It sends you to hbogo.com/activate > login to provider (no problem) then it gives you an activation code. Enter activation code and it says "Your device has been activated and is now ready to stream HBO GO."
Hit back on AppleTV to hit play and it just keeps giving a new activation code.
Worked for me first time. Streamed season 3 first episode of Boardwalk Empire to test. I recall having to hit Back, twice.
What annoyed me is a different activation for each "app" how many cable providers do most people have n one home?
Can a class action lawsuit be brought for anti-competitive policies? Because, if any of these cable providers are also ISPs then this is pretty much the definition of anti-competitive practices.
They were given the right to be your ISP so that your telco wouldn't be the only one able to so how's that anticompetitive? You have your choice of ISPs, now you may not like your choices but that's your problem not theirs.
It is so easy to set up your own over the air HDTV, I live close enough to Los Angeles that I can get all the over the air stations on my antenna which is installed inside the attic so no unsightly outdoor equipment and the quality is so much better than cable because the signal is totally uncompressed. The quality is just pristine. You can really notice the difference.
Oh I know, I have a pretty big house and a total of 6 TV's in the rooms. All of them used to have a DirecTV receiver but I partially cut the cord by canceling the box on 3 of them and replacing them with either a digital antenna and a Roku box that I use for Netflix and Plex from my Mac. If it were just me I would cut the cord completely but other family members are less amenable to that idea so I am left paying the bill to DirecTV every month. But at least it is about $18 cheaper now with 3 less receivers.
What did you pay for a pots line back then? What if those providers you mentioned didn't have local dial numbers - didn't they charge a premium for (800) dial? Did AoL allow you access to Compuserve and vise versa? Did not some forums have an extra fee? I recall Novell's did but my memory is fading.
You apparently weren't around back then but people were paying monthly fees like several hundreds of dollars a month to Compuserve for time on the system. We would dialup on 300 baud because it was cheaper than 1200. Once you found the resource you wanted you would log out and redial using 1200 baud to download it. Then immediately log out and connect again at 300 to save money. It was outrageous what they were charging back then.
Exactly! One connection to the house, just one, public owned and let's figure out a way to ensure it's the fastest possible connection and it covers everyone everywhere regardless. This isn't technologically impossible, and what I find weird is the thought that it isn't impossible technologically speaking (that should be the barrier to making it happen, not that we can't "afford" it) - the fact we can do this blows my mind, it's that we can't figure out a way to make it happen even though we have everything we need, we have the resources (human and natural), the knowledge...
You apparently weren't around back then but people were paying monthly fees like several hundreds of dollars a month to Compuserve for time on the system. We would dialup on 300 baud because it was cheaper than 1200. Once you found the resource you wanted you would log out and redial using 1200 baud to download it. Then immediately log out and connect again at 300 to save money. It was outrageous what they were charging back then.
My questions were rhetorical. I appreciate you bringing the historical context that I was trying (failing) to communicate. I had to use Compuserve for business downloading Novell patches and drivers. I got on and got off as fast as possible.
Not more regulation, just public control of these resources, such as roads (oh wait there is!) and communication connectivity. The cable companies should die a quick and painful death and the connection we get to the outside world should be to one of providers of services and content - there shouldn't be one or more companies digging up our roads, all making a bee-line to your pocket book in annuity form. The pipes are merely roads, and no one should should restrict our using them. They are paths, ways to connect one of us to the other - the fact one company can restrict our connections to each other in some way is abhorrent.
They took the expense to run those cables and spend X amount of dollars a year to maintain it. The pipes may be dumb but they're damn expensive. I don't know about you but I'd be dammed to allow another company that's going to undercut me onto the network I've spent billions to build.
They took the expense to run those cables and spend X amount of dollars a year to maintain it. The pipes may be dumb but they're damn expensive. I don't know about you but I'd be dammed to allow another company that's going to undercut me onto the network I've spent billions to build.
And those companies paid money up front and continue to pay to lease.
The problem is more the local governments that give exclusive contracts to one company for cable service. Make this illegal and we go a long way to solving the problem of one company controlling everything. By the way there seems to be a lot of corruption with respect to many of these locals. People should demand choice and a plurality of services.
This seems ripe for anti-trust litigation. The only reason that the cable providers are able to prevent HBO from selling to me directly is their position as a monopoly. There is a historical precedent for this in POTS in the 1980s.
The internet should be ubiquitous like electricity and water, supplied by new utilities with competition nation wide not tied to cable and phone line providers from the last century.
They took the expense to run those cables and spend X amount of dollars a year to maintain it. The pipes may be dumb but they're damn expensive. I don't know about you but I'd be dammed to allow another company that's going to undercut me onto the network I've spent billions to build.
Once the conduit is in the ground it is relatively inexpensive to pull new cable. The communication companies paid the city to be allowed to install the conduit but they don't own it even though they paid to install it. They continue to lease it from the city. The city could let other providers pull cable if they wish assuming they don't have an exclusive contract with the original company. That recently happened in my city where AT&T started pulling fiber through the same conduit that was previously Time Warner only.
The problem is more the local governments that give exclusive contracts to one company for cable service. Make this illegal and we go a long way to solving the problem of one company controlling everything. By the way there seems to be a lot of corruption with respect to many of these locals. People should demand choice and a plurality of services.
That's a big problem but there's also building complexes whose ownership signed a contract with one company and won't allow another one in.
Cable companies pay the local franchise authority (FCC Language) a negotiated franchise fee and up to 5% of gross revenues. (Again, in the U.S since that's where I live). Local municipalities get their cut.
I'm slowly weening my family off of cable TV, got the minimum basic cable, Apple TV, Netflix, red box rentals, occasional iTunes newer movie rental. Thinking about adding Hulu, & Netflix mail service & cutting out all cable except high speed Internet.
They took the expense to run those cables and spend X amount of dollars a year to maintain it. The pipes may be dumb but they're damn expensive. I don't know about you but I'd be dammed to allow another company that's going to undercut me onto the network I've spent billions to build.
So, it seems you're okay with the way things are, I get it, ya' apologist. ;-)
Who's talking about another company undercutting anyone? I understand the investment that went into laying those cables (you do understand who actually did the physical digging, right?), and I'm sure when we find Mr. Burns we'll have figured out a way to reimburse him appropriately. But until that time, why keep coming up with reasons to justify the past decisions, unless you agree that we should never revisit them or change our minds?
*****
Stop coming up with reasons to stay the same, unless you're happy with censorship. If you're happy with the way things are, and would suffer no harm in changing things, why stand in the way, unless *you* are the problem...
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
The internet should be ubiquitous like electricity and water, supplied by new utilities with competition nation wide not tied to cable and phone line providers from the last century.
The internet should be ubiquitous like electricity and water, supplied by new utilities with competition nation wide not tied to cable and phone line providers from the last century.
That's a farce, electricity and water are still provided by the same utilities, no new reservoirs were built nor electric plants. There may be new companies maintaining the wires from the nearest substation to your house but they're really just really reselling you the same electricity you've always had.
Comments
Worked for me first time. Streamed season 3 first episode of Boardwalk Empire to test. I recall having to hit Back, twice.
What annoyed me is a different activation for each "app" how many cable providers do most people have n one home?
They were given the right to be your ISP so that your telco wouldn't be the only one able to so how's that anticompetitive? You have your choice of ISPs, now you may not like your choices but that's your problem not theirs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
It is so easy to set up your own over the air HDTV, I live close enough to Los Angeles that I can get all the over the air stations on my antenna which is installed inside the attic so no unsightly outdoor equipment and the quality is so much better than cable because the signal is totally uncompressed. The quality is just pristine. You can really notice the difference.
Oh I know, I have a pretty big house and a total of 6 TV's in the rooms. All of them used to have a DirecTV receiver but I partially cut the cord by canceling the box on 3 of them and replacing them with either a digital antenna and a Roku box that I use for Netflix and Plex from my Mac. If it were just me I would cut the cord completely but other family members are less amenable to that idea so I am left paying the bill to DirecTV every month. But at least it is about $18 cheaper now with 3 less receivers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristophB
Quote:
Originally Posted by williamlondon
What did you pay for a pots line back then? What if those providers you mentioned didn't have local dial numbers - didn't they charge a premium for (800) dial? Did AoL allow you access to Compuserve and vise versa? Did not some forums have an extra fee? I recall Novell's did but my memory is fading.
You apparently weren't around back then but people were paying monthly fees like several hundreds of dollars a month to Compuserve for time on the system. We would dialup on 300 baud because it was cheaper than 1200. Once you found the resource you wanted you would log out and redial using 1200 baud to download it. Then immediately log out and connect again at 300 to save money. It was outrageous what they were charging back then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
So you want to go back to this?
I don't think it would be that bad. perhaps one or two more cables. My region is all underground anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
So you want to go back to this?
Exactly! One connection to the house, just one, public owned and let's figure out a way to ensure it's the fastest possible connection and it covers everyone everywhere regardless. This isn't technologically impossible, and what I find weird is the thought that it isn't impossible technologically speaking (that should be the barrier to making it happen, not that we can't "afford" it) - the fact we can do this blows my mind, it's that we can't figure out a way to make it happen even though we have everything we need, we have the resources (human and natural), the knowledge...
What is our problem?
My questions were rhetorical. I appreciate you bringing the historical context that I was trying (failing) to communicate. I had to use Compuserve for business downloading Novell patches and drivers. I got on and got off as fast as possible.
They took the expense to run those cables and spend X amount of dollars a year to maintain it. The pipes may be dumb but they're damn expensive. I don't know about you but I'd be dammed to allow another company that's going to undercut me onto the network I've spent billions to build.
And those companies paid money up front and continue to pay to lease.
It's time for dumb pipes and a la carte video. Cable companies have been pushing their GUI-from-hell interfaces for too long.
It'll be the same way underground. The telco isn't going to share their conduits and manholes, should every company dig up the streets?
What companies and to whom? You lost me there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
They took the expense to run those cables and spend X amount of dollars a year to maintain it. The pipes may be dumb but they're damn expensive. I don't know about you but I'd be dammed to allow another company that's going to undercut me onto the network I've spent billions to build.
Once the conduit is in the ground it is relatively inexpensive to pull new cable. The communication companies paid the city to be allowed to install the conduit but they don't own it even though they paid to install it. They continue to lease it from the city. The city could let other providers pull cable if they wish assuming they don't have an exclusive contract with the original company. That recently happened in my city where AT&T started pulling fiber through the same conduit that was previously Time Warner only.
That's a big problem but there's also building complexes whose ownership signed a contract with one company and won't allow another one in.
Cable companies pay the local franchise authority (FCC Language) a negotiated franchise fee and up to 5% of gross revenues. (Again, in the U.S since that's where I live). Local municipalities get their cut.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
They took the expense to run those cables and spend X amount of dollars a year to maintain it. The pipes may be dumb but they're damn expensive. I don't know about you but I'd be dammed to allow another company that's going to undercut me onto the network I've spent billions to build.
So, it seems you're okay with the way things are, I get it, ya' apologist. ;-)
Who's talking about another company undercutting anyone? I understand the investment that went into laying those cables (you do understand who actually did the physical digging, right?), and I'm sure when we find Mr. Burns we'll have figured out a way to reimburse him appropriately. But until that time, why keep coming up with reasons to justify the past decisions, unless you agree that we should never revisit them or change our minds?
*****
Stop coming up with reasons to stay the same, unless you're happy with censorship. If you're happy with the way things are, and would suffer no harm in changing things, why stand in the way, unless *you* are the problem...
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
The internet should be ubiquitous like electricity and water, supplied by new utilities with competition nation wide not tied to cable and phone line providers from the last century.
Yes! This exactly!!!
That's a farce, electricity and water are still provided by the same utilities, no new reservoirs were built nor electric plants. There may be new companies maintaining the wires from the nearest substation to your house but they're really just really reselling you the same electricity you've always had.