me, too

Yes!

"FiOS will only be available if you get your landline phone service from Verizon"

Why? I can understand U-verse not going into Verizon territory, since they need to use some of the existing infrastructure, but Verizon is laying all new fiber aren't they? Why couldn't they stray into AT&T territory? Are there still some regulatory roadblocks to this, even after all of the deregulation?

Exactly right, Mr. E. It's amazing how many people out on the web are describing this problem incorrectly.

Does anyone here actually have U-verse in the L.A. area? Yes, I'm aware that it isn't L.A. proper, but I know people in many of the communities that are supposed to be getting it, and I can't find anyone who has even been offered it, much less has it. In Glendale, one of the cities supposedly getting it, the AT&T dsl operators are still pushing satellite. The Dslreports' user map shows about 5 users in places like Simi Valley and Santa Clarita. Maybe they should worry less about enhancements and more about getting a few homes actually installed.

1. Time Warner
2. OTA
3. Internet

It would be more accurate still to say i-Guide. I'm on a former Comcast system now owned by Time-Warner. They not only still run the 6412 with i-Guide, but, at long last, recently upgraded my box to firmware version 16.35 and i-Guide version 74.53. As rumored, these upgrades make most of the control lockouts go away.

Predictably, many comments have strayed far from the actual question of whether more time should be spent explaining *why* one's point of view is right. My congratulations to the few who had the focus to address the actual issue.

I would add another reason why this won't happen, desirable as it might be: most TV analysts are either liberals or religious right (as opposed to more traditional Democrats and Republicans.) These extremes are equally faith-based. They have no logical argument for their point of view. All you can expect from either side is either name calling or pointing out double standards and failures by their opponents.

"I wish I had that instead of the stupid Microsoft Comcast box."

Don't be too sure of that, unless the Microsoft software has gotten much worse since June. I moved from Seattle to Los Angeles then. The Comcast system here was already using the above-mentioned software, and Time-Warner has continued to use it since their takeover of the local Comcast systems. Although each has its pros and cons, I think that overall the Microsoft guide software was much better. Plus the stuff down here has some of the same problems that the Microsoft system had, such as the periodic control lockout so that an attempt to rewind 60 seconds turns into a 30 minute rewind by the time the box reacts to the attempts to stop.

chris graber-- I started my first sentence with: "Almost anyone who cares would already be doing this with their VCR..." --- does that sound like I'm suggesting that the "average" person is stupid? Where did you get that? With your English comprehension, it's no wonder learning to set the clock is a project for you.

My point, once again, is that anyone who is enough of a TV junkie to do something about scheduling conflicts has already been using a VCR to resolve them for years. (And, quite possibly, fast forwarding through the commercials.) Sure, a DVR makes it much easier to deal with, but the article comes close to making it sound like both the problem and the existence of a solution are brand new. In other words, I agree with the article's title. Scheduling conflicts are and will continue to be one of the reasons people buy DVRs -- just as they were one of the reasons people bought VCRs. What I don't accept is that the networks are faced with something new with large numbers of people, for the first time, watching both a show and its time slot competition. Actually, PVRWIRE's take on this study was fairly moderate. I later saw an article elsewhere that made it sound even worse, from a writer who seems to think that no one ever fast-forwarded through a commercial before DVRs came along.