> Last time I lived in the US, it was for only 3 years. It didn't take me long at all
> to shitcan Comcast in favor of DirecTV. DirecTV has had an "on demand" service for
> years now, haven't they? Are you saying it doesn't work very well?
Didn't even realize it, but you're right. The problem is this: "To start enjoying DIRECTV On Demand, you just need an HD DVR connected to the Internet†" Already paying over $80 a month for basic decoders and no premium channels (don't care about movie channels anyway). HD decoder is extra, as is the HD service that is required with the decoder. How about one charge for the HD service and through in the box since you're already charging extra? In fact, in this day and age how about including both as standard? I can't even hook up these cheap SD boxes to my HDTV with anything other than 240p (or is it 360p?) video- that is a downgrade from 480p svideo to an older CRT TV.
Anyway, this just makes my point of the need to consolidate under one service at least for internet and TV. DirecTV goes with nothing so it has to change.
Possible problem with U-Verse- it sounds like the TV takes bandwidth from the internet service- so the more you have going (say, watching one show and recording a couple others), the less you have for internet. I don't know how much bandwidth it takes, but the internet tiers are already lower it seems from Comcast. Does XFinity use internet bandwidth as well? I'm not talking about on demand/streaming, just normal programming.
|
Index 
Flat 
Re: And I thought Time Warner Cable couldn't get any worse!?!?!?!
Reply
