Login  |  Register          Free Newsletter Subscription
Subscribe to MCN Magazine
The Satellite Dish   


Link This | Email this | Blog This | Comments (7)


Dish Corrects Software Glitch / Uverse Notes
October 30, 2007

Last week we reported on problems Dish Network customers were having with their HD DVR’s. Today those folks who spent the last week posting their gripes about the software woke up happy this morning to find that their problems were fixed with an overnight software update.

 

Overnight those customers who have a Dish Network 622 or 722 HD DVR and received the L446 software upgrade last week (which added the DishONLINE video on demand service) were upgraded to L447. With the L446 software many customers flooded internet discussion forums upset that their recordings of their favorite network shows that were recorded via an over the air antenna had no sound when played back.

 

I applaud Dan Minnick and his crew for quickly fixing this bug, and issuing this quick fix to their customers.  

 

IPTV is it TV?

 

Since I live in Connecticut one of the big news stories as of late here has been is IPTV really TV. The State of Connecticut has told AT&T that if they want to roll out their UVERSE service here in Connecticut then AT&T needs to get a cable television license.

 

AT&T is trying to say that IPTV is not the same as cable TV and thus should not require a cable television license.  

 

From where I sit, I agree with the state and that AT&T should indeed have a cable television license to roll out its service here in the state. In addition I also believe that AT&T Uverse should fund and provide local public access and government access in the communities it serves.

 

You don’t see cable companies saying that it’s digital cable service is not cable television because it’s digital. AT&T delivers its Uverse service to customers home by using the existing copper telephone lines going to the customers’ home. It uses the same telephone poles and infrastructure that the cable companies do, and AT&T goes a step further by hanging large units called “Vrads” which convert the fiber optic Uverse feeds to be muxed onto the copper phone lines. These big ugly looking boxes are required in all neighborhoods in order for Uverse to work. When the Uverse signal comes into the customer’s home, a residential gateway and converter box are used to convert the signals to be received by the customer’s television set. For most customers they don’t know or care how the signal gets to their TV, they just want their favorite channels on their televisions. 

 

AT&T has threatened the state saying that if they are required to have a cable tv license they will take their ball and go home. This has sparked a lot of political debate as if AT&T shuts down Uverse there will be a lot of folks out of work in the state. Yet if nothing is done by the state then AT&T will have free reign to do what they want while existing cable systems will be forced to continue jumping through hoops and government red tape to continue to operate. Why should cable systems continue to operate, pay franchise fees and try to expand their offerings if the phone company can come in any area of the state that they want and begin offering a competing product without neededing to deal with all the red tape cable operators must deal with?

 

One thing AT&T should remember about IPTV, take out the first two letters and it’s still only TV.

Posted by Scott Greczkowski on October 30, 2007 | Comments (7)


October 30, 2007
In response to: Dish Corrects Software Glitch / Uverse Notes
WES commented:

I agree with all your points regarding AT&T and Uverse. Another point that I think is significant is that the video is only accessible when using the AT&T network as the ISP. True IPTV (in the sense of not needing to play by the same rules as cable) is network independent and is not locked in to a particular ISP. For example, true IPTV should be accessible when using someone else, like Comcast HSI, which it is not. Uverse uses most of the same technology as IPTV but behaves much more similar to traditional cable and therfore should be subject to the same rules and regulations. FWIW I also think that cable VOIP should be subject to the same rules and regulations as the phone company for similar reasons.




October 30, 2007
In response to: Dish Corrects Software Glitch / Uverse Notes
SMD commented:

In Missouri, is Comcast's Digital Voice a telephone service that should be registered with the Missouri Public Utilities Commission?




October 30, 2007
In response to: Dish Corrects Software Glitch / Uverse Notes
WebbyDude commented:

SMD brings up a very good point. What about cable companies offering phone service? Put the shoe on the other foot. By rights the phone service offered should fall under PUCO rules and restrictions. 911 access comes to mind. Not to mention basic/emergency service requirements for any low-income person.




October 31, 2007
In response to: Dish Corrects Software Glitch / Uverse Notes
DLP commented:

Lets make sure we stifle innovation by imposing fees and governmental regulations on any new technology. The cable companies hang there lines on existing phone utility poles. Not the other way around. Perhaps both E* and D* should require cable licenses since the final signal is delivered via RG6 (cable). IPTV is different technology than cable so I guess we need to regulate it to death. AT&T already has a customer base and Verizon has also. Both offer IPTV in ever expanding areas. Each service is carrier based. Dish, DirecTV, Comcast..........etc. Let AT&T not be restricted by local regulations and licenses whose only purpose is revenue.




October 31, 2007
In response to: Dish Corrects Software Glitch / Uverse Notes
WebbyDude commented:

It's not stifling innovation, it's merely a matter of leveling the playing field that AT&T has chosen to participate in. And for the record, cable companies hang their lines on existing ELECTRIC utility poles; and in turn, pay a monthly leasing fee to whatever local electric utility. This is why a lot of times you will see two sets of poles on a road. Once side for phone, the other side for cable/electic




October 31, 2007
In response to: Dish Corrects Software Glitch / Uverse Notes
DLP commented:

Why should a 'playing field' be leveled? To what purpose? The phone company already has their own infrastructure, as has been pointed out. Whether it is a better answer to distributing entertainment and other communication services has yet to be proven.




April 11, 2008
In response to: Dish Corrects Software Glitch / Uverse Notes
BoRg02 commented:

Have you all forgotten that the Cable Companies have their red tape because of the industry their in.. AT&T, unlike the cable companies, has their own red tape and hoops for the PHONE SERVICE you all enjoy.. The Cable companies DO NOT have the same red tape AT&T do to operate their PHONE SERVICE... It's still just PHONE service....Right????? Either side can't win and thus it's a mute conversation..





POST A COMMENT
Display Name or Registered Users Login Here.
Please restrict submissions to less than 7,000 characters (including any HTML formatting).

Before submitting this form, please type the characters displayed above. Note the letters are case sensitive:


Advertisement

Advertisements





©2008 Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Use of this Web site is subject to its Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
Please visit these other Reed Business sites