Offering 'Catch-Up' Service That Leaves Out Episodes Defeats The Point, Comcast

Carol has been watching the AMC program “Breaking Bad” using Comcast on-demand. Specifically, the Catch-up service so she can catch up on season 4 before the new season starts next month. This service skips episodes and doesn’t seem to actually be designed to catch anyone up, though…unless that customer is an HD subscriber.

I have been watching “Breaking Bad” through Comcast’s on-demand Catch-up service. Last week they offered episodes 401 through 403. So this week, it should start with episode 404, right? Wrong! It skipped an episode and started with 405. I called Comcast and was told only that “not all episodes are available.”

After a little more investigation of the on-demand menu, I found that the episode *is* available in HD, but not through their standard service. So if I want to “catch up” all episodes of last season, I would have to upgrade to their HD service, something I don’t wish to do.

Why would someone want to catch up on a whole season of a series if some of the episodes are missing?

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. rlmiller007 says:

    You just have to call them and tell them they are missing. The on demand is provided by a 3rd party so it takes awhile to add the content. I worked for Comcast 9.5 years and this happens from time to time.

    • Rose says:

      “I called Comcast and was told only that “not all episodes are available.”

      Dammit, Miller, the first comment is supposed to blame the OP *only*. An RTFA-prompting comment isn’t supposed to slide in until comment 7 or so.

      • rlmiller007 says:

        There are lots of reps who just want a paycheck and could care less. All anyone has to do is call back until they get someone who know what they are talking about.

    • scoutermac says:

      There are a lot of things Comcast is supposed to do. But with their terrible customer service I could not even get Comcast to provide me with cable tv. They refused unless I ordered additional services such as phone and internet. I went with Dish Network.

      • ingramje says:

        Of course now, we have “only 10 days” until Dish Network drops AMC. May be better off selecting someone else.

        • scoutermac says:

          I don’t watch AMC so this does not affect me. But if it did I would just go to Directv.

    • maxamus2 says:

      Takes a while to add the content?

      From LAST SEASON’S series?

      But they can add episode 1,2,3 and 5 but not 4 because that “takes time to add”???

      • Random_Tangent says:

        Yes. It takes time to add. They have to wait for the production company to create compressed outputs for VOD, those get sent up the chain to the studio, the production company, and then off to the cable company. If a file doesn’t pass a rigorous QA check, the whole process starts over.

        • MattAlbie says:

          Right, but that whole process starts the second they lock the edit for the episode, not when it airs. EVERYTHING starts as soon as they lock the edit – that’s when stuff starts getting sent to the network for airing, starts getting prepared for the home video release, etc. etc.

          And again, we’re talking about something that originally aired over a year ago at this point.

      • rlmiller007 says:

        As I stated it’s a 3rd party vendor that owns on demand. So, as in any giant corp., when you let them know the content is missing they have to contact that company. After that it has to go to engineers to setup a date/time when the thousands of boxes can be updated. That in itself is a herculean task. It’s not an excuse for the company to miss content. They just have to teach their employees to count.

    • CubeRat says:

      I don’t think this has anything to do with Comcast, I believe it has to do with the OnDemand product itself. I say this because I find this problem frequently on Charter. I use the OnDemand for many shows starting at 10 pm, because I get up a 4 am to go to work and it’s just to late for me. It’s quite common to find episodes missing, or only available in standard, not HD (I wouldn’t notice if it was only in HD). My brother also encounters it with his cable comany.

    • JReedNet says:

      You’re right, I’ve emailed them in regards to shows being missing or mislabeled in the past, and it took a while, but they eventually fixed the problems.

  2. Sinistrahd says:

    Unless Carol’s got an old grandfathered-in cable box (if Comcast even does grandfathering), then the fact that she has DVR also implies that she is already paying for HD service. I’ve tried repeatedly to get rid of the HD service because I don’t have an HDTV, but all the reps I’ve talked to, both in regular customer service and in retention, have told me that HD and DVR services are linked, and to lose one is to lose both. I know she can’t be using a cable card in a TiVo, either, because On Demand doesn’t work for card users. Something’s a little fishy here…

  3. Captain Spock says:

    This is pure marketing to get you in the door, they could care less about low value existing customers.

  4. nelamvr6 says:

    Um…

    You don’t want to watch the episodes in HD? So, the episodes you are watching are in standard def?

    I’m afraid I simply can’t relate.

    You don’t seem very bright to me.

    • scoutermac says:

      I believe that in order to be able to watch the HD content she would have to add HD service to her account which is probably at least $10/month extra. Maybe she should just go with Netflix or Hulu.

    • MaximusMMIV says:

      You’re pretty condescending considering how few details you know about the situation. What if she doesn’t have an HDTV? What if upgrading to HD causes a change in contract, or some kind of price increase?

      Regardless, it’s irrelevant. If Comcast offers an SD catch-up service, it shouldn’t just skip an episode for no reason. There’s obviously something wrong.

    • MMD says:

      Sometimes people want to watch the content without obsessing over barely perceptible differences in picture quality.

      • AstroPig7 says:

        I agree that nelamvr6’s comment was ridiculous (to put it nicely), but I take issue with the idea that HD is a barely perceptible improvement over SD. (This does not apply to SD content that has been upscaled to HD, which usually looks worse than the original format.)

        • MMD says:

          The question I’m about to ask is genuine, not snark: Could you please elaborate on what makes HD better? Because I’ve seen comparisons and I personally have not found the difference between that and SD to be all that profound. And I often find the color in HD images to be over-bright and garish.

          • AstroPig7 says:

            It’s hard to quantify the differences beyond clearer picture and more consistent colours. However, these might not be obvious if the television is improperly calibrated (this does not require a professional, just a set of basic instructions and your eyes), the source material was simply converted from SD, or the source material was simply poor to begin with. My wife can see the difference between HD and SD, but she doesn’t think it’s worth the hype. I get much more out of visual stimulation, so I prefer watching television in HD.

            As for the colours being garish, that might be because the sets were designed with SD in mind. This is similar to how old Motown tracks were engineered to sound best on a cheap car stereo, since that is where most people heard the songs. Playing the same track on a better system without any re-engineering might sound bad.

          • MattAlbie says:

            Look at these comparison screencaps from DR. NO. They compare the DVD to the Blu-ray. The Bond DVDs were always just about the best the format could possibly offer, technically speaking. The Blu-rays annihilate them in every respect. They probably look better on Blu-ray than they did in local theaters in the 60s.

            http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/comparison.php?cID=808#auswahl

            • OutPastPluto says:

              You are also talking about something that was meant to be seen on a giant screen back in the days that old Vaudville houses were still very prevalent as cinemas. It was meant to be viewed in a context where visual defects are much more apparent. It was also recorded in a recording format capable of capturing that level of visual detail (35mm).

              The differences can be much less stark when you don’t cherry pick for best results.

              Then you’ve got the production differences between movies and TV.

              Some show that needs to produce 13 or 26 hours of content a year is probably less dependent on high quality large screen visuals. There have been shows that delayed their switch to HD because their props weren’t up to snuff.

              If you’re fixating on the visual minutia, the story is probably not engaging enough.

              A “playing catchup” service that is only SD is not a great tragedy.

              • MattAlbie says:

                If a show is shot in HD, that means it will look as good as it possibly can on your HDTV… so I’m not 100% sure what you’re arguing.

                The Bond example was to illustrate that there is, in fact, a difference, despite what that character up there was saying. Literally anything shot on 35mm film or above (and hell, even some 16mm sources look great) will look astounding if properly transferred to high definition. Not upconverted. If the original elements are rescanned and new transfers are struck. 35mm film has more visual information than even 1080p HD can handle.

                And any show shot in HD with current specifications will, at the very least, look as good as it will ever look in HD compared to SD.

                • MMD says:

                  That “character” believes that “good” is subjective.
                  And that until all programming is shot in HD, SD is just fine to enjoy my chosen programming.

                  • MattAlbie says:

                    That “character” also doesn’t understand that anything shot on film, which is the vast majority of things, can capture more detail than movies and television shows shot natively in HD. 35mm film > HD.

                    Again, this is not something that can be argued. This is something you can literally measure. If you don’t CARE that HD looks better than SD, that’s fine. But to say that it doesn’t, or that there really isn’t any difference at all, is utter nonsense.

                    • MMD says:

                      I said the difference was barely perceptible. I thought that “to me” was implied, but it will make you happy I’ll spell it out.

                      Now, for the love of God, can you direct your “credentials” somewhere else? Because I’m not the only one who feels this way, but you sure seem to have it out for me.

    • A.Mercer says:

      In a character driven show, what does HD give you? Really? Breaking Bad is not about the graphics. It is about the story. Heck, it could be a radio program and still be an engaging story.

      • MMD says:

        + 1 to you, sir or madam.

      • castlecraver says:

        To be fair, although it’s a character-driven drama, it’s also brilliantly shot and as a huge fan, I think I would be missing out slightly by not seeing it in HD.

        Not that it makes nelamvr6 any less of a douchenozzle or anything.

      • MattAlbie says:

        Film and television are VISUAL mediums. Pay attention to just how many scenes in BREAKING BAD don’t have dialog and get back to me.

        It’s about a lot more than just “graphics.” Enjoying HD is not the same thing as just wanting to see aliens, or to have explosions happen every few seconds.

    • DerangedKitsune says:

      Does she want to pay extra for HD service? Does she have an HD TV?

      If the answers to those are no, then why would she want to watch HD TV?

    • maxamus2 says:

      Does no one know sarcasm when they see it??

      • MMD says:

        Looks awfully trollish to me…

      • MMD says:

        Also, see this poster’s unnecessarily vitriolic screeds all over the message threads. Dude’s pretty serious and shrill about HD and believes his opinion to be the law of the land.

  5. JohnDeere says:

    error 007 is all i ever get when i try to connect to on demand. 1 in 20 times it will connect if im persistant.

  6. Gman says:

    I never understood a network/shows reluctance to stream their entire show after it comes out. The stupid agreements to prevent it from being streamed, or placed on on demand for any length of time are ridiculous.

    Multiple times due to one problem or another [like a cable outage that was entirely our cable operators fault] we missed a show or two we really wanted to watch. There was no way to legally find that show online. not even for purchase through itunes. Even multiple weeks later. So the only way we could watch the show was to wait for it to come to netflix or through nefarious.

    Either way they get no ad revenue or money. The networks are shooting themselves in the foot.

    • scoutermac says:

      I would guess there are two reasons. One they want you to purchase it on dvd/bluray. Another is often times other networks such as TBS, USA, TNT, etc pickup these shows and show them later.

    • tinyhands says:

      The networks blame the cable providers and the cable providers blame the networks. Both treat the customer no better than a criminal yet are outraged when we act like one. This being a democracy, I vote for nefarious.

    • rugman11 says:

      A lot of times it’s due to the contracts. There are several different entities involved in producing and distributing television: production companies, networks, and cable companies. The production companies usually keep the rights to digital distribution while the network makes money selling ads and cable companies sell the channels. The cable companies would probably be happy to stream the shows, the production companies want them to pay for it and the networks want them to include ads. That’s why, with my cable service, I can only watch some shows later and I can’t fast forward through the commercials. Production companies typically make most of their profit on the back end (DVDs, digital distribution) and they don’t want to dilute that market by offering free streaming to the networks or the cable companies.

    • erinpac says:

      For me, sometimes it just costs them a viewer.
      If I miss an episode or two, and for whatever reason they were not DVR’d or have since been erased, then depending on the series, I lose motivation to watch the rest. If I want to see the previous episodes first, and I keep waiting to find those legally and cannot, well, eventually it’s just not worth catching up.

      There are several shows I really liked, but I’m too far behind now, so forget it. It’s not important enough, and apparently doesn’t matter to them.

    • Jawaka says:

      I’m sure that they want to make as much as they can selling the season on DVD before they offer the entire season for streaming.

  7. benson304 says:

    Get with the times and get HD. I feel sorry for your eyes.

    • nelamvr6 says:

      Amen! It’s 2012 ferchrisakes!

      • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

        So shouldn’t it be offered for free if “it’s 2012!” instead of for an additional fee?

    • drbtx1 says:

      I think most shows look terrible in hi-def. The overly bright colors look like video tape rather than film. It is very distracting.

      • nelamvr6 says:

        If HD looks “terrible” on your set, you need to either calibrate it yourself or have it done by a professional.

        HD does not look “terrible” when a set is properly adjusted. Period.

        • MMD says:

          Every HD TV I’ve ever seen in every electronics store I’ve ever been in must be improperly calibrated then.

          Or, maybe your opinion is just your opinion and not fact.

          • who? says:

            You are correct. HDTV’s and computer monitors come out of the factory intentionally set up to be as bright and colorful as possible, in order to look good in the brightly lit retail store. If they were set up to look good in your living room, they’d be all washed out and dark in the store.

            When you get the thing home, you have to adjust the settings so that it looks good at home.

            • MMD says:

              Why would I ever take one home if I can’t have some idea of how things will look at home first?

      • DAS37 says:

        I think you need to look at your setup and/or calibrate your HDTV properly. I’ve been watching HD since 2001 and I can tell you it’s a quantum leap in quality from SD. More so even than the leap from VHS to DVD was. I’m not saying everyone should have it because it does require a monetary investment but anytime I’ve heard complaints like this it’s usually because the viewer is doing it wrong.

    • MMD says:

      I feel sorry for those who fetishize the quality of the TV over the quality of the shows they watch.

      • nelamvr6 says:

        Have you never seen HDTV? Have you never compared it to SDTV?

        This argument is absolute nonsense!

        HDTV is better than SD by a factor of at least 1,000! It’s not even close!

        We are not talking about a slight improvement! We are not talking about “fetishizing”.

        • MMD says:

          You have done absolutely nothing to convince me, because you have provided no information whatsoever to make your case. It’s better because some random person on the internet says so?

          I *have* compared them. HD more often than not looks garish and over-bright to me.

          And, by the way, for future reference, how people see things is *subjective*. Your opinion is not fact.

          • dru_zod says:

            What nelamvr6 said is definitely an opinion. The actual fact is that an HD picture has 6 times the pixels making up the image that an SD picture has (HD = 1920×1080 pixels, SD = 720×480 pixels). So, if shot correctly, and not too heavily compressed, and viewed on a good TV that is properly adjusted (those are all big ifs), it will have more detail and be sharper than SD. Even so, some people think it looks better, some people don’t even notice the difference.

  8. deathbecomesme says:

    It’s simple. They want you to pirate those other episodes

  9. Bsamm09 says:

    With U-Verse, I can watch HBO on-demand and Showtime On-demand. But not in HD. (I don’t subscribe to either of those channels)

    Anyone else able to do this?

  10. MaximusMMIV says:

    I had a similar problem with Time Warner Cable. I DVR the shows I like and watch them at my leisure. One week, a baseball game went into extra innings and prevented me from watching an episode of one of my favorite shows. Time Warner Cable’s “Primetime on Demand” had every episode from the current season EXCEPT that one.

    I sent a tweet to their social media team, and they had an agent from their local office in my area call to advise they would upload the episode the next day. It never happened.

    “Catch-up” and “Primetime on Demand” are great ideas, but if no attention to detail is paid, they can be more frustrating than valuable.

  11. PhiTauBill says:

    HD is where it is at, and it really makes little sense to me at this point to be paying for cable, but not HD programming, especially considering the price of HDTVs these days. That said, I routinely witness my wife watching SD channels when the same program is available in HD on a different channel. So, is it perhaps only men that care about resolution for their shows?

    • MMD says:

      Or that HD is overrated and some people watch shows for plot and character development?

      • GrandizerGo says:

        You are funny with your truly outrageous opinion on HD…
        HD is better quality than SD.
        On a TV that supports HD, you get more TRUE pixels then you do of SD.
        More pixels enhance what you can see.
        Yes I agree, shows shot in SD are NOT going to look fantastic if upscaled to HD.
        A properly tuned and adjusted HD set does not have those bright unreal colors that you complain so much about.
        Maybe it is your eyes?

        • OutPastPluto says:

          …yeah but that HD will still likely be degraded in the same way that digital SD was degraded before it. It will be recompressed so that the cable company has room for more channels. They might even tinker with the resolution so that it isn’t exactly 720p or 1080i anymore but something kind of in between. The bitrate will likely be cranked down.

          What someone calls HD might not even be an improvement over a DVD.

          There are plenty of ways to monkey with a digital video signal to make it inferior while still retaining some characteristic that will allow them to call it “HD”.

        • MMD says:

          If you read the rest of the comments, you’ll see that I’m not the only one wit such an “outrageous” opinion.

          “Yes I agree, shows shot in SD are NOT going to look fantastic if upscaled to HD.”

          Thanks for proving my point.

          And if overbright colors are a calibration problem, then I’ve have *never* seen an HD TV *anywhere* that was calibrated correctly. If calibration’s that hard to get right, then I’m not interested in the hassle.

          • MattAlbie says:

            He didn’t prove your point. You just don’t understand enough about what you’re talking about to see that.

            If you take something that is SD and upscale it, no, it won’t look better. BUT IF YOU RESCAN IT from its original elements (shows shot on film, for example), it will look better than you’ve ever seen it before, ever. This is not an opinion. This is a fact. To say otherwise is utter nonsense and shows a lack of understanding about what you’re talking about.

            You can say “I have no interest in high definition personally.” That’s fine. To say “high definition is barely different” is completely and utterly ridiculous. That’s like saying “A 2012 car is barely different than the Model T. They’re both still cars. What a scam.”

            • MMD says:

              Actually, he did, because most of the programming I watch wasn’t shot in HD.

              Thanks for telling me how to phrase things. I’d be lost without you.

    • frankrizzo:You're locked up in here with me. says:

      I don’t give two hoots about HDTV.

      Who wants to watch the Rose Bowl and be able to count the blackheads on Lloyd Carr’s nose?

      It HAS been a while since I’ve watched HD.

    • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

      There are a lot of us who don’t watch much TV, grew up with regular TVs, or are just waiting for our current TVs to die so we can upgrade. About four years ago, we inherited a super heavy, big, 1080i CRT TV. When it finally dies, and assuming we can’t get another one at Goodwill or the Re-Store for next-to-nothing, we’ll finally get a flat panel TV.

      I didn’t upgrade to a color TV until about 1988 — Spending $500 on a TV can wait.

      • lovemypets00 - You'll need to forgive me, my social filter has cracked. says:

        Thank you! My TV is 20 years old. It still works perfectly, and I can watch what I want through the cable box, Roku, or DVD through an RF converter, and I’m not suffering due to lack of HD. I’m saving up cash back rewards from my credit cards toward a new flat screen TV. When I have enough money for a free TV, I’ll get one. I cannot justify plunking down any amount of money for a new TV at this time, unless the old one blows up. Literally.

        • ElBobulo says:

          Your TV does not work perfectly. CRTs get softer and softer as they age. When you finally trash it, you’ll get a new tv and probably say “why did I ever wait so long?”

    • Captain Spock says:

      I routinely catch my fiance watching a standard def program on our HDTV (we don’t pay for hd service) in 4:3 mode even when the station presents it in 16:9, she just needs to press the zoom button and it fills the screen with no cropping, she say she doesn’t notice… but that is more due to the laptop in front of her and the new ipad keeping her attention away from the TV

    • djkatscan says:

      Yes, perhaps because I have a vagina, I don’t care about resolution.

      wait….what?

  12. MedicallyNeedy says:

    If they included every episode you would have no incentive to buy the DVD season pack.
    I handed back my Comcast box in exchange for a Roku. I’m hoping for an AMC channel to be added, or the $7.99 unlimited Netflix, releases episodes closer to air date. I’ll have to watch the commercials but at least they are less than 2 minutes and have a convenient count-down clock.

  13. BF says:

    I went nuts trying to get final seasons of Breaking Bad and Weeds. Fios and Netflix didn’t offer final seasons and I did not want to pay Amazon per episode. That’s when I made the amazing discovery that the good old public library had on DVD. Free.

  14. some.nerd says:

    I hate to be the “blame the OP” guy, but it’s 2012 and you don’t have HD TV/service? Come on. It’s like, $7 more per month and your picture won’t look like a sack of asses.

    • MMD says:

      How original! You’re only the 5th or 6th person to say this!

      So, I repeat – lots of us think HD is overrated and that a lot of shows look terrible in HD. And some of us watch shows for their writing, plot and character development.

      • MattAlbie says:

        Then why watch it at all? Turn your brightness and contrast all the way down so it’s just a black screen and LISTEN.

        You’re right, cinematography IS overrated!

        • MMD says:

          By your logic, if I don’t like champagne, I should drink broken glass instead.

          Which is to say: your logic fails.

          • MattAlbie says:

            This got weird.

            • MMD says:

              Yes, it was weird when you attacked me for an opinion that is shared by many in this thread.

              • MattAlbie says:

                No, it got weird because somehow you equated “only enjoying part of something” to “drinking broken glass.” That was the weird part.

                • MMD says:

                  It’s not surprising that you missed the point, I guess…

                  • MattAlbie says:

                    Look, I can only help you so much.

                    You really sound silly. I’m a legitimate, credentialed expert in this field. If you would like to e-mail me at kevin.campbell99 at gmail.com, we can have an actual, honest discussion about this. You can get answers to the questions you obviously have.

                    If you really are just a troll, then… I dunno. Just keep doing your thing, I guess. You’re on your own from here on out.

                    • MMD says:

                      Right, I’m going to have an honest, helpful conversation with someone who has openly ridiculed me (and, as far as I’ve seen, only me and not the rest of the people stating my same opinion).

                    • MattAlbie says:

                      Want to know what set me off? Honestly, it was this:

                      Way up there, when you said “some people are more concerned with character development than visuals.” Implying that if I’m concerned with visuals, I’m an idiot who just likes to look at pretty pictures and I don’t care about “character” and “story.”

                      That’s what did it.

                      You cool it, I’ll cool it. Offer stands. Or not. I don’t care.

                      And you’re not looking hard enough, because I’ve definitely been arguing with other people. :) You’re just the most vocal on your side.

                    • MMD says:

                      Well, what set me off was that there were multiple posts from multiple people that completely missed the point of the original story and attacked the OP for not wanting HD. Those would be the “some people” who seem to care more about tech specs than what they’re watching and can’t just leave people who are satisfied with SD alone. If you’re really an expert in the field, I would guess that you’ve encountered at least one person who falls into that camp. (Please don’t argue that they don’t exist, because I’ve been chastised by a techie friend who told me I was sitting at the “wrong” angle to fully appreciate the screen when I was maybe 5 degrees off center. Sorry, but that’s someone who’s more concerned about the view than what they’re viewing.)

                    • MattAlbie says:

                      Of course they exist. Why do you think AVATAR made eleventy billion dollars a few years ago?

                      My point (and honestly, this is why I offered up the e-mail address, because how tiny this box appears coupled with how it’s basically just us now is getting silly) is that it’s possible for me to care about how something looks AND what it looks like. That’s part of the reason why I posted the DR.NO Blu-ray captures up there somewhere. Or look at THE TWILIGHT ZONE on Blu-ray. That’s one of the best shows of all time, and because it was shot on film it looks *astounding* in high definition. No hyperbole – it’s a 50 year old show and it looks better than most things on TV today.

                    • Elizabeth B says:

                      It would seem that some people care about HD and some don’t. (Yes, a huge number went to see Avatar, but not everyone did.) You care, and the OP doesn’t. This difference is fine. (Like the difference in kbps for digital music. Some claim >200 is necessary, but I am fine with 135 or 160 if I want “quality”.) You have the option to get HD. But does that mean she should have to upgrade in order to get the advertised episode selection?

                • MMD says:

                  Actually, in your metaphor, you expressed a “throw-out-the-baby-with-the-bathwater” mentality because I don’t like what you think is superior. (Just listen = don’t look at the visuals at all). I may have used a bit of hyperbole, but only to make the point that your argument was bollocks.

    • Elizabeth B says:

      This perception really bothers me. You don’t know their financial situation, for even their life priorities. “It’s 2012 and you don’t have three vehicles, a smart phone, a tv in every room, several computers, and a set of four-wheelers?” No. Not everyone wants to go into debt for these things, not everyone makes enough to pay for them outright, and not everyone cares. I have a small normal-definition tv to watch the three shows I care about. But should a company promise something and not deliver, it is still a big deal, even if that thing is a tv series with all the episodes. Maybe a bigger deal if the family doesn’t have a dvr.

      “But if they can afford x, then surely they can afford y.” No. X is in the budget. Y is not. Just because you can afford a car, doesn’t mean you can afford a motorcycle as well. Even if the difference is 5$. Being able to afford some luxury (cable tv) does not mean they can afford or even want the little extras that only cost a few dollars more.

      • MMD says:

        Thank you. You win the internet today for actually addressing the issue raised in the story.

      • nelamvr6 says:

        Really spiffy Reductio ad absurdum!

        This is why I really wish that the FCC would simply say that on June 1, 2015 ALL programming will be in HDTV.

        Luddites like those posting in this thread are the reason why TV and cable companies will have to support legacy systems for DECADES to come!

        You’re holding back the rest of us!

        SDTV needs to go, and SOON!

        • MMD says:

          You’re the one who’s being reductive and absurd by not providing a single iota of evidence to back up your *opinion*. I’m not a Luddite. I’m someone who dislikes HD because, *in my opinion*, the images look terrible. 3-D glasses in movie theatres also give me a headache – but I suppose in your world, that makes me a Luddite, too…

        • Elizabeth B says:

          Yes. A luddite who has built her own computers, fixed the broken screen on her smartphone, and is a 20-something mechanical engineer. I don’t need HD more than I need to pay off student loans and save for my future.

          The story is someone paying for a service that is advertised a certain way. She can’t use it as it is advertised, and everyone is telling her she should be paying more for a different service. This is not a solution.

          If HD was the only option, that would be fine. But telling everyone they are doing life wrong if they don’t want to pay more for it? Seriously?

  15. The Porkchop Express says:

    They also list shows on in demand and when you enter that menu…no episodes. it doesn’t say no episodes, it’s just blank.

    Also the catch up listing is sometimes the exact same as the normal listing.

    And, finally, why can I search by name to see when a show is on next but not to find it on in demand??

  16. Alliance to Restore the Republic of the United States of America says:

    Downlaod uTorrent. Install.

    Go to kat.ph. Download torrent file for the show you want to your desktop.

    Dub-click the torrent file. Wait a a few minutes. Have a cuppa.

    Enjoy the show.

    Buy the DVD and send it to a friend as a gift.

    Win/win for you and your friend. Net loss for Comcast.

    • Captain Spock says:

      Until Comcast sends you a nastygram accusing you of violating the DMCA because some MPAA stooge is sitting on the tracker recording IPs

    • Overman says:

      I gotta wonder.
      Now as a subscriber, I esstentially buy a media licence for a single view at the broadcasters convienance.
      If I’m paying my licencing fees (cable bill) why can’t I timeshift my viewing and recieve the same content through an alternative distribution?
      I know the majority of people consider torrents theft, but isn’t the cable provider making money through the subscription and broadband service, and don’t they negotiate fees with the content creators?
      Seems to me that the $1000+ I spend a year for content provision is the equivilent of a ASCAP licence.
      This goes to yesturdays post about the NPR intern as well.
      We pay money for the service, its fee distribution is wacked.
      We are paying the money, it just stops at the gatekeeprs.

  17. offtopic says:

    Unfortunately this is standard operating procedure for Comcast – any customer who uses on-demand knows that they are quite bad about keeping it updated.

  18. lovemypets00 - You'll need to forgive me, my social filter has cracked. says:

    Just wait a day or two – it will probably show up. I’ve noticed this happens with various shows from time to time.

  19. backinpgh says:

    I’ve had a large problem with Comcast On Demand not offering certain episodes, skipping episodes, posting them late, etc. Never did see the finale of Project Runway last season because it was never posted On Demand. I Tweeted Comcast and they said they post what is given to them by the networks. I’m not sure if I buy it or not.

  20. MattAlbie says:

    A person can say that they, personally, don’t care about high definition. That’s weird in my opinion, but fine. But to say that HD is “overrated” or that there’s “no difference” is nonsense. We’re not talking about opinion, here. This is math.

    It’s like saying “Why would I go to the theater when I have a 13″ black and white TV in my garage?” Alright, yes, you can watch STAR WARS in a theater or on that 13″ TV. This is true. But to say that they’re the same experience is ridiculous.

    And you don’t even need a calibrated TV to kill the “soap opera effect” that people are complaining about. It’s one feature that you turn off. It was designed for sports and live television, so of course it makes everything else look weird.

  21. Dan T. says:

    It’s 404 Not Found, of course.