Cancellation issues, what ifs, and keeping my recorded content

[king3pj]

The difference in this, is you would be using a 3rd party device. What if you use the cable companies DVR? It would not have access after dropping the cable company.

My point was that it isn't illegal like people were suggesting. If it is illegal to allow customers to continue watching their recordings after the cancel service TiVo and Microsoft have been openly breaking the law for years. Even if that weren't the case what reason would the government have for making a law like that?

For whatever reason TV providers don't allow you to keep accessing your recordings when you cancel but third parties do. This could be due to several things. When you cancel Dish they have no incentive to allow you to continue using their equipment. The could be doing this as a retention tool. Many people stay with a provider simply because they have a DVR full of content they haven't watched yet. For those people Dish would be helping them make the decision to leave if they allowed them to continue watching their recordings. TV providers have reasons to block this while 3rd party equipment makers could care less whether you have an active cable subscription or not.

 

[ChadT41]

It would be illegal in the sense of stealing the cable. Microsoft and TIVO are not providers of TV, they can copy content, but are not content providers. If they provided the content and still did that, I could definitely see some lawsuits coming from that.

 

[king3pj]

It would be illegal in the sense of stealing the cable. Microsoft and TIVO are not providers of TV, they can copy content, but are not content providers. If they provided the content and still did that, I could definitely see some lawsuits coming from that.

That sounds like a pretty liberal using of the word stealing to me. I'm talking about paying for cable and recording shows and continuing to watch those recordings after I cancel. Where is the theft there? Any lawsuits that would come from that would be similar to when the content providers tried to say DVRs were illegal in the first place. Just like back then they would lose this one too.

 

[ChadT41]

I use the term liberally, because people like Les Moonves are still in charge....

 

[Tampa8]

I sometimes forget what CSR's go through.

 

[Hall]

Just realized this... VCRs and recording stuff for personal use was declared "fair use" for consumers, yes? A VCR is no different than a Tivo in that regard. Dish *chooses* to not allow you access after you cancel service with them.

 

[king3pj]

Just realized this... VCRs and recording stuff for personal use was declared "fair use" for consumers, yes? A VCR is no different than a Tivo in that regard. Dish *chooses* to not allow you access after you cancel service with them.

Exactly. Dish and other TV providers are the only ones who have any incentive to destroy your recordings when you switch providers. Why would Les and CBS or any cable channel care if you keep watching your recordings when you switch from Dish to Directv? They just want their subscriber fees and ad revenue. They don't care which provider you have.

 

[Bob Haller]

I canceled my E service years ago when the jacked up the extra receiver rates from 6 bucks to 17 bucks per box overnight. I owned my receivers and kept my 722s because of some content I had recorded thats never been availble anywhere else. Specifically the flip this house trademark properties.

Starting a big shop clean up I will try them to confirm the shows are till available, at the time they were. Dish may have changed it as a rentention tool.

they havent been connected to a dish forever ago. as a matter of fact i took down and scraped the 500s for scrap metal, and cut out most of the coax.

For fans of the old show, richard davis married ginger alexander. I believed they had something going all along

 

[Mark609]

That sounds like a pretty liberal using of the word stealing to me. I'm talking about paying for cable and recording shows and continuing to watch those recordings after I cancel. Where is the theft there? Any lawsuits that would come from that would be similar to when the content providers tried to say DVRs were illegal in the first place. Just like back then they would lose this one too.

There is no theft except on the part of Dish. I paid "good money" for those downloads. I (should) have rights to them and their retention. The fact that they want to screw with me is wrong and should be illegal. I mean, where in the hell do these guys get off with their black booted, facist approach?

 

[primestar31]

There is no theft except on the part of Dish. I paid "good money" for those downloads. I (should) have rights to them and their retention. The fact that they want to screw with me is wrong and should be illegal. I mean, where in the hell do these guys get off with their black booted, facist approach?

Godwin's law strikes again.... lol

/thread

 

[Mark609]

Hey Charlie, spend some time with a simple Google for 'Dish sucks' https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=dish+sucks

 

[navychop]

The agreements, and governing regulations, may be different for Dish vs TiVO.

 

[king3pj]

The agreements, and governing regulations, may be different for Dish vs TiVO.

It's possible that it's part of contracts Dish and other providers sign, but again I'm not sure why channel owners would care. They want people to watch their programming and possibly see a few ads in the process. Again, they don't care which provider you have as long as they get their subscriber fees and ratings.

I really doubt governing regulations have anything to do with it though. Why would the government care if you continue to watch the legally recorded contents of your legally purchased DVR after you switch providers? Im not sure how any laws would apply to that unless the entire DVR technology itself was illegal and the government already decided that it isn't.

 

[ChadT41]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...s-advertising-about-face-on-tivo-viewers.html
First article found about why they do not like them to begin with.

 

[navychop]

Odd. Article made sense.

 

[ChadT41]

lol, its odd for posted articles to make sense? Or for Les to make any sense?

 

[Mark609]

......I'm not sure why channel owners would care. They want people to watch their programming and possibly see a few ads in the process. Again, they don't care which provider you have as long as they get their subscriber fees and ratings.

I really doubt governing regulations have anything to do with it though. Why would the government care if you continue to watch the legally recorded contents of your legally purchased DVR after you switch providers? Im not sure how any laws would apply to that unless the entire DVR technology itself was illegal and the government already decided that it isn't.

Exactly.

This is a Dish thing, pure and simple. As mentioned, it's a strong arm retention tool, or extortion if you will. "You want to watch that content you download recently? Then keep paying the man."

 

[lparsons21]

Exactly.

This is a Dish thing, pure and simple. As mentioned, it's a strong arm retention tool, or extortion if you will. "You want to watch that content you download recently? Then keep paying the man."

It is also a DirecTV thing. Cancel with them and you can't play your recordings. Nor can you play them while 'suspended'.

 

[Mark609]

It is also a DirecTV thing. Cancel with them and you can't play your recordings. Nor can you play them while 'suspended'.

I understand, and two wrongs don't make a right.

Anyone have a work around for this industry game? I'm talking a service whereby I can record in MPEG4 on an external HD and get what I want, like FOX.

 

[bhawley]

http://www.hauppauge.com/site/products/prods_hd-recorders.html

I use the 1512.