Settop box extortion

I just want to voice my displeasure of having to pay rent for set top boxes.  I pay rent for 1 DVR, 3 Set top boxes and 2 digital adapters totalling $45.92/month!!! That is $551.04 a year!!!
It used to be convenient to be able to place a tv in any room I choose, however we have lost this ability do to Verizon's set top box extortion plan.
I think a fair solution is that I should own the equipment after one year. Verizon has recouped the cost of the equipment after that first year of rent...after that it is just "gravy" for them.
I think it is time for all Verizon subscribers who object to being extorted call Verizon and voice your concern and DEMAND that this practice be stopped immediately.
...but right now I have to call Verizon to get them to roll back the Starz subscription they slapped on me without notification for the last two months....I dispise that practice too.
What a terrible way to run a company and treat your customers.

Keyboards wrote:
If you don't like that you can always opt for TiVO or MOXI if you'd rather pay  the costs upfront.  Then you only need to rent a cable card.
Not only that, but if you buy a STB then it's yours to maintain. Part of the rental fee from Verizon includes replacing and upgrading your STB.
I do wish the rental rate was discounted somehow because we have 7 STB's in our house and it costs us $76.00 / month for STB rental. I don't blame Verizon for that cuz it was our choice to get that many boxes.

Similar Messages

  • Extraordin​arily poor customer service & two weeks to replace a settop box???

    Can Verizon explain the huge decrease in your customer service over the past several months? After being a Verizon customer for nearly 20 years, we are in the process of looking for an alternate service provider after spending a week with your customer service representatives trying to obtain a replacement settop box Model 6200.
    After six hours of phone calls and a week of waiting, we now have a stack of three boxes sitting outside. The original that no longer powers up, the wrong unit that is obviously refurbished with huge scratches and grime all over it, and a new 7100.
    The best thing Verizon seems to be able to do now is send a technician in another week with a 6200 on the truck. Obviously, our confidence in this is not very high.
    During the process of calling in to Verizon every day this week, I have had the horrible experience of talking to your automated attendant who specifies that she/it has updates on my FIOS installation. When I follow the prompts to obtain more information, I hold for several minutes. Twice this week, your computers were down, so the reps simply hung up and said to call back.
    Several of your customer service representatives were extremely nice and helpful but the bottomline is that after a week, I still don't have the correct piece of equipment. I also have your automated system telling me that I have two appointments in two weeks to send out technicians to install FIOS on one day and PHONE on another day. No one at Verizon can respond when I ask them what this is about.
    Management seems to be non-existant or non-caring, and I'm not sure which is worse. Verizon representatives made the following statements that make it appear that Verizon has taken purposeful steps to make escalations of service problems by a customer impossible.
    1. Supervisors cannot be reached by customers. They will call you back within 24-48 hours.
    2. There is no headquarters phone number is not made available to customers because no one at Verizon executive offices will speak to a customer. This is a direct quote.
    3. The headquarters telephone number listed by Verizon in any public forum is a voicemail box. (REALLY?????)
    4. The legal/compliance number provided on your website forwards to customer service representatives who tell customers that they will look up the number on the same website that customers can. Which then transfers to the same customer service rep.
     Verizon has made it apparent that customer that are treated poorly by the company are not taken seriously and that you will simply ask for "one more chance" to make it right in another three to five days and take the customers time for granted.
    Amazingly, I can get through to pay a bill or order a new service in five minutes!

    That's one of the very reasons why I don't call 1-800-VERIZON unless I really have to because I too have been there with the runaround where it wastes so much time and nobody seems to know what they're doing but I've had other experiences with that call line which worked out better.  Either way, I blame management.  It's very disorganized and sometimes it's like asking for the impossible when you're making a very basic and reasonable request for something.  My only other alternative available in my area is Comcast which wouldn't be very much different from what I have seen. 
    I haven't done this myself but as someone else here suggested, you might accomplish a lot more by exchanging your STB at a Verizon Fios TV store but please be sure to call first before venturing out.  I know other people here have gotten this sort of problem resolved a lot quicker that way. 
    Here is the website for finding your nearest store.  It might be worth the time even if you have to go a little out of your way.  I often prefer to speak to someone in person:
    https://www22.verizon.com/ResidentialHelp/FiOSTV/G​eneral+Support/Account+Issues/QuestionsOne/84843.h​...
    Good luck!

  • Mix settop box and direct connection to tv

    I have just this week had FIOS installed with 1 digital lcd tv plus hd settop box. I expect to add another tv in the near future buy had thought that I might simply connect the coax directly to the new digital ready tv without a box to receive just the unencrypted channels. But, with the current setup I bypassed the settop box and connected the coax cable directly to my current tv (which has both digital & analog tuners & can receiver over-the-air channels well from rabbit ears). To my surprise (& disappointment) the tv set does not receive any signal.
    Is this what happens when your service includes a settop box? Is it really so that you cannot have one set connected via a verizon box and another directly connected? Or am I do something stupid and missing some simple step?
    Any/all comments/suggestons welcome.
    Alan
    Solved!
    Go to Solution.

    OK, thanks. But the set (vizio sv470xvt) has a qam tuner builtin Also analog (ntsc?) and atsc. The literature with it says it can receive cable channels without a box; it is not cablecard ready so presumably that's not an issue. I've searched on the web and all sites I've found with info confirm that. There is another thread (started earlier than this one, but I did't see it until later) in which many people say that they've had real problems with getting the unencrypted cahnnels; it appears that Verizon moves them around?!
    I've tried several times both using the search menu and manually entering some (although not a lot) of some channels. The highest channel number allowed is 135; could that be a problem?
      I_Am_The_Stig: your message came in after I started this but my set has options to search for analog/digital or either alone (I've tried both combined & digital only) but nor a 'cable'setting. Since the literature with the set claims it can receive cable signals I would assume it searches with all tuners. But still I don't get any channels found.
    Alan

  • My xi settop box is constantly rebooting on its own

    for the past two days and nights the X! platform continues to reboot even during programsI'm in the 60423 area

    Its frustrating .. it happens to me too.... strange thing is ... its only my box...  grrrrr ! the not being able to rewind live tv isnt pleasing either ! 

  • Settop Boxes

    I ALREADY HAVE A MULTI-ROOM DVR WHICH HAS A CLOCK DISPLAY BUT WOULD LIKE THE BOXES IN MY BEDROOMS TO HAVE CLOCK DISPLAYS AS WELL (WHICH I WAS TOLD ARE CURRENTLY NOT AVAILABLE) WITHOUT HAVING TO GET ANYMORE DVRS?  ARE THERE ANY BOXES WITHOUT DVRS WITH CLOCK DISPLAYS THAT ARE GOING TO BE AVAILABLE SOON IF NOT NOW?  THANKS!

    Here is a link to a Verizon web page that shows all of the STBs with links to their manuals:
    http://www22.verizon.com/ResidentialHelp/FiOSTV/Receivers/User%20Guides/User%20Guides.htm
    Justin
    FiOS TV, Internet, and phone user
    QIP7232, IMG 1.8, Build 02.54
    Keller, TX 76248

  • How to connect my laptop to tata sky set top box with HDMI cable

    piease tell me how

    Hi, Your laptop has HDMI OUT and your settop box ALSO has HOMI out, you can't connect two OUT ports together, this won'twork. Is this the one ?     http://www.honeytechblog.com/tata-sky-plus-hd/ Regards.

  • Why isn't there an option to record future shows using the HD box linked to a Multi room DVR setup?

    I have a multi room DVR in my livingroom and HD boxes in my 2 bedrooms. Currently if you are viewing a program on one of the HD boxes you are able to record the live program you are viewing as the HD box will enable your DVR to record that show.
    Why hasn't FIOS enabled the settop boxes that are part of a multi room DVR setup to be able to record future shows? Needless to say, if I am lying in bed at night and see something in the program guide airing at a future date I really don't want to get out of bed and walk to the living room, turn on the TV and DVR and then program that new recording.
    If I have missed something and you can do this please let me know. Otherwise FIOS should add this to their customer's wish list and enable recording for future times on the HD boxes that are part of your multi room DVR system!

    You can already do that.  Highlight the show in the guide and press the record button.  You should get a pop up with the option to Set Reminder or Record on your DVR.   If it doesn't check your DVR to ensure that availability is extended to the STB you are using.

  • Call id on TV, feature is on the box but can't get it to work, at least a NY issue...

    I was told a bunch of things from a bunch of places..
    Story 1: source: some ad I read) Call-id on TV needs either digital voice or a regular fios pots phone + fios internet.  I have the latter & the feature does show up on the box but when I try to enable it, I get an error that I need the call id feature on my phone to make it work.
    Story 2, source: fios support 12/18/09) I hear that the feature is currently only available to customers with Digital Voice & it looks, to him, like its available in NY.  He advised me to contact support later this morning (when they start as it is currently about 4am) & see if I can change the service over to digital voice, he advised me he thinks it is the same if not cheaper.  He said it will require the replacement of the ONT.
    Questions:
    1)
    Do I need digital voice to make this feature work?
    Either way, is this service available in NY?
    Does it cost more then the fios standard phone, is there an additional fee for a service call or to have a replacement ONT installed?
    2)
    If I don't need it, when will it be available for regular pots phone customers in NY?
    Otherwise, it should be understood that the feature doesn't work at all in NY; I mean, it is in the list for the settop box but it is unable to be turned on.  I know this cause I have seen posts on another forum of people from at least NY, complaining they have the same problem I have.

    There is a long thread on this at another forum..
    http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r23501543-IMG-Caller-ID-on-in-New-York
    It is normal for the box to start showing the option before it's actually live.
    You won't need any service call or change of equipment. it will just start working when it's live.
    From that thread some areas of NY have it. Verizon doesn't announce schedules on anything too much so you are highly unlikely to get an answer to "when".

  • Box won'y play channel I'l subscribed for

    Bill_lg wrote:
    One of my three set top bixes cannot play cable channels that play on the other two set top baxes.  I can ony view basic TV channels on one set top box.  How do I get full access to all my channle on the one settop box?  The settop box with limited access is the same as another settop box.
    The message i Get is that I need to subscribe to the service for that channel; but the other boxes will play the channel.
    Apologies for the issue and the experience that you described above.  I have asked a colleague to review your account and reach out to you so that we can get any underlying issues identified and resolved.
    Thanks for your patience.

    Bill_lg wrote:
    One of my three set top bixes cannot play cable channels that play on the other two set top baxes.  I can ony view basic TV channels on one set top box.  How do I get full access to all my channle on the one settop box?  The settop box with limited access is the same as another settop box. The message i Get is that I need to subscribe to the service for that channel; but the other boxes will play the channel.Hopefully, someone with Comcast will chime in on this post and alert another team to review your account codes.... if that doesn't happen, you can call into Comcast and ask that the entitilements be refreshed on the box that isn't working properly.... -=Ray=-

  • Why does COMCAST work so hard to prevent me from taking advantage of MOCA/XB3?

    I apologize in advance for the length of this post and its frustrated tone but I've spent so much time and effort trying to accomplish something that should have been quite straightforward with COMCAST but which has left me with a very biter taste in my mouth. I hope to get the attention of other concerned COMCAST customers in similar situations and the ears of people at COMCAST who can make a difference and change their current misguided policies and business models around MOCA. I also vent because of the long standing vexing problem of not being able to get the full use of the XFinity Internet I've been paying for every month for the last thirten years despite the recent availability of standardized network distribution technology in the form of MOCA 2.0 which is advertised by COMCAST as a feature of multiple versions of their latest Wireless Internet Gateways which customers are paying for but yet unable to utilize. See: http://www.cedmagazine.com/news/2013/04/comcast-bows-faster-gateway-doubles-speeds-on-2-data-tiers In a blog post on Comcast’s site, Rob Slinkard, senior vice president, product management, communications and data services, wrote that while data tiers have increased their speeds over the years, thanks in part to DOCSIS 3.0 deployments, in-home wireless gateways aren’t always capable of passing those faster speeds around a home. Coupled with the plethora of devices in subscribers homes, an inefficient wireless gateway can be a chokepoint in subscribers’ home networks.
    “Today we are launching a new device that solves this problem and creates the fastest in-home wireless network available anywhere in the U.S.,” Slinkard wrote. “The new Xfinity Wireless Gateway includes the 5.0 GHz radio frequency. This new frequency is being used by many of the latest consumer electronic products (like the iPhone 5, iPad 4 and Kindle Fire HD) and results in better speed and performance from connected devices.
    “It also has been built to a new standard (MoCA 2.0), which allows the device to leverage a home’s existing coaxial cable network to create a faster and more efficient network of connected devices within the home.” It has been several years since I started this troublesome journey to extend WiFi/Internet access to my living room. My Comcast cable modem/eMTA and wireless gateway is installed upstairs on one side of my home and no matter what Wireless AP device or technology I use I cannot get a strong WiFi signal downstairs especially in my living room, kitchen and dining room where a majority of my Internet access takes place. In particular, my phones and tablets sometimes drop off the WiFi network due to dead-zones and I'm unable to successfully stream any movies at even a low 2-3Mbits on my media center or streaming devices, sometimes even for home movies stored on my personal server upstairs which is connected directly to the COMCAST Wireless gateway at Gigabit speeds. Over the years, I've spent hundreds of dollars on various WiFi access points, extenders, multiple powerline adapters etc.. all to no benefit. Unfortunately my decade-old home was not built with structured wiring and the AC power lines must be too noisy for powerline AV to work any better than WiFi and so I'm stuck with at most 1-3 Mbps of sustained bandwidth from my living room to both my personal media server upstairs and the Internet. This low speed, unreliable Internet access in the center of my home entertainment area is completely unacceptable to me. Then I learnt this year from Comcast's own press releases like the one quoted above in cedmagazine that their newest Wireless gateways (Cisco DPC3939 or Technicolor TC8706C) are equipped with MOCA 2.0. MOCA is designed exactly for the kind of network distribution problem that I have. MOCA takes the Internet/Ethernet and sends it over the already laid down cable/coaxial lines in your home at high speed using the unused bandwidth available on the coax wires. It is standardized and is pretty much plug and play if you have the devices. In theory with MOCA anyone can have a fully networked high speed broadband home relying on just the coaxial wiring that most homes already have. After years of changing my WiFi access points multiple times looking for better coverage, I finally decided to try the COMCAST all-in-one Wireless Internet Gateway and eMTA (Technicolor wireless Gateway 1) but after lots of troubles with poor signal reception, frequent disconnection/drops and faulty DNS configuration that cannot be changed by the end-user, I decided to request a change to the more capable XB3 Wireless Gateway 2 with MOCA 2.0 whole-house networking features. I started a web chat with the Comcast technical representative that worked in the department for gateway replacement. I told her about my WiFi distribution problem and that I already had the Technicolor Gateway and that I needed to get Gateway 2 -- the so-called XB3. She was very quick to tell me that she knew *exactly* what I wanted and had dealt with this before. I went into detail about MOCA, about the lack of MOCA 2.0 adapters available to purchase by consumers and that she should make sure that my replacement XB3 kit came with the necessary MOCA -> Ethernet adapter or MOCA WiFi AP that I would need to extend the Comcast Internet service to my living room. She acknowledged everything, said she was creating notes about MOCA adapter for the dept that would ship out the XB3. I couldn't believe how easy it was to order the XB3 and required MOCA adapter/WiFi AP. I was so pleasantly suprised and impressed by the customer service I thought I had received from Comcast. I made sure to give her the best review scores when the chat was complete and a Comcast survey was presented to me. Later I received a FedEx shipment notice and a few days later I was shocked when I opened the package to see that I had been shipped the exact same Technicolor (non-MOCA) single band WiFi gateway (Gateway 1) which I already had and which I had specifically told the customer support agent that I did not want again. I was shocked at the deception and false promises that I had received from this Comcast customer support specialist. Even though the entire chat conversation was recorded, she had no problem lying to me directly that she was sending me an XB3 when she clearly had no intention of doing so. I later took this unwanted Technicolor Wireless Gateway 1 back to the Comcast store in Auburn WA and there the customer service representative argued with me over and over about MOCA and it was clear that he had no idea what MOCA was or why it is such a boon to anyone who has problems getting WiFi coverage in a home. He also stated that he knew nothing about XB3 boxes and that the Comcast store did not have any and that he couldn't find any information about XB3 in his computer. He also gave me a Motorola HD PVR which he said was newer than the really ancient one I had but which still had component outputs for my older TV unlike the X1 (to my knowledge). A few weeks later, I went back again to the same store and requested an XB3 Wireless gateway 2. This time the customer service agent I spoke to seemed to have some idea that MOCA existed (she said she had it installed in her home) but then insisted that I could not get an XB3 with MOCA *unless* I also ordered an X1 Comcast HD PVR. Also she said that it required professional installation and I would be charged for that even though all I wanted in the first place was just the XB3 MOCA Gateway. I asked her if the XB3 kit came with a MOCA -> Ethernet adapter or MOCA WiFi AP for the living room and then it became clear that she really either did not understand the use of MOCA for network distribution or she was playing dumb. She kept on insisting that Comcast does *NOT* provide any MOCA adapters or WiFi access points to use with the XB3 to extend the home network. Frustrated, I kept on asking her why there was a required bundling of MOCA Wireless gateway with a specific model of COMCAST DVR that I didn't want and she just insisted that was the way things had to be done. I also explained to her that I had an older Plasma TV without HDMI inputs. She finally went to talk to her supervisor and came out with a XB3 and an X1 HD DVR. I didn't want the X1 but I was very eager to get a chance to use MOCA to allow me to use my Comcast Xfinity Internet reliably downstairs. I figured that perhaps the the new X1 PVR had a built-in MOCA client and an Ethernet port with which I could use to plug in my own WiFi access point and thus have both 100% signal strength downstairs as well as high bandwidth hardwired network link backhaul upstairs back to the XB3. Last night, I finally installed the XBR3 after multiple false starts with the device sometimes refusing to complete activation or losing complete connectivity to my hardwired PC, turned on MOCA (which was disabled by default) and then tried to install the X1 DVR but suddenly discovered at 1AM in the morning that the X1 really didn't have any component outputs. There was no way to hook it up to my TV. Anyway, I wanted so badly to get MOCA as a network extender working that didn't care at that point about the TV and just wanted to make sure that the MOCA worked. The XB3 upstairs said that it detected 2 MOCA devices in my home, everything looks good although it would have been nicer if the XB3 detailed what devices were connected via MOCA and perhaps what version of MOCA they were using. Anyway, since I could not see the X1 screen on my TV or perform any setup I may have needed to do to setup MOCA on the X1, I gave up with that and tried the older non-X1 Motorola DVR (DCX3501M/MOR200BN) which some googling showed that it too actually supported MOCA (see http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/11/motorola-rolls-out-the-latest-hd-dvr-the-dcx3501-m/) as well though it was not an X1 model. I setup the Motorola DVR and after it was activated, I plugged the media center into the the back of the Motorola DVR's ethernet port. The media center showed that it was trying to acquire an IP address but no matter what it could not succeed. I called up COMCAST technical support again. It was 1:30AM. As usual the technical customer service representative had no idea what MOCA was and couldn't even clarify if it was possible to connect my streaming media device into the back of the Motorola DVR using an Ethernet cable and get Internet access that way via MOCA. In all my encounters with COMCAST support personel so far I've noticed that they all claim to know what MOCA is but yet keep on saying things that demonstrate clearly that they have no idea what it it is, how it works, why a consumer would want to use it for network distribution and most shockingly have no idea whether or how MOCA home networking is supported by Comcast products. This representative insisted over and over that I needed to setup a truck roll appointment for a technician to help me troubleshoot my MOCA/DVR issue but yet she would not clarify the simple question about whether COMCAST supported the use of the Ethernet port on the Motorola DVR to provide Internet access to begin with and she was not willing to pass me on to a support person who knew what MOCA was and how it was supported by COMCAST. What was the point of staying at home to wait for a technician to troubleshoot a device scenario that may not even be supported by COMCAST to begin with? Are all these COMCAST technical support representatives not even trained on the products that COMCAST is selling/installing in our homes? Why are they all clueless about MOCA technology even though COMCAST itself touts this feature in every press release about their new Wireless Gateways? The very unhelpful customer service agent rudely transfered me to another number without any warning, the number had a recorded message saying nobody was available and then hung up on me. Now, that is the kind of customer service I'm used to from COMCAST. I spent the next 30 minutes googling Comcast X1 DVR to figure out if any of the new ones supported component outputs and ended up learning more than I wanted to about Comcast RNG reference designs, X1/X2 software and finally the important fact that the Comcast X1 HD DVR has two variants manufactured by two seperate companies PACE and ARRIS and that one of the variants by PACE has on-board component outputs. That is the X1 DVR that the local Auburn store support person should have given me after I had told her that I did not have HDMI inputs on my TV. It was 2:30am. This morning I called up COMCAST technical support again and the representative I spoke to was quite helpful at first with helping to determine that my Auburn COMCAST store had a dozen+ units of the X1 DVR with component outputs. He also gave me a free 90days HBO due to all the time I've wasted driving back and forths to the Comcast store and getting/returning products, which was nice although I usually don't watch premium cable channels or much TV anyway; but still an appreciated gesture. Now that I was going to get an X1 DVR that would work with my TV and which I had reason to believe had on-board MOCA for Internet access, I asked the tech support representative if COMCAST did not sell or rent a MOCA 2.0 -> Ethernet adapter or WiFi AP, how was I going to use this X1 to extend the Internet downstairs for my mobile devices and to my TV for streaming movies? That simple question seemed to unnerve him for some reason. Once I got into this questioning about MOCA it was deja-vu all over again. He claimed to fully understand MOCA, claimed that the X1 used it to access applications and the Internet but insisted that I need to have a truck-roll again to my home from the Wifi experts to "troubleshoot" my WiFi distribution problem. Geez. I'd already been through these unreasonable conversations before multiple times! I tried to explain that I did not want or need any truck roll (more importantly, I'm not taking a day off work to wait for a house visit). I didn't need someone to troubleshoot something if the support personal himself doesn't even know if it is supported to begin with. While trying to explain that all I was asking for was an answer if the X1 exposed the Internet via it's rear Ethernet port or how otherwise I was supposed to access the Internet via the MOCA coax outlet, the line was dropped. Again, the typical COMCAST customer support. I've done a lot more research on MOCA and COMCAST and my thinking now is that the possible reason why COMCAST goes out of its way to make it very difficult for consumers to deploy MOCA whole house networking using its gear and why every single one of their representatives I've spoken to about MOCA home networking have acted very antagonistic towards that topic is because COMCAST does *NOT* want customers to learn about or utilize MOCA for whole house networking unless they are using a locked-in MOCA that works only with COMCAST proprietary video on demand, DVR/Cloud-DVR and other closed ecosystem multimedia entertainment products. Basically, a COMCAST customer who can have easy high speed broadband wired and wireless access in every room of their house via MOCA 2.0 is also a customer that may be tempted to start using over-the-top Internet television, streaming and entertainment services such as Amazon Instant Video, Dramatize, DramaFever, Crackle, HBO, Hulu, myTV, NetD, Netflix, NowTV, Qello, RPI TV, WhereverTV and Chromecast that are not controlled by COMCAST and which COMCAST makes no extra money off of you when you do it in every room of your  home due to the power of MOCA and the accessibility of COAX conenctors in most rooms of most homes. Basically COMCAST touts MOCA 2.0 and puts it into their latest Wireless gateways, DVRs and set top boxes not to help their customers easily have high speed whole house inter-networking but ONLY for the purpose of exploiting your in-home COAX wiring for their closed multimedia services like AnyRoom DVR etc.. That is why they allow their X1 and other DVRs and set top boxes to access the Internet via MOCA but then disable the rear ethernet ports so that your own entertainment streaming devices cannot also make use of the fast broadband connection. That is also why some of the COMCAST employees I've tried to get help from have stated in no uncertain terms that COMCAST will not sell or rent to me any device that allows my own devices to access the high speed MOCA 2.0 broadband connection that I pay for every month with my Xfinity Triple Play and Wireless Gateway rental fees. Look right here where COMCAST explains the benefits of the two main Wireless Gateways it rents to customers: http://customer.comcast.com/help-and-support/internet/wireless-gateway-compare/For the Wireless Gateway 2 which I'm currently renting from them, COMCAST clearly marks out that this Gateway offers "MOCA". COMCAST then explains what MOCA is:
    "MoCA: Multimedia over Coax Alliance. MoCA is a universal standard for home networking over the in-home coaxial cable. MoCA can be used to extend the Wi-Fi range of the Wireless Gateway 2, using a Wireless Ethernet Coax Bridge (WEC." Note though that COMCAST refuses to sell or rent you that Wireless Ethernet Coax Bridge to make use of your spanking new MOCA. At least that is what several COMCAST technical and support persons have told me. That document above though, is a COMCAST document aimed at current and future customers and it clearly explains the benefits of MOCA. But yet I'm supposed to believe that out of the six or so COMCAST technical and customer support personel I've spoken to about MOCA not a single one of them knows about this obvious purpose of MOCA and that they all refuse to rent or sell me equipment that allows my own devices to use the high speed MOCA broadband Internet that their own devices such as the X1 can access inside my home? I'm also supposed to believe that it is a coincidence that COMCAST spends the time, effort and cost to build in MOCA 2.0 into their DVRs and settop boxes but then blocks access to make use of it via the Ethernet ports on all their MOCA capable set top boxes and DVRs? These devices are all rented by COMCAST and they charge hefty monthly bills for it but then they disable my full use of the technology which I've already paid for? Finally, I wanted to find a store where I could buy my own MOCA 2.0 Wireless Ethernet Coax Bridge or MOCA compatible Wireless Access point in order to bypass COMCAST's blatent attempt to monopolize MOCA wholehouse broadband for just its own entertainment services. I couldn't find any ! It turns out that not a single manufacturer of MOCA 2.0 products (head-unit or adapters) will agree to sell any directly to a consumer - all of them will only sell to large ISPs and Cable companies like COMCAST. This makes absolutely no sense for such an important consumer technlogy. Imagine if all the Wifi AP and Cable Modem companies decided that you would not be able to buy their products and they would only sell to giant monopolistic companies like COMCAST that require that you indefinitely rent these devices and also insists on crippling them as well to remove basic functionality that the manufacturers had already built in for the benefit of the end-user? But then I thought back to the commotion a few months ago where people were buying the Cisco DPC3939 (ie, XB3) Wireless Gateway with MOCA 2.0 and having it activated without having to pay the ridiculous unending COMCAST rental fees and how quickly COMCAST acted to ban activation of Cisco DPC3939's that were purchased outright by customers by suggesting without any proof given whatsoever that the customers must have purchased "stolen" goods. How much does COMCAST make from overcharging so many customers for so long for "HD" DVRs (separate charge for DVR, separate charge for HD ability in 2014??), settop boxes, cable modems, eMTA etc..? I calculate that almost since the entire time I've been signed up to Comcast for Television in 2004, I've paid them at least $200/year for the right to use a slow, buggy and primitive 1080i 4:3 aspect ratio HD DVR with 250GB hard drive. Over ten years, I've paid COMCAST more than $2,000 for a device that I still don't own and has never offered anything to me but which I was forced to rent and use because COMCAST fought and lobbied during the late 90s and early 2000's to ensure that other companies could not make and sell consumer purchasable devices that were able to access the cable content I had already paid COMCAST for. Today, a 1 Terabyte hard drive along with a compact system able to both play & stream 4K UHD TV, install apps, play games and designed much better than anything that has ever come out of COMCAST costs about $200 to $300 in total at retail. COMCAST and other cable companies ensured that the burden of CableCard and restrictive licensing and usage rights and the complexity of the associated industry crypto regulations would kill off innovative products like Microsoft Windows Media Center which despite all its great features was unable to access Digital cable channel content especially as COMCAST started vigerously encrypting every single channel on their lineup -- even the usually free-to-air channels like ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS etc.. Never mind the extra $5 to $10 they charged you a month to "rent" a single cable card that allowed you to only watch or record one Digital cable channel even though their own Cable company DVRs and set top boxes did not require the additional rental of cablecards to access digital cable via two or even five channels. This was all to cripple competing 3rd party devices while giving an unfair advantage to their own crippled products. I've come to believe that the situation with the inexplicable crippling of MOCA by COMCAST is no different. COMCAST is going out of its way to lock out 3rd party television-like services, devices and streaming applications from using the whole house MOCA 2.0 broadband Internet that is made possible by their XB3 Wireless Gateway and the coax cables that *I* paid to be put into my own home even if it means cruelly denying *all* their customers a very elegant and cost effective solution to the common problem of poor WiFi Internet coverage in homes. Finally, as the last persuasive piece of evidence supporting this belief that COMCAST is actively working to prevent its customers from using MOCA 2.0 because it does not want them to have the *choice* and *opportunity* to access reliable Internet TV-like multimedia not purchased from or controlled by COMCAST, I refer you to the absurd mandatory bundling of the COMCAST XB3 MOCA 2.0 Wireless Gateway with the COMCAST MOCA 2.0 X1 DVR and Cloud based Entertainment device. Clearly COMCAST wants you to pay for and rent their own substandard Television streaming/DVR device even if you don't want it and prefer to use something else with better design, reliability, quality and content. They want to tax you every month for using the Coaxial cables that you paid for in your own home. It seems to me now that COMCAST believes that the great advance of MOCA 2.0 is soley a benefit for their bottom line a sole benefit to themselves of extending their broadband high speed Internet access monopoly into the market for streaming/online video services even if it is at the expense of providing a quality whole-house Internet service and associated devices and accessories that meet the needs of their numerous customers.

    Among the alternatives not mentioned... Using a TiVo DVR, rather than the X1; a Roamio Plus or Pro would solve both the concern over the quality of the DVR, as well as providing the MoCA bridge capability the poster so desperately wanted the X1 DVR to provide. (Although the TiVo's support only MoCA 1.1.) Just get a third-party MoCA adapter for the distant location. Why the hang-up on having a device provided by Comcast? This seems especially ironic given the opinions expressed regarding payments over time to Comcast. If a MoCA 2.0 bridge was the requirement, they don't exist outside providers. So couldn't the poster have simply requested a replacement XB3 from the local office and configured it down to only providing MoCA bridging -- and perhaps as a wireless access point? Comcast would bill him the monthly rate for the extra device, but such is the state of MoCA 2.0. Much of the OP sounds like frustration over devices providing capabilities the poster *thinks* they should have.

  • Problem with RMI in ADB T75 receiver

    Hi:
    I have a problem with an xlet that uses the RMI (IXC) API in the ADB T75 development settop box.
    I export an object (of type MyObject) implementing the Remote interface, and, later, I import it with no problem.
    The problem appears after importing the object, when I try to cast the imported object to the type of the exported object (type MyObject) for using it (example on page 371 of the marvelous Morris book).
    If I import the object in the same xlet where I export it (a little bit useless), the process works fine as the class of the imported object (remoteObject.getClass().getName()) is the same of the exported object.
    But, when importing the object from another xlet, doing the cast fails (ClassCastException). This time, remoteObject.getClass().getName() returns the name "stub_MyObject_ca_ba" ( "ca" is the OrgID and "ba" is the AppID of the exporting xlet). That is, the middleware is returning to the importing xlet an object of the stub class.
    The ClassCastException seems to be right, as the the superclass of the "stub_MyObject_ca_ba" is directly java.lang.Object. That is, the types of the exported object (MyObject) and the returned object (stub_MyObject_ca_ba) are not in the same hierarchy.
    Has anyone one explanation or solution?
    May be a bug of the ADB T75 settop box?
    Thanks in advance for your comments
    Liga0068

    Problem solved. This was posted by Pretorius_594 on Feb 27, 2004.
    Sorry for bothering.
    The problem was due to that I was doing a cast to the original object (MyObject). That is:
    remoteObject = lookup(...)
    MyObject importedobject = (MyObject)remoteObject.
    I saw such an example in the Morris and Smith-Chaigneau book, but, definetively, that code seems not to work (at least in the ADB receiver)
    Th right solution is to extend the Remote interface (MyRemote) and to cast the importedobject to that type. That is:
    public interface MyRemote extends Remote ...
    remoteObject = lookup(...)
    MyRemote importedobject = (MyRemote)remoteObject.
    Liga0068

  • Seeking successful DVI to HDMI Conversion at 1920x1080 on a Mac Mini

    I've seen lots of posts related to this topic, but nothing definitive, and I'm still trying to figure this out. Let me start by saying that:
    1) I understand the option of going from DVI to VGA. That works fine on my equipment (late model Mac Mini to Sony 46" LCD XBR3).
    2) I've validated the HDMI port on my TV at 1080i and I'm sure it does 1080p (i.e. 1920x1080 non-interlaced) as well, based on the specs
    3) I don't care about integrating audio into the HDMI signal at this point
    4) Sony support provides no help, saying it must be a computer problem
    5) Apple support provides no help, saying they don't support 3rd party monitors
    The lousy looking output (i.e. interpolated, shrunk, expanded, based on the combination of driver and tv "modes") I'm getting is described elsewhere on this forum. Some other things are:
    1) The Mac Mini recognizes the display as "Sony TV" but only offers resolution choices up to "1090 x 1080 (interlaced)". Although that suggests that either the driver isn't current or the tv and driver aren't talking to each other properly about the tv's capabilities, that still doesn't explain the visual results I'm getting.
    2) The DVI-to-HDMI converter cable says it is based on the HDMI 1.1 spec. The TV says it supports HDMI 1.3. I don't know if that's an issue.
    Any help would be appreciated. This isn't the end of the world, as I can still connect through VGA, but I'd like to get the DVI-to-HDMI working so I can reserve my TV's VGA port for computers that don't have the DVI option.
    Pete
    P.S. Anyone have any idea when Apple is coming out with a version of the Mac Mini (or some Mac-based settop box) that supports HDMI with integrated video/audio?

    Does the Sony manual make any reference to a computer connection? If so, which port does it recommend? On a lot of TVs the HDMI port can't be used successfully for a computer connection because there is always a scaler/processor active that cannot be bypassed.
    You might want to check at the AVSforum.com and search for your specific Sony model number to see if anybody there is reporting success connecting a computer to the HDMI port.

  • The dreaded "Video Error-File Not Installed" When trying to watch LiveTV in WMC

    I'm getting the following error message when trying to use Live TV in WMC:
    Video Error
    Files needed to display video are not installed or are not working correctly. Restart Windows Media Center or restart the computer.
    On this system my tuners are the Hauppauge HVR 2250 and the Hauppauge HD PVR.  It took awhile to set up, but when I click play on a channel I get 10 seconds of video, an audio loop of the same sound over & over followed by the above error message.
    I ran into this problem once before on my Home Theater HTPC when trying to access the ATI Cable Card solution.  To get that to work I had to uninstall and reinstall Playready.  I tried 3 different ways of doing this on my new build & it did
    not fix the problem.  The only fix I didn't try was the one on Ceton's website that involves a whole lot of deleting of folders.
    Since this current build doesn't have a cablecard installed, and gets the non-clear QAM stations from settop box through HD PVR, would it still be the Playready needing to be reset?  The symptoms look identical to when I had the previous problem.
    These same files play in the BeyondTV that I'm trying to migrate from, so all codecs appear to be onboard.  I am using the latest HDPVR MediaCenter driver from the Hauppauge website & the latest drivers on the HVR-2250.
    Thanks for any help!

    I had this problem after upgrading my graphics card to an AMD 5450 and the solution after a couple of days of hair pulling was one I hadn't come across before in relation to this problem.
    It turned out that the problem was caused by the screen refresh rate, it was set to 60Hz by default and I got the Video Error message but if I changed it to 50Hz then playback of recorded programs or watching live TV worked.

  • Volume control for video playback through Apple TV2

    I am trying to configure the volume settings used on airplay through apple TV2 and a macbook pro and Iphone4 all with most recent updates.
    I am using the apple remote app on my iphone to control the apple tv.
    Whats working:
    Using the pandora app on my iphone through aiplay to the apple tv, I can control the volume using the plus and minus buttons on the side of the iphone for volume control. Very cool and easy.
    Using the apple remote app on my iphone I can control the itunes volume of different speakers by clicking on the airplay icon and using a slider.  Not as cool as using the hard +/- buttons but still works.
    Whats not working:
    Controling volume on appleTV2 through the iphone remote app for video playbacks like netflix, and youtube.
    Why I want this: RIght now I can control most of the multimedia right from my iphone including cranking the music up:) But when I switch over to video(Netlfix, Youtube) I have to get out another remote (stereo reciever) to control the volume. It seems we are so close to being able to control everything off the iphone, the only thing missing is volume control for video playback.
    Is there a setting that can be changed or a solution I havent found?
    Thanks

    Same problem with TV3. HDMI volume output is not adjustable, neither with the original Apple remote nor with any universal. Why ? Every simple settop-box is able to be volume adjusted. And a Mac Mini too ?!!!
    I use a flatscreen TV. it has 3 HDMI inputs and one optical out for the audio going to an amp standing behind it. The sound of the TV is switched to go to the optical out.
    HDMI 1 is connected to the satellite settop box with its  own remote control ( channel +/-, volume +/- etc. ) it work s fine.
    HDMI 2 is connected to the MacMini HDMI out with its own remote control ( channel/music +/-, volume +/- ) it works fine too.
    HDMI 3 was connected to Apple TV3 with its own remote control ( channel/music +/- but no volume ). I sent the TV3 back to Apple.
    What's going wrong in the mind of Apple ? Why is the HDMI volume output of the MacMini adjustable with the Apple remote, and the TV3 not ?
    I want not to discuss, wether a 4th remote control is useful or not. I don't want it. I want to adjust the volume with the originl remote control of the specific unit I use, because I need it anyway. It worked since years, but not with Apple TV3.
    How can we help Apple to open the volume +/- function on their own remote control ?

  • 5-7 sec delay changing channels from HD to Non Hd.

    I have a 26in LCD Samsung Hd TV model LNS2651dx got it in 2007.  The first comcast set top box I got it was connected dvi and I had no problem with this issue. 
    But the box went bad so comcast brought out a DCH 3416 set top box and it was connected HDMI and this was the first time I noticed this 5 to 7 second delay changing channels. 
    It only happens when I go from hd1080i to non hd 480p or vice versa.  So I thought it was the set top box so I had comcast replace it.  So they brought out a new one a DCH 3200 and the same problem is still occurring.
    Now is it my TV or is it this brand Motorola comcast settop box DCH series?  or even the hdmi cord 3.1 which is new?
    If I put the 4:3 override on stretch it doesn't do it because it thinks every channel is in 1080i, but I'm not sure if this is safe for my TV, because some have said people look wider then they should be.  I noticed on a hd channel a skinny person, but when I turned to the non hd version he was wider. 
    So back to my original ? What is the problem with the delay is it taking time to figure out the sound and picture, that's why there is a delay.  But why don't I have this problem with dvi?  If anyone can help that would be great.

    Different box, different box settings, and different technology.

Maybe you are looking for