Official Ceton Echo Extender Info Thread - Page 22 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #631 of 7721 Old 05-23-2012, 01:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
crbaldwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,295
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Please, Ceton. Give us some concrete details about the Echo and put us out of our misery of having to endure this discussion about stealing cable...
crbaldwin is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #632 of 7721 Old 05-23-2012, 01:27 PM
Advanced Member
 
sgbroimp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: CT Shore
Posts: 676
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 49 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by gsr View Post

That doesn't make stealing service from them OK.

of course not; didn't intend to imply that it did.
sgbroimp is offline  
post #633 of 7721 Old 05-23-2012, 01:28 PM
Advanced Member
 
sgbroimp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: CT Shore
Posts: 676
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 49 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by crbaldwin View Post

Please, Ceton. Give us some concrete details about the Echo and put us out of our misery of having to endure this discussion about stealing cable...

A m e n ! ! !
sgbroimp is offline  
post #634 of 7721 Old 05-23-2012, 02:33 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,359
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 129
I just want to point out a couple things:

First one is there are really two possible situations here. One is where you are not subscribed to anything from the cable provider, but have a wire to your house (maybe from the prior homeowner, or from before you canceled).

If you hook up your QAM tuner to this wire and get "free" TV, then well, I'll say I agree with the sentiment here that it is "wrong" to do that (I won't use the word "stealing" as that's too loaded).

The other situation is where you sign up for just internet service, but not TV. In this case you have a line run to your house that you are paying for. Now this is a big gray area IMO. Reason being you're paying for service that enters your house on a cable, specifically internet, but what else comes with that internet is it "wrong" to view it if the cable company decides not to filter out the local channels? I can see both sides to that one.

But here's some more food for thought:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcruse View Post

Wow, you guys are so off-base. The free clear-QAM channels are identical to over-the-air channels. I still get the same ads, (which is what pays for the content of those channels, not subscription fees).

This is correct so far....

Quote:


To view these free channels is in no way stealing, and for you to imply so is incorrect and misleading.

What is "stealing" is those adds don't pay for the service of providing those channels to you via the cable to your house. They don't pay for the infrastructure the cable provider has to maintain, the lines, the receivers, etc, etc.

Quote:


The analogies of stealing a neighbor's power, or bypassing water meters are so not-analogous to this situation, because the cable companies NEVER charge for the free channels (only for extended cable/premium content)...whereas your neighbor pays for all his electricity.

Actually they do charge you for those channels. My provider (according to their website) charges $23.98/mo for the 17 "basic" channels, the locals essentially. This is $23.98/mo for the service of delivering those channels to your house via a cable that is free from reception issues and antennas.

Quote:


A better analogy is if there are 2 water fountains in a public space. One says "free clean water", and the other says "Water plus kool-aid flavoring - $5". If I pick the free one, according to you, I'd be stealing...

Except that the cable line isn't public space, it's owned by the cable company.

Just a further bit of food for thought. My cable provider provides me something like 40 channels via Clear QAM, including Velocity, Discovery, TNT, etc. These are obviously not "free" channels, but my provider provides these as a means of differentiating itself form the other provider in the area, but obviously not with the intent of giving everyone free TV.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
post #635 of 7721 Old 05-23-2012, 08:53 PM
Senior Member
 
tootal2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: eureka, mo
Posts: 328
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thanks but i bought the inksys wes610n. it was not easy making it use the 5ghz band at 300 mbs. Guess i will not need it for months if i dont get the echo beta. But im going to it on my tivo hd and my computer till i get a echo.



Quote:
Originally Posted by rrhorer View Post

Check out the TRENDnet-Wireless-Gaming-Adapter-TEW-647GA on Amazon. It includes a 4-port switch and works great, for me at least. Since this is my first post on AVS, I was not allowed to post the URL.

tootal2 is offline  
post #636 of 7721 Old 05-23-2012, 09:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mariob33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Holbrook, Ma
Posts: 1,710
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Send a message via Skype™ to mariob33
Any chance of getting some beta action soon. 4 ceton cards have tout for something

In search of video bliss...
mariob33 is online now  
post #637 of 7721 Old 05-24-2012, 05:53 AM
Senior Member
 
mmcxiiad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 261
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

Actually they do charge you for those channels. My provider (according to their website) charges $23.98/mo for the 17 "basic" channels, the locals essentially. This is $23.98/mo for the service of delivering those channels to your house via a cable that is free from reception issues and antennas.

Except that the cable line isn't public space, it's owned by the cable company.

Just a further bit of food for thought. My cable provider provides me something like 40 channels via Clear QAM, including Velocity, Discovery, TNT, etc. These are obviously not "free" channels, but my provider provides these as a means of differentiating itself form the other provider in the area, but obviously not with the intent of giving everyone free TV.

you know , here is a great idea, if you plug into the cable line and get a bunch of "free" content and are unsure if that is free, stealing or something else, Just call up the cable company and see what they think.

Truth is in that senario, i doubt anyone would think that they wouldn't want you to pay. That said, the conversation is pretty pointless.
mmcxiiad is offline  
post #638 of 7721 Old 05-24-2012, 06:35 AM
Administrator
 
Mike Lang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 11,518
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 332 Post(s)
Liked: 314
Back on topic guys...

Mike Lang
Administrator
Please use the report post button to alert staff to problematic posts. Never quote or respond to them yourself.
Join the AVS Club and help support the site. Help Support AVS Forum Sponsors.
Mike Lang is offline  
post #639 of 7721 Old 05-24-2012, 06:35 AM
Senior Member
 
JorgeA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 255
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueiedgod View Post

When a signal is intentionally broadcast, such as in broadcast TV or Radio, it is intended to be freely distributed.

When a signal is being distributed on a private wired network, it is only intended for the recepients who are eligible to receive it. Cable companies pay to the original broadcasters to re-transmit the feed on their networks. So, if they pay, why shouldn't you?

It is very simple, if you don't want to pay, get an antenna.

Sorry if I'm coming late to the party, but this whole discussion reminds me of an old question we had in our household, and maybe y'all can weigh in on it.

We discovered Clear QAM about six years ago when one night my wife was sleeping on the couch and, out of boredom, I started playing with our new Sony TV's features. One thing I tried was to have the TV scan for channels. (We did not have a cable box of any kind then, the coax was hooked up directly to the TV, and we were paying for a cable package including about 80 analog channels.)

Much to my surprise, the Sony reported a ton more channels than I'd expected to see, most or all on the digital side. A few clicks later, I was introduced to the world of Channels "29.1," "60.3" and "84.12."

I woke my wife up and showed her what I'd found. We started surfing up and down these mysterious channels, and discovered that some seemed to duplicate the channels we already had and others were brand-new to us.

Over the next several months we learned that these mysterious channels seemed to jump around unpredictably -- 84.12 would become 84.9, or 60.3 could turn into 2.2, and you'd have to rescan in order to find them all over again.

So we started to wonder if this wasn't some kind of clever marketing tool for the cable company to lure customers of less-extensive channel packages into buying bigger packages so that we could count on the channels still being there the next time we tuned in. You know, like offering free samples.

My questions to you, then, are:

1) What do you think of that idea (that letting their customers discover these channels was a low-key marketing ploy)?

2) Did it constitute stealing to watch these channels that the cable company was sending into our home unrequested?

Thanks for any insights.


EDIT: @Mike Lang: Sorry, I posted this and then your request showed up. Still hoping someone will enlighten me.
JorgeA is offline  
post #640 of 7721 Old 05-24-2012, 07:50 AM
Senior Member
 
reggie14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 224
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by crbaldwin View Post

Please, Ceton. Give us some concrete details about the Echo and put us out of our misery of having to endure this discussion about stealing cable...

+1!

I'm still very interested in the Echo's media streaming capabilities, particularly for DVD and blu-ray rips. Basically, I want some sort of clarification regarding the following statement on the Ceton website:

Quote:


Access Your Personal Media Libraries
When connected to a Ceton "Q" or a Windows 7 PC, the Ceton "Echo" also lets you access your own personal media libraries, including music, photos and videos.

What kind of videos will we be able to play?
reggie14 is offline  
post #641 of 7721 Old 05-24-2012, 07:53 AM
gsr
Oppo Beta Group
 
gsr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 7,444
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 72 Post(s)
Liked: 163
I hope that answering the first question is ok with the mods...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JorgeA View Post

1) What do you think of that idea (that letting their customers discover these channels was a low-key marketing ploy)?

I doubt it was any sort of marketing ploy. There doesn't seem to be a lot of consistency in what channels the cable companies encrypt versus what they use Clear QAM for. But the most common situation seems to be that the over the air equivalents are usually Clear QAM and premium content, like HBO, will almost always be encrypted. Everything else tends to be a crap shoot as to whether it's Clear QAM or encrypted, but most channels that aren't part of the lowest service tier will usually be encrypted to make sure that only those who are paying for them can get them. Naturally, there are lots of exceptions to this - some cable companies encrypt all the channels, and some don't encrypt some of the channels in the middle tiers.

Note: Don't confuse encryption with the copy never / copy once / copy freely flags as that's a completely different thing. Encryption just means you need a CableCard device to tune the channels, so a Clear QAM tuner won't work for encrypted channels.

As to why the channel numbers keep moving around, that's one of the negatives to using Clear QAM rather than a CableCard device (or the cable box, which ultimately has a CableCard inside). Again, not sure if there's any method to their madness, but the cable companies somewhat frequently move things around to different frequencies, perhaps to balance their load as they modify their channel lineups. The CableCard devices have a mapping between the channel numbers you tune to and the underlying frequency. That mapping gets updates when changes are made. With Clear QAM, you're going more direct without that mapping which is why you would need to rescan when they move things around.

Quote:


2) Did it constitute stealing to watch these channels that the cable company was sending into our home unrequested?

I think we may have beaten that topic to death and the mods have obviously asked us to stop discussing it, so I'm not going there .
gsr is offline  
post #642 of 7721 Old 05-24-2012, 08:59 AM
Newbie
 
nycjoe77's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'm super excited about ceton extenders - I'm a long time sagetv user looking to bail and ceton/wmc looks like the way to go (though I'm a use Linux so I'm also happy about the Q).
I'm wondering if anyone is concerned about the state of WMC - it doesn't look like MS is putting much effort into it and considers it a legacy product. Does anyone think it's possible they'll simply discontinue it in the next couple of years?
nycjoe77 is offline  
post #643 of 7721 Old 05-24-2012, 09:38 AM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcruse View Post

Incorrect.

If what you said was true, then clear-QAM tuners would be illegal...

Shopping bags are not illegal - but you can use them to steal things.
cybrsage is offline  
post #644 of 7721 Old 05-25-2012, 01:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
lsarver's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,181
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcruse View Post

Incorrect.

If what you said was true, then clear-QAM tuners would be illegal...

They are about to become irrelevant: in our market, Comcast now requires a box to receive even basic channels. (These are distinct from cableCARD tuners. Up to two are "free" to subscribers.)

FWIW, I've never heard of "free" cable channels. (Seems an oxymoron.) Neither has Comcast. . .
lsarver is offline  
post #645 of 7721 Old 05-25-2012, 07:03 AM
Senior Member
 
cnewsgrp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Westford, MA
Posts: 326
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Guys: I am not a mod, but let's behave like adults. While cable theft is a good discussion point, this is a Echo extender thread.
cnewsgrp is offline  
post #646 of 7721 Old 05-25-2012, 07:19 AM
Senior Member
 
Joe 6 Pack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hampton, GA USA
Posts: 372
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Wow, sorry for causing this huge derail. I just thought that since I was already paying for the infrastructure for Comcast to run cable for internet into my house that if it also transmitted unencrypted TV signals, I could improve the reception of my local channels by using the cable connection. I just went and bought a $15 amplifier that stabilizes the channels I get via OTA so I'm good to go.

I really do hope the Echo comes in at around the $150 price range since at that pricepoint, with the added expense for me of having to buy MOCA adapters I might just buy the WDTV Live SMP for my office and use Hulu Plus as my DVR there. I already get Hulu on the Boxee Box in my bedroom using BartsideeTV so the only benefit the Echo serves me personally is being able to watch local live TV in my bedroom. Paying more than $150 so I don't have to get my lazy butt out of bed on Sundays to watch football probably isn't worth it.

Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand.
Joe 6 Pack is offline  
post #647 of 7721 Old 05-25-2012, 07:22 AM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 147
Need Extender Updates!!
cybrsage is offline  
post #648 of 7721 Old 05-25-2012, 07:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Sammy2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Right next to Wineville, CA
Posts: 9,806
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 96 Post(s)
Liked: 187
It is theft to take the un-encrypted signal from the cable and use it in any fashion. The cable company did the work and spent the money on the infrastructure to deliver it to your house. Even if it is only the same signal that you can get with an antenna it is theft because you did not do the work and spend the money to install an antenna on your house. Plain and simple.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program.

Sammy2 is offline  
post #649 of 7721 Old 05-25-2012, 07:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mariob33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Holbrook, Ma
Posts: 1,710
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Send a message via Skype™ to mariob33
Those in the Ceton app beta any immediate feedback? Or are you limited by NDA?

In search of video bliss...
mariob33 is online now  
post #650 of 7721 Old 05-25-2012, 09:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Suntan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Twin Cities
Posts: 7,105
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammy2 View Post

It is theft to take the un-encrypted signal from the cable and use it in any fashion. The cable company did the work and spent the money on the infrastructure to deliver it to your house. Even if it is only the same signal that you can get with an antenna it is theft because you did not do the work and spend the money to install an antenna on your house. Plain and simple.

Next you'll be telling me it is theft to enjoy the smell blowing through the window from the baker down the street.

If the cable company cared about the prospect of you hooking a tuner up and receiving the free channels on the wire coming into your house, they wouldn't pump those signals into your house to begin with.

Anyway, is this system going to properly replace SageTV or not? That's the $64 question as far as I'm concerned. Ceton, if the answer is yes, I've got a bag of money sitting here with your name on it.

-Suntan
Suntan is offline  
post #651 of 7721 Old 05-25-2012, 09:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Fatawan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by mariob33 View Post

Those in the Ceton app beta any immediate feedback? Or are you limited by NDA?

Today is the day, but it hasn't been released yet. We will be able to discuss it.
Fatawan is offline  
post #652 of 7721 Old 05-25-2012, 09:39 AM
Senior Member
 
JorgeA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 255
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by nycjoe77 View Post

I'm super excited about ceton extenders - I'm a long time sagetv user looking to bail and ceton/wmc looks like the way to go (though I'm a use Linux so I'm also happy about the Q).
I'm wondering if anyone is concerned about the state of WMC - it doesn't look like MS is putting much effort into it and considers it a legacy product. Does anyone think it's possible they'll simply discontinue it in the next couple of years?

Count me as one of those who's concerned about the future of WMC. Right now it just isn't clear what's going to happen with it down the road.

I've seen speculation running both ways. On the one hand, because Microsoft is making it available as an add-on to Windows 8, some believe this means that WMC will be supported for as long as Win8 is supported. If previous experience is any guide, this would mean 'til 2022 more or less.

On the other hand, I've also seen speculation that because MS split WMC off Windows, it's become a semi-independent product with its own lifecycle -- and this means that they could stop supporting it at a different point than Windows 8 (probably sooner).

Fortunately, though, it looks like Ceton is committed to working with WMC as far as the eye can see. The biggest issue would be the EPG, especially since not having to pay endless monthly fees for the TiVo EPG or for the cableco DVR is one of the appeals of using WMC on an HTPC.
JorgeA is offline  
post #653 of 7721 Old 05-25-2012, 09:47 AM
Senior Member
 
C17chief's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 280
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by JorgeA View Post

Sorry if I'm coming late to the party, but this whole discussion reminds me of an old question we had in our household, and maybe y'all can weigh in on it.

We discovered Clear QAM about six years ago when one night my wife was sleeping on the couch and, out of boredom, I started playing with our new Sony TV's features. One thing I tried was to have the TV scan for channels. (We did not have a cable box of any kind then, the coax was hooked up directly to the TV, and we were paying for a cable package including about 80 analog channels.)

Much to my surprise, the Sony reported a ton more channels than I'd expected to see, most or all on the digital side. A few clicks later, I was introduced to the world of Channels "29.1," "60.3" and "84.12."

I woke my wife up and showed her what I'd found. We started surfing up and down these mysterious channels, and discovered that some seemed to duplicate the channels we already had and others were brand-new to us.

Over the next several months we learned that these mysterious channels seemed to jump around unpredictably -- 84.12 would become 84.9, or 60.3 could turn into 2.2, and you'd have to rescan in order to find them all over again.

So we started to wonder if this wasn't some kind of clever marketing tool for the cable company to lure customers of less-extensive channel packages into buying bigger packages so that we could count on the channels still being there the next time we tuned in. You know, like offering free samples.

My questions to you, then, are:

1) What do you think of that idea (that letting their customers discover these channels was a low-key marketing ploy)?

2) Did it constitute stealing to watch these channels that the cable company was sending into our home unrequested?

Thanks for any insights.


EDIT: @Mike Lang: Sorry, I posted this and then your request showed up. Still hoping someone will enlighten me.


Might depend on your provider, but with WMC, even with a cable card tuner used as intended with subscribed service, you can also add in those sub channels you get OTA that arent in the normal subscribed lineup. I discovered this sort of on accident when editing the guide to remove channels I did not subscribe to. One of the network stations here has 2 movie sub channels....one with 80's to early 90's movies, and another which is like what AMC used to be before they moved on to newer content. Anyhow, those arent a part of the normal FiOS lineup via their set top boxes, but are fed in the pipe and will come in when using a clear QAM tuner (just get the locals+sub channels here just like your using an OTA antenna). Anyhow, even using a cablecard tuner with cablecard installed, I could still seemlessly add those sub channels to the WMC guide and watch them same as any other channel.
C17chief is offline  
post #654 of 7721 Old 05-25-2012, 09:52 AM
Senior Member
 
JorgeA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 255
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by gsr View Post

I hope that answering the first question is ok with the mods...


I doubt it was any sort of marketing ploy. There doesn't seem to be a lot of consistency in what channels the cable companies encrypt versus what they use Clear QAM for. But the most common situation seems to be that the over the air equivalents are usually Clear QAM and premium content, like HBO, will almost always be encrypted. Everything else tends to be a crap shoot as to whether it's Clear QAM or encrypted, but most channels that aren't part of the lowest service tier will usually be encrypted to make sure that only those who are paying for them can get them. Naturally, there are lots of exceptions to this - some cable companies encrypt all the channels, and some don't encrypt some of the channels in the middle tiers.

Note: Don't confuse encryption with the copy never / copy once / copy freely flags as that's a completely different thing. Encryption just means you need a CableCard device to tune the channels, so a Clear QAM tuner won't work for encrypted channels.

As to why the channel numbers keep moving around, that's one of the negatives to using Clear QAM rather than a CableCard device (or the cable box, which ultimately has a CableCard inside). Again, not sure if there's any method to their madness, but the cable companies somewhat frequently move things around to different frequencies, perhaps to balance their load as they modify their channel lineups. The CableCard devices have a mapping between the channel numbers you tune to and the underlying frequency. That mapping gets updates when changes are made. With Clear QAM, you're going more direct without that mapping which is why you would need to rescan when they move things around.

Thanks very much for taking the time to explain.

In our case, whatever the cableco was doing paid off for them, as ultimately my wife really got into some of those "extra" channels that had been in Clear QAM (Lifetime Movie Channel, Hallmark Channel) and when the cableco started scrambling them, we shelled out for the higher tier so that she could keep watching the new channels.

If those channels had always been encrypted, my wife would never have seen them and I'd be paying a lot less for cable today.
JorgeA is offline  
post #655 of 7721 Old 05-25-2012, 09:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
blueiedgod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Amherst, NY
Posts: 1,538
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked: 68
With all the Windows embedded that MS is betting on, it is hard to believe that they would abandon WMC all together. They jumped the gun a little bit in the 2000's with the software was more capable than the hardware was available. Many manufacturers, including HP, Linksys, and D-Link were onboard with MS, but due to the lack of hardware, mainly affordable tuners, the idea did not take off.

Ceton came out with what MS should have had lined up in 2005 to make Vista MCE a really viable option to cableco DVR and TiVO.

It will take a lot of convincing on MS part to get big manufacturers to support Windows embedded after they were burned by the extenders fiasco. It may be up to the little guys, like Ceton, and Silicon dust to make the hardware for Windows embedded platform to actually take off as MS envisions it.

6 TV's in the house on FiOS and we only pay $4.99/month to connect them all!!! Power to the CableCard and WMC7!!!
blueiedgod is offline  
post #656 of 7721 Old 05-25-2012, 05:44 PM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suntan View Post

Next you'll be telling me it is theft to enjoy the smell blowing through the window from the baker down the street.

Only if you eat the food he makes without paying for it. You know, like watching the channels via the cable company without paying them for it.

Thanks for your example, it works well to show it is theft.

Quote:


If the cable company cared about the prospect of you hooking a tuner up and receiving the free channels on the wire coming into your house, they wouldn't pump those signals into your house to begin with.

If the car owner cared about his car, he would have locked the doors. You are allowed to steal it since he did not...
cybrsage is offline  
post #657 of 7721 Old 05-25-2012, 07:46 PM
Member
 
werd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 119
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
For those that got in the beta, can non-beta members access the forums to at least read what is going on?
werd is offline  
post #658 of 7721 Old 05-27-2012, 08:15 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: In the ATL
Posts: 4,245
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Only if you eat the food he makes without paying for it. You know, like watching the channels via the cable company without paying them for it.

Thanks for your example, it works well to show it is theft.

You guys know that Comcast charges extra for internet without cable TV, specifically because they know people can get local channels for free over QAM, right? They're not losing any money here.
slowbiscuit is offline  
post #659 of 7721 Old 05-27-2012, 08:23 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
hogues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 638
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by werd View Post

For those that got in the beta, can non-beta members access the forums to at least read what is going on?

I don't think so, I think that your e-mail address has to be one that is registered for the beta in order to gain access to the forums.

hogues is offline  
post #660 of 7721 Old 05-27-2012, 09:24 AM
Member
 
kalex's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brooklyn,NY, USA
Posts: 139
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'm in ceton beta program and access is controlled for beta participants only. Can't discuss much but echo is not in beta yet
kalex is offline  
Closed Thread Home Theater Computers

Tags
Blu Ray Players

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off