Time Warner Cable v DirecTV

[william_wallace 8]

Asking for advice on VJ members of which is the better of the 2?

I'm looking for a better deal, better picture, sound, value for money etc. At the moment DirecTV is swinging in my favour as they have seem to only do British Soccer. Any advice on the pro's and con's on both providers would be appreciated.

Thanks

[VinhBao MyTam 3]

Have sold both cable (not TimeWarner) and Satellite (not DirectTV)... surprised you're not looking at DishNetwork. If you haven't looked yet, at least look--though I don't know about the whole British soccer thingy.

Anyway, hands down it's satellite. Here are pros & cons.

Cable pros... often better On Demand technology. better signal in storms.

Cable cons... price (that's the only con)

Satellite pros... price

Satellite cons... bad weather

Here's the thing. Make sure there are no trees if you go satellite. No bushes that will grow in front of the dish. My dish only goes out in the most severe of weather to be honest... and even then cable could go out :-) The good thing is if it does go out, I don't have to wait for someone to put up a line... I just have to wait for the severe weather to pass and it works immediately... and since I have DVR, I just watch recorded stuff during that time.

So, if you're rich and want the best, sure cable is SLIGHTLY better. But if you want basically the same thing for a fraction of the price, dish is it.

Now, if you decide to go DishNetwork, they do have refer-a-friend, which would get both of us like $50 off or something... so PM me and I'll log into my account and get a refer-a-friend code (or if you have a close friend with DishNetwork get one from them and do them a favor.)

[NickD 202]

We get a break on package deal with our cable company with land phone, free calls anywhere in the USA, high speed internet, and practically all channels in existence. But I really don't care for the bill. Wife likes her Fox soccer channel that shows all the world wide games.

Satellite sure sounds attractive to me, could cut the tall trees in my own yard, but not my neighbors behind me. But would have to go to DSL or pay a much larger wideband cable or phone bill. Its kind of, they get you one way or the other.

Just saying, you have to look at all factors, but do use satellite as a weapon to help reduce my cable bill, yes, you can deal with them. Can't do that with my other utility companies, they have a monopoly.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Asking for advice on VJ members of which is the better of the 2?

I'm looking for a better deal, better picture, sound, value for money etc. At the moment DirecTV is swinging in my favour as they have seem to only do British Soccer. Any advice on the pro's and con's on both providers would be appreciated.

Thanks

Technically speaking...

DirecTV will always have better picture and sound quality. They transmit in frequencies cable cannot match because of the distance cable must cover. DirecTV signals do not carry as far (they recommend under 150 ft.) but that is not a problem when the reflector is hung right on the house.

Cable will always be more expensive as they have a huge infrastructure to maintain. In order to get cable to your home, they had to run miles and miles of cable that isn't being used at all. DirecTV doesn't have to spend a dime until you sign up to pay them money

You will generally get better service from DirecTV. Why? They have to compete directly with cable AND another satelitte provider.

DirecTV may be your only choice if you live in rural areas where cable has not been to yet.

Edited February 13, 2011 by Gary and Alla

[rsn 135]

Technically speaking...

DirecTV will always have better picture and sound quality. They transmit in frequencies cable cannot match because of the distance cable must cover. DirecTV signals do not carry as far (they recommend under 150 ft.) but that is not a problem when the reflector is hung right on the house.

Cable will always be more expensive as they have a huge infrastructure to maintain. In order to get cable to your home, they had to run miles and miles of cable that isn't being used at all. DirecTV doesn't have to spend a dime until you sign up to pay them money

You will generally get better service from DirecTV. Why? They have to compete directly with cable AND another satelitte provider.

DirecTV may be your only choice if you live in rural areas where cable has not been to yet.

First, the frequency of the signal has has little to do with the quality of the picture. Rather, the compression used by the provider is the biggest factor that affects quality of the picture. Second, satellite companies certainly do have an infrastructure to maintain. Do you think someone shot those satellites into space for free and maintains them for free? MPEG-2 or MPEG-4 compression are used by OTA, cable, and satellite as far as I know.. Cable companies sometimes re-compress the original signal to save bandwidth, which hurts the quality of the picture. I am vaguely aware of an assertion that satellite companies increase the compression ratio for HD broadcasts though, which would make satellite HD lower quality than OTA and possibly cable too. It's a bit more involved than that, but that's how it works at a high-level, per my understanding.

Edited February 13, 2011 by rsn

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

If we had a cable provider here I could trust, I would switch. Otherwise, I will keep DirecTV. The biggest drawback for DirecTV is where I live, surrounded by huge trees. I end up having to move the dish several times a year to find a clear path through the foliage on the neighboring properties. Any wind, or a strong rain, I lose some of the signal. If you don't know how to negotiate, DirecTV will slam you with extra charges, and closing charges, as will the cable providers. I haven't tried U-Verse yet, but I have heard some good, and some bad revues.

Edited February 13, 2011 by Some Old Guy