCC to expand its
territory. Comcast and other companies have previously sued unsuccessfully to stop EPB’s fibre optic roll out.
Wilson, a town of a little more than 49,000 people, launched Greenlight, its own service offering high-speed internet, after complaints about the cost and quality of Time Warner cable’s service. Time Warner lobbied the North Carolina senate to outlaw the service and similar municipal efforts.
USTelecom claims the FCC has no legal standing over the proposed expansions and does not have the power to preempt the North Carolina and Tennessee statutes that would prevent them.
“States have adopted a wide range of legislative approaches on how much authority they give local governments to build, own and operate broadband networks. Some states require an election or public hearings before a public project can move forward. Others ask for compe ive bids, and still others put restrictions on the terms of service so the public en ies bear the same regulatory burdens as private service providers,” said USTelecom.
“States are well within their rights to impose these restrictions, given the potential impact on taxpayers if public projects are not carefully planned and weighed against existing private investment.”
In January this year, the FCC issued the “Gigabit City Challenge”, calling on providers to offer gigabit service in at least one community in each state by 2015. The challenge has come amid intense lobbying from cable and telecoms firms to stop municipal rivals and new compe ors including Google from building and expanding high speed networks.
In a statement EPB said: “Communities should have the right – at the local level – to determine their broadband futures.
“The private sector didn’t want to serve everyone, but public power companies like EPB were established to make sure that everyone had access to this critical infrastructure. ”
http://www.theguardian.com/business/...et-chattanooga
The telecoms mega-corps aren't lying, and smoking tobacco doesn't cause lung cancer.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 09-01-2014 at 06:50 AM.
City-provided broadband widespread
More than 130 cities from Norwood, Massachusetts, to Clallam County, Washington, currently offer fiber or cable Internet connections to their communities, according to the Ins ute for Local Self-Reliance, a group that supports municipal broadband. The municipalities are mostly small to mid-sized cities that critics say large Internet providers avoid because the return on investment is too low.
Cities build broadband networks to support businesses, improve health care and education, and attract jobs, they say. About 89 cities offer gigabit speeds, a rate that can download a 4.5 gigabyte movie in 36 seconds. The same file takes an hour at 10 megabits per second. Slower DSL or dial-up connections, which are common in rural areas, would take many hours longer.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/...-run-broadband
Chattanooga's Gig: how one city's super-fast internet is driving a tech boom
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...rnet-tech-boom
Repug TX is one of the many mostly red states where state law blocks taxpayer-owned municipal data networks.
Sad states of affairs
Alabama: Municipal communications services must be self-sustaining, "thus impairing bundling and other common industry marketing practices." Municipalities cannot use "local taxes or other funds to pay for the start-up expenses that any capital-intensive project must pay until the project is constructed and revenues become sufficient to cover ongoing expenses and debt service."
Arkansas: Only municipalities that operate electric utilities may provide communications services, but they aren't allowed to provide "basic local exchange service," i.e. traditional phone service.
California: Public en ies are generally allowed to provide communications services, but "Community Service Districts" may not if any private en y is willing to do so.
Colorado: Municipalities must hold a referendum before providing cable, telecommunications, or broadband service, unless the community is unserved.
Florida: Imposes special tax on municipal telecommunications service and a profitability requirement that makes it difficult to approve capital-intensive communications projects.
Louisiana: Municipalities must hold referendums before providing service and "impute to themselves various costs that a private provider might pay if it were providing comparable services."
Michigan: Municipalities must seek bids before providing telecom services and can move forward only if they receive fewer than three qualified bids.
Minnesota: 65 percent of voters must approve before municipalities can offer local exchange services or operate facilities that support communications services.
Missouri: Cities and towns can't sell telecom services or lease telecom facilities to private providers "except for services used for internal purposes; services for educational, emergency, and health care uses; and 'Internet-type' services."
Nebraska: Public broadband services are generally prohibited except when provided by power utilities. However, "public power utilities are permanently prohibited from providing such services on a retail basis, and they can sell or lease dark fiber on a wholesale basis only under severely limited conditions."
Nevada: Municipalities with at least 25,000 residents and counties with at least 50,000 residents may not provide telecommunications services.
North Carolina: "Numerous" requirements make it impractical to provide public communications services. "For example, public en ies must comply with unspecified legal requirements, impute phantom costs into their rates, conduct a referendum before providing service, forego popular financing mechanisms, refrain from using typical industry pricing mechanisms, and make their commercially sensitive information available to their in bent compe ors."
Pennsylvania: Municipalities cannot sell broadband services if a "local telephone company" already provides broadband, even if the local telephone company charges outrageously high prices or offers poor quality service.
South Carolina: The state "requires governmental providers to comply with all legal requirements that would apply to private service providers, to impute phantom costs into their prices, including funds contributed to stimulus projects, taxes that unspecified private en ies would incur, and other unspecified costs."
Tennessee: Municipalities that own electric utilities may provide telecom services "upon complying with various public disclosure, hearing, voting, and other requirements that a private provider would not have to meet. Municipalities that do not operate electric utilities can provide services only in 'historically unserved areas,' and only through joint ventures with the private sector."
Texas: The state "prohibits municipalities and municipal electric utilities from offering telecommunications services to the public either directly or indirectly through a private telecommunications provider."
Utah: Various procedural and accounting requirements imposed on municipalities would be "impossible for any provider of retail services to meet, whether public or private." Municipal providers that offer services at wholesale rather than retail are exempt from some of the requirements, "but experience has shown that a forced wholesale-only model is extremely difficult, or in some cases, impossible to make successful."
Virginia: Municipal electric utilities can offer phone and Internet services "provided that they do not subsidize services, that they impute private-sector costs into their rates, that they do not charge rates lower than the in bents, and that [they] comply with numerous procedural, financing, reporting and other requirements that do not apply to the private sector." Other requirements make it nearly impossible for municipalities to offer cable service, except in Bristol, which was grandfathered.
Washington: The state "authorizes some municipalities to provide communications services but prohibits public utility districts from providing communications services directly to customers."
Wisconsin: Cities and towns must "conduct a feasibility study and hold a public hearing prior to providing telecom, cable, or Internet services." Additionally, the state "prohibits 'subsidization' of most cable and telecom services and prescribes minimum prices for telecommunications services."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...-in-20-states/
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
