# CableCARD: TiVo Fights The Good Fight



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

TiVo continues to fight for the retail CableCARD user but the survey results are alarming...

http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2014-03/cablecard-tivo-fights-good-fight/


----------



## windracer (Jan 3, 2003)

Percentage of MSOs _not_ allowing CableCARD self-installs went _up_? WTH?

I am actually pretty happy with Brighthouse with regards to their TiVo support lately ... CableCARD self-installs, free TiVo "kits" (with TA and CableCARD), etc. At this point the only thing I could really want is to not be charged for the CableCARD.


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

windracer said:


> Percentage of MSOs _not_ allowing CableCARD self-installs went _up_? WTH?
> 
> I am actually pretty happy with Brighthouse with regards to their TiVo support lately ... CableCARD self-installs, free TiVo "kits" (with TA and CableCARD), etc. At this point the only thing I could really want is to not be charged for the CableCARD.


Agreed. BHN is doing pretty well with respect to CableCARDs and TAs... my only standing complaint at this point is the copy control flags which I believe is related to their retransmission agreements.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I read somewhere that BHN is a subsidiary of TWC, so perhaps their use of the CCI byte comes from their parent company's policies?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

What is the EchoStar thing they keep referring to in that letter? Was there some case by EchoStar that overthrew some of the CabkeCARD rules?


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

IF "the spirit of agnostic, retail cable content availability is being met via the likes iPad, Xbox, and Roku apps etc" as the columnist ponders then let's get rid of cablecard and go to IP authentication.

IF it is kept then customers shouldn't have to rent a cablecard in perpetuity. $4/month ad nauseum for a cable card? Ridiculous.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

trip1eX said:


> IF "the spirit of agnostic, retail cable content availability is being met via the likes iPad, Xbox, and Roku apps etc" as the columnist ponders then let's get rid of cablecard and go to IP authentication.
> 
> IF it is kept then customers shouldn't have to rent a cablecard in perpetuity. $4/month ad nauseum for a cable card? Ridiculous.


Until cable companies are required by the FCC to support any and all 3rd party device apps, I'm not interested in even discussing the possibility of getting rid of CableCards.


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> I read somewhere that BHN is a subsidiary of TWC, so perhaps their use of the CCI byte comes from their parent company's policies?


BHN is owned by Advance Publications. They do continue to share some technology and licensing agreements with their former partner, TWC.



> All of the systems now owned by Bright House Networks were owned by the Time Warner EntertainmentAdvance/Newhouse Partnership. Under a deal struck in 2003, Advance/Newhouse took direct management and operational responsibility for a portion of the partnership cable systems roughly equal to their equity.


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> What is the EchoStar thing they keep referring to in that letter? Was there some case by EchoStar that overthrew some of the CabkeCARD rules?


In EchoStar Satellite L.L.C. v. FCC (EchoStar), the D.C. Circuit vacated the FCCs Second Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, which had the effect of vacating various rules adopted in those orders, including the encoding rules, the technical standards for CableCARD (Sections 76.602 and 76.640), and labeling with respect to CableCARD compatibility (Section 15.123). The integration ban was adopted in the First Report and Order and therefore is unaffected by the Echostar decision.


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

Some more from the FCC regarding the Echostar decision in the document granting Charter a two-year waiver on the integrated security requirement...



> We recognize that, in vacating the Second Report and Order, the EchoStar decision eliminated the requirement that cable operators continue to support CableCARD as a means of complying with the integration ban. Charter does not need a waiver in order to implement a downloadable security system as long as such system complies with the integration ban. Prior to the EchoStar decision, the Commissions CableCARD rules furthered Section 629 by ensuring that consumers could purchase CableCARD retail devices with the knowledge that such devices would work on their cable operators digital cable system. After the EchoStar decision, we recognize that there is the potential for a fractured cable set-top box market should different cable operators adopt differing non-CableCARD separated-security standards. In the past, the Commission has encouraged the development of an industry-wide downloadable separate security standard to further the purposes of Section 629. We believe granting Charters waiver under the circumstances presented in this proceeding will increase the chance of an industry-wide standard developing. Through acceptance of this waiver and its conditions, Charter is committing to adopt the same downloadable system being utilized by Cablevision. We believe Charters adoption of the same system will make it more likely that other operators considering moving to a downloadable security system will adopt the same established and tested technology, which will in turn make it more likely that third party manufacturers will develop retail devices given the expanded market. Therefore, Charters expansion of the market for devices operating this particular downloadable system should help assure the commercial availability of navigation devices, as Section 629 directs. Moreover we believe that our condition, further explained below, that requires Charter to work with a consumer electronics manufacturer to bring a retail device using Charters downloadable system to the retail market, will also further the purposes of Section 629 by mandating that Charter work towards creating a retail market for devices that commonly rely on an identical security technology and conditional access interface. In addition, waiver of the integration ban is likely to accelerate Charters deployment of downloadable security. As even CEA acknowledges, Charters systems are widely dispersed and are the least densely concentrated among the six largest cable operators. This footprint presents Charter with additional challenges in rolling out downloadable security across all of its headends. Waiver grant will enable Charter to accelerate adoption of the new downloadable security system, notwithstanding its rural footprint, in an efficient manner that minimizes disruption to consumers and, in doing so, more quickly establish a larger market for downloadable retail devices. As described below, we also adopt a number of conditions that we believe will ensure that this waiver, on balance, will serve the public interest and ensure that the waiver is consistent with the goals of Section 629.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

What's surprising to me is that, despite being the largest MSO, Comcast has turned out to be one of the most CableCARD friendly companies out there:

Self installs, dedicated CableCARD hotline, proper CCI byte settings, and a full rollout of VoD across all its markets.

I've certainly been guilty of ripping on Comcast in the past, but I have to admit that it's a great time to be a Comcast/TiVo customer.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

gweempose said:


> What's surprising to me is that, despite being the largest MSO, Comcast has turned out to be one of the most CableCARD friendly companies out there:
> 
> Self installs, dedicated CableCARD hotline, proper CCI byte settings, and a full rollout of VoD across all its markets.
> 
> I've certainly been guilty of ripping on Comcast in the past, but I have to admit that it's a great time to be a Comcast/TiVo customer.


Once they gobble up Time Warner Cable, they will drop the hammer.


----------



## windracer (Jan 3, 2003)

sbiller said:


> Agreed. BHN is doing pretty well with respect to CableCARDs and TAs... my only standing complaint at this point is the copy control flags which I believe is related to their retransmission agreements.


*facepalm* Yes! Of course, that too! Can't believe I forgot that major point when posting.  I'm very jealous of my sister who can stream everything from her TiVo (with Comcast) to the iOS app.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

sbiller said:


> Some more from the FCC regarding the Echostar decision in the document granting Charter a two-year waiver on the integrated security requirement...


Just another reason we really need AllVid.

But it looks like the FCC is loosening up the rules, not doubling down on them, so I doubt we're ever going to see it. Sounds like their ex-chairman turned chief lobbyist is doing a good job of buying convincing the current FCC to see things his way.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Until cable companies are required by the FCC to support any and all 3rd party device apps, I'm not interested in even discussing the possibility of getting rid of CableCards.


Well we do have non-MSO apps like HBO GO and ESPN3 among others that require your cable subscription to be authenticated and don't require cablecard.

Should HBO or ESPN, for example, be required to dump their content thru any other 3rd party app?


----------



## iceturkee (May 26, 2005)

windracer said:


> Percentage of MSOs _not_ allowing CableCARD self-installs went _up_? WTH?
> 
> I am actually pretty happy with Brighthouse with regards to their TiVo support lately ... CableCARD self-installs, free TiVo "kits" (with TA and CableCARD), etc. At this point the only thing I could really want is to not be charged for the CableCARD.


they give you the tuning adapter for free. could be worse.


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

trip1eX said:


> IF "the spirit of agnostic, retail cable content availability is being met via the likes iPad, Xbox, and Roku apps etc" as the columnist ponders then let's get rid of cablecard and go to IP authentication.


No, that'd likely be _their_ counter argument - versus how *I* see it. Cablecos would be fine keeping things locked down, opening up only on their terms, and for/with whom they have partnerships. But, yes, digital makes way more sense - PCMCIA is a hundred years old and doesn't scale well. Plus, CableCARD as implemented doesn't provide retail two way communication. Various players have been tinkering with digital conditional access for some time, but given the vacated order along with the FCC's limited enforcement interest and capabilities, in light of the small number of players interested in seeing this opened up, it hasn't really gone anywhere. OCAP, tru2way, AllVid, where are you now? Will Secure DLNA set us free? Some are looking at it ... (although strangely TiVo isn't a DLNA member yet).

Regarding fees, they'll find ways to hit you. Both DirecTV and DISH are/will charge like $6/mo for RVU TV or PS3 access. I assume a "soft" TiVo running inside Roku would also come with a fee.

Some footnotes... OCAP/tru2way were still likely to rely on CableCARD for auth, but provide a software framework to harness the guide and hopefully provide two way communication. AllVid was proposed as a successor to all of this. Which withered and died as far as I can tell. New and interesting is the Comcast-backed RDK that several others may be latching onto and something TiVo is cognizant of.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

TiVo should take it upon themselves to develop an AllVid type device to show the industry how it could be done. They could move all the tuners and the CableCARD(s) into a centralized network device, ala the HDHomeRun Prime, then create DVRs and Minis that could access those tuners as needed. By moving the tuners into a central box like that they could also allow users to mix cable and OTA, or switch between them, without having to replace the entire DVR. They might also be able to exploit their relationship with DirecTV and develop a gateway for them as well, creating a unified experience for all users. And if these cable companies get their way and are allowed to deploy proprietary downloadable security systems then TiVo could simply offer different gateways for the various standards rather then having to offer complete DVRs for each market.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

Dan203 said:


> I read somewhere that BHN is a subsidiary of TWC, so perhaps their use of the CCI byte comes from their parent company's policies?


BHN is a separate company, but those systems were former TWC which BHN co-owned with TWC, but BHN took direct control over the systems they owned. There is still a partnership between TWC and BHN where BHN uses TWC platforms and engineering standards and is also included on all TWC programming agreements. So, operationally they are indistinguishable from TWC.



trip1eX said:


> Well we do have non-MSO apps like HBO GO and ESPN3 among others that require your cable subscription to be authenticated and don't require cablecard.
> 
> Should HBO or ESPN, for example, be required to dump their content thru any other 3rd party app?


That's different. That's a value-add, and out of home streaming isn't regulated. The FCC's power is limited to linear video delivered over a coaxial cable to your house. They have no power over things delivered over the internet.



Dan203 said:


> TiVo should take it upon themselves to develop an AllVid type device to show the industry how it could be done. They could move all the tuners and the CableCARD(s) into a centralized network device, ala the HDHomeRun Prime, then create DVRs and Minis that could access those tuners as needed. By moving the tuners into a central box like that they could also allow users to mix cable and OTA, or switch between them, without having to replace the entire DVR. They might also be able to exploit their relationship with DirecTV and develop a gateway for them as well, creating a unified experience for all users. And if these cable companies get their way and are allowed to deploy proprietary downloadable security systems then TiVo could simply offer different gateways for the various standards rather then having to offer complete DVRs for each market.


I think if TiVo were interested in doing that, they would have already done it. Obviously the latest DirecTV TiVo was simply an afterthought and TiVo is doubling down on the partner with MSOs model. They'd have to get DirecTV and/or Echostar on board to make it worth it, and neither of those companies is going to be particularly interested in such a model.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

As I posted in Zatz's comments thread on this, the FCC granted a waiver until 2014 for the industry to come up with some sort of IP standard for HD streaming. I've seen nothing since, and their AllVid proposal was essentially abandoned after the MSOs told them to pound sand. And then they grant the ridiculous Charter downloadable security waiver.

Things don't look good on this front which is why Tivo continues to fight. I'm not sure if anyone at the FCC cares.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017143898


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

Is there any chance that the MSOs could do something in the near future that could potentially turn our TiVos into paperweights, or are we still protected for now by the FCC? I assume even the newer hardware platforms like Comcast's X1 still use CableCARDs.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Yep, they still use cards and they're not going away for a very long time. They're not going to shut them off if that's what you're asking. But as mentioned in the filing, support for third-party devices using them may become more problematic until/unless the FCC takes action.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

gweempose said:


> Is there any chance that the MSOs could do something in the near future that could potentially turn our TiVos into paperweights, or are we still protected for now by the FCC? I assume even the newer hardware platforms like Comcast's X1 still use CableCARDs.


More than anything else, we're protected by the fact that there are tens of millions of CableCard set tops from the MSOs themselves in use, and there's no way that they would be shut off overnight.

You'll see it coming with at least a couple of years notice before digital QAM-modulated linear video with CableCard CA is turned off.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

But it could get to a point where they are no longer required to offer new CableCARDs. So if the one you have dies they will not be required to replace it.



slowbiscuit said:


> As I posted in Zatz's comments thread on this, the FCC granted a waiver until 2014 for the industry to come up with some sort of IP standard for HD streaming. I've seen nothing since, and their AllVid proposal was essentially abandoned after the MSOs told them to pound sand. And then they grant the ridiculous Charter downloadable security waiver.
> 
> Things don't look good on this front which is why Tivo continues to fight. I'm not sure if anyone at the FCC cares.
> 
> http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017143898


Wow I hadn't ever heard about that mandate. That actually sounds like they are mandating exactly what I want. A gateway type device that outputs video over a network using an open standard so that multiple TVs can access the service without requiring a box. I hope they hold to that. It sounds like the first step toward an AllVid type standard.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

Dan203 said:


> But it could get to a point where they are no longer required to offer new CableCARDs. So if the one you have dies they will not be required to replace it.
> 
> Wow I hadn't ever heard about that mandate. That actually sounds like they are mandating exactly what I want. A gateway type device that outputs video over a network using an open standard so that multiple TVs can access the service without requiring a box. I hope they hold to that. It sounds like the first step toward an AllVid type standard.


The problem is that the "open standard" will be wrapped in all kinds of DRM. It'll be open at the most for TiVo, but open source things like MythTV will be locked out, and by now Microsoft doesn't care. Essentially this is purely for TiVo, no one else.

AllVid is dead, and CableCard will be. You and I want 3rd party retail devices because we like different interfaces or different styles of devices (network DVRs, archiving massive amounts of recordings, TiVo's services, etc) but the FCC "mandate" of buying vs. renting will be satisfied by apps on iPads and Xboxes. Comcast and TWC already hail their apps as negating the need for things like CableCard, even though they solve a different problem than people like me or you have with MSO-provided set tops.

You and I know there's no difference between an Xbox 360 running TWC's app and a TWC set top, but the FCC doesn't care.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Based on that link it sounds like the FCC has clarified the "open standard" to be DLNA. There is a version of DLNA that supports encryption (DTCP-IP) that has already been approved for use by CableLabs and is supported by several devices. I'm not sure about the control and discovery protocols though. The FFC letter above made it sound like the DLNA was working on a new version that supports all that. For example the HDHomeRun already supports DTCP-IP and can stream live premium channels to DTCP-IP enabled devices. But the way it selects channels is a bit clunky. It basically presents the channels to the device as a list of files. For this to be more user friendly they need a way to use simple channel up/down and manual channel entry, perhaps even a simple guide of some sort. (although that could be presented by the playback device instead being part of the standard)

This may not support everything AllVid would have, but it's a step in that direction. By centralizing the tuners in a gateway device they at least open up the possibility of allowing retail devices to be interoperable across service providers. The trick is getting all the providers to use the same standard. While they favor DLNA they leave it open and will still allow MSOs to choose other protocols as long as their office deems it "open". So there is still some room in there for the lobbyist to work and screw it all up.


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

JosephB said:


> The problem is that the "open standard" will be wrapped in all kinds of DRM. It'll be open at the most for TiVo, but open source things like MythTV will be locked out, and by now Microsoft doesn't care. Essentially this is purely for TiVo, no one else.
> 
> AllVid is dead, and CableCard will be. You and I want 3rd party retail devices because we like different interfaces or different styles of devices (network DVRs, archiving massive amounts of recordings, TiVo's services, etc) but the FCC "mandate" of buying vs. renting will be satisfied by apps on iPads and Xboxes. Comcast and TWC already hail their apps as negating the need for things like CableCard, even though they solve a different problem than people like me or you have with MSO-provided set tops.
> 
> You and I know there's no difference between an Xbox 360 running TWC's app and a TWC set top, but the FCC doesn't care.


See this article from a few weeks ago...

http://www.multichannel.com/technology/dlna-extends-bridge-between-pay-tv-services-retail-ce-devices/148924


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

That DLNA CVP-2 sounds awesome! I really hope the MSOs get behind that. It basically sounds like everything AllVid purposed to be. The only part that doesn't sound awesome is this...



> CVP-2 also supports ad insertion


I hope they don't use that as a way to force us to watch ads.


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> That DLNA CVP-2 sounds awesome! I really hope the MSOs get behind that. It basically sounds like everything AllVid purposed to be. The only part that doesn't sound awesome is this...
> 
> I hope they don't use that as a way to force us to watch ads.


It sounds from that description that the cable companies want to keep the DVR upstream of their outputs. So they will still retain total control of their UI and the DVR.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

The FCC mandates that the IP stream be recordable. And part of the CVP-2 specification is something called USI (Usage State Information) which basically mimics the CCI byte used for CableCARDs and allows the DLNA server to set the stream to Copy Freely, Copy Once and Copy Never so a CVP-2 capable DVR can record the stream and apply the proper protection.

Now I assume that a DVR which records from a DLNA stream will still need to be approved by some sort of standards body, so this wont be a free for all where open source DVR software can record protected content. But it might enable them to access Copy Freely channels. And it will allow bigger companies like TiVo to get certified and be able to record everything just like they do now with CableCARDs.

The main purpose of this spec is to centralize the tuners, 2 way communication and UI elements like the guide, VOD, etc... into a single gateway device and then provide a simple set of standards that a playback device or DVR can use to access them.

For a DVR like TiVo they could ignore the guide and continue to use their own built in one, but still allow access to VOD by simply displaying the VOD RUI which is just HTML5. Although I guess the cable companies could push for mandated use of their RUI guide too, like they did when developing OCAP, but I hope that doesn't happen. 

TiVo could also use this same same set of protocols for their multi-room sharing so that we'd no longer need a dedicated Mini to access recordings on our TiVo. Instead we could use any DLNA CVP-2 device to watch our recorded shows. (TiVo may not like this part though)

The best part of this is if it catches on then the FCC could force the DSS providers to start using it too and we'd essentially have AllVid.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> TiVo should take it upon themselves to develop an AllVid type device to show the industry how it could be done. They could move all the tuners and the CableCARD(s) into a centralized network device, ala the HDHomeRun Prime, then create DVRs and Minis that could access those tuners as needed. By moving the tuners into a central box like that they could also allow users to mix cable and OTA, or switch between them, without having to replace the entire DVR. They might also be able to exploit their relationship with DirecTV and develop a gateway for them as well, creating a unified experience for all users. And if these cable companies get their way and are allowed to deploy proprietary downloadable security systems then TiVo could simply offer different gateways for the various standards rather then having to offer complete DVRs for each market.


DirecTV wants nothing to do with TiVo. They released the most crippled and junky TiVo they could to fulfill their settlement with TiVo, knowing full well that almost no one would buy the turd. They lost money on it, but to protect their Genie, it's a small price for them to pay...

Comcast is very friendly to TiVo, they must have found that they are getting enough VOD traffic to make rolling out more VOD support worth it. Not that it takes much with the margins on the rentals...

If they have enough TiVo users, then they also want to keep those users around. They know many of them, like myself, would leave for DirecTV if they killed TiVo off. DirecTV must not see a large enough market to support TiVo in a meaningful way. If they sold a little box that connected my TiVo to SWiM 8 through Ethernet, I would jump to DirecTV in a second. More channels, more HD's, better PQ, and my TiVo would magically get bigger!

I think the bigger risk in the near term is that cable starts using IP distribution for channels that would previously have been SDV, keeping a core lineup on linear QAM, and putting another 100+ obscure HD channels on MPEG-4 or HEVC IP, and they don't let TiVo in on the code to "read" the IP streams. FIOS is probably the biggest risk, since they already have an IP system in place, boxes that support IP distribution, a maxed out 860mhz QAM system and a metric @$$load of IP bandwidth to play with. However, most content would still be accessible to a TiVo, and people could, in theory, have a FIOS DVR and a TiVo, and use the FIOS DVR for the occasional thing on one of the IP channels that the TiVo can't get. As it is, it's that way it is now for VOD.

I don't forsee an actual switch to IP for a long, long time. QAM is here and it works.MPEG-4 is the next step for the cable companies. And MPEG-4 works with Premiere and later TiVos, so that's not an issue.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> I think the bigger risk in the near term is that cable starts using IP distribution for channels that would previously have been SDV, keeping a core lineup on linear QAM, and putting another 100+ obscure HD channels on MPEG-4 or HEVC IP, and they don't let TiVo in on the code to "read" the IP streams. FIOS is probably the biggest risk, since they already have an IP system in place, boxes that support IP distribution, a maxed out 860mhz QAM system and a metric @$$load of IP bandwidth to play with. However, most content would still be accessible to a TiVo, and people could, in theory, have a FIOS DVR and a TiVo, and use the FIOS DVR for the occasional thing on one of the IP channels that the TiVo can't get. As it is, it's that way it is now for VOD.


That's the beauty of switching to a gateway model. The gateway is rented from the cable company so it doesn't matter how the channels are delivered to it, as long as they are converted to a standard IP stream on the way out. In that case a device like a TiVo would just send the channel request to the gateway, the gateway would tune it using whatever technology it wanted, and then start streaming it to the TiVo via standard IP. In theory even a current gen TiVo could be adapted to this model. They have gigabit ethernet and MoCa built in, the rest could theoretically be done via software.

I think the biggest hurdle for TiVo would be scheduling. Since the TiVo wouldn't really know ahead of time how many tuners will be available from the gateway at a given time, maintaining the To Do List and prompting about scheduling conflicts might be impossible. Having all the tuners internal to the TiVo makes that a lot easier to manage. But it's not insurmountable.

Another thing I'm unsure about is whether or not these these gateway devices are stackable. Assuming each one has 6 tuners people may need more then one to meet all their tuner needs. I'm also not sure if in a situation like that if the player/DVR would need to be paired to a specific gateway or if all the tuners from multiple gateways would be pooled together with each device having the ability to grab a tuner from whichever gateway has one available. I think the later would be a better option, but I haven't read the complete spec so I'm not exactly sure how it's designed to work.


----------



## BHNtechXpert (Nov 8, 2011)

Dan203 said:


> I read somewhere that BHN is a subsidiary of TWC, so perhaps their use of the CCI byte comes from their parent company's policies?


No we are not  TWC is a public company we are a private company and while we do share some technology that is the extent of the relationship.


----------



## truman861 (Jul 14, 2012)

The way I see it, even after having a indepth phone convo with BHNTechXpert, is that I pay for the programing, I should be able to do what I want with it, if I want to copy it to my comp or iphone, that should be my right as I paid for it.

Roamio Plus (Master)
3 Tivo Mini's (living room and kids rooms)
3 x Premiers (retired)
Tivo series 3 HD (retired)
Tivo series 2 with PLS (retired)
MoCA
CC: Cisco PK802
TA: Cisco STA1520
T.W. Brighthouse Tampabay - Moving to Verizon Fios


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> That's the beauty of switching to a gateway model. The gateway is rented from the cable company so it doesn't matter how the channels are delivered to it, as long as they are converted to a standard IP stream on the way out. In that case a device like a TiVo would just send the channel request to the gateway, the gateway would tune it using whatever technology it wanted, and then start streaming it to the TiVo via standard IP. In theory even a current gen TiVo could be adapted to this model. They have gigabit ethernet and MoCa built in, the rest could theoretically be done via software.
> 
> I think the biggest hurdle for TiVo would be scheduling. Since the TiVo wouldn't really know ahead of time how many tuners will be available from the gateway at a given time, maintaining the To Do List and prompting about scheduling conflicts might be impossible. Having all the tuners internal to the TiVo makes that a lot easier to manage. But it's not insurmountable.
> 
> Another thing I'm unsure about is whether or not these these gateway devices are stackable. Assuming each one has 6 tuners people may need more then one to meet all their tuner needs. I'm also not sure if in a situation like that if the player/DVR would need to be paired to a specific gateway or if all the tuners from multiple gateways would be pooled together with each device having the ability to grab a tuner from whichever gateway has one available. I think the later would be a better option, but I haven't read the complete spec so I'm not exactly sure how it's designed to work.


True. It would also put U-Verse and satellite on a level playing field. The ultimate would be a DVR and network that could integrate a lineup with multiple gateways. Say a gateway for OTA, a gateway for FIOS TV with QAM and IP, and then a gateway for some international channels through DISH... it would be nirvana for TiVo!

Yes, the existing TiVos, at least Roamio and Premiere, should be software upgradable. For FIOS, for example, if they were smart enough, they could keep CableCard tuners, but know that certain channels are IP-only and have to requested through the gateway. Or for Roamio Basic, OTA on the roamio, and pay TV through a gateway. For scheduling, there would either have to be a way to schedule tuners ahead of time, a way to put a lock on tuners (this would only work for 1 DVR and some boxes with live TV only), or you would have to hard assign tuners to certain hardware, so that there'd be a gateway, a central server (like a TiVo Roamio Pro), and then the clients (i.e. TiVo Mini).

Pooling tuners shouldn't be that hard, as long as one box owns the management of the whole network, and would be scalable to some number of tuners, say 18 or 24 tuners. Of course some services, like U-Verse (4) or DirecTV (8 for a SWiMline setup) could only support a certain number of tuners. Where it would get really murky is a FIOS type system if it has a limit for the number of IP streams, but unlimited QAM streams, and has some channels IP-only, and some QAM. Then the programming on the DVR side would get really squirrely if you have channels that are available through both an OTA gateway and a FIOS gateway, but you prefer to get them through FIOS, but then if it needs to "reclaim" tuners for cable channels, it would have to be smart enough to "offload" one or more of the local channel needs at that time to the OTA tuners...


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

truman861 said:


> The way I see it, even after having a indepth phone convo with BHNTechXpert, is that I pay for the programing, I should be able to do what I want with it, if I want to copy it to my comp or iphone, that should be my right as I paid for it.


But that's not the law. The content producers get some control of what you do with their content. The DMCA, for instance, guarantees that. If you want to argue that the law should be changed, that's fine. But arguing that other folks should break the law because you don't like it seems unhelpful.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> True. It would also put U-Verse and satellite on a level playing field. The ultimate would be a DVR and network that could integrate a lineup with multiple gateways. Say a gateway for OTA, a gateway for FIOS TV with QAM and IP, and then a gateway for some international channels through DISH... it would be nirvana for TiVo!
> 
> Yes, the existing TiVos, at least Roamio and Premiere, should be software upgradable. For FIOS, for example, if they were smart enough, they could keep CableCard tuners, but know that certain channels are IP-only and have to requested through the gateway. Or for Roamio Basic, OTA on the roamio, and pay TV through a gateway. For scheduling, there would either have to be a way to schedule tuners ahead of time, a way to put a lock on tuners (this would only work for 1 DVR and some boxes with live TV only), or you would have to hard assign tuners to certain hardware, so that there'd be a gateway, a central server (like a TiVo Roamio Pro), and then the clients (i.e. TiVo Mini).
> 
> Pooling tuners shouldn't be that hard, as long as one box owns the management of the whole network, and would be scalable to some number of tuners, say 18 or 24 tuners. Of course some services, like U-Verse (4) or DirecTV (8 for a SWiMline setup) could only support a certain number of tuners. Where it would get really murky is a FIOS type system if it has a limit for the number of IP streams, but unlimited QAM streams, and has some channels IP-only, and some QAM. Then the programming on the DVR side would get really squirrely if you have channels that are available through both an OTA gateway and a FIOS gateway, but you prefer to get them through FIOS, but then if it needs to "reclaim" tuners for cable channels, it would have to be smart enough to "offload" one or more of the local channel needs at that time to the OTA tuners...


I don't see one device having control over the tuner pool. Or there being a way to dedicate tuners to a specific device. I see it more as the gateway(s) having complete control over their tuners and the devices sending requests to the gateway(s) for a tuner when one is needed. The gateway would then either return the requested stream or an error if no tuner was available. I could see there being some sort of a "pre-request" system where a device sends a request to the gateway say 5 minutes before it's needed to ensure it'll be available. The gateway could then prompt all active tuners with a message "this tuner is needed for device X at 8:00pm do you want to relinquish the tuner?" with the default answer being yes if there is no reply within a given amount of time. However a system like that would make scheduling tricky because the DVR would have no idea if a tuner would be available or not ahead of time.

To make it work well they would need to add some sort of scheduling system to the gateway itself. Something where a DVR could request a tuner 10-12 days in advance and be guaranteed that it will be available when the time arrives. Although that wouldn't be all that difficult either. Not sure if that's part of CPV-2 though.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

It sounds good on paper, but Take a look at the approved (required) DTCP-IP protection technology. Something like Myth would never work with it.

http://www.dtcp.com/approvedtechnologies.aspx

I'm not even sure an in-home Tivo Stream could be implemented from that list.

There's very few compatible receivers and I figure that's an indicator there's something undesirable about it.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

The DTCP-IP system uses MPEG-DASH by default, which is very similar to the HLS system they currently use for the TiVo Stream. I doubt it would be hard to create a TiVo Stream type device.

There is also nothing preventing TiVo from submitting their own encryption scheme to the DLNA ti get approval for storage. Their scheme has already been approved by CableLabs so I doubt it would be rejected by the DLNA. 

I'm surprised to AACS on that list since it was cracked years ago. That's what's used on BluRays and broken by programs like AnyDVD.

Windows Media DRM 10 can actually be licensed from MS, and is approved for both storage and playback protection, so if this catches on we may actually see 3rd party Windows DVR software again. Probably not open source, but paid options from 3rd parties should be possible.


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

Here is my fear with respect to CVP-2... we might be saddled by our subscription TV providers UI.

http://www.v-net.tv/cvp-2-guidelines-hailed-as-game-changer-for-premium-content-sharing












> CVP-2 uses HTML5 RUI (Remote User Interface), which enables a service provider UI to be displayed on a remote device. A client device discovers a server (like a DVR in the home) and then uses a URL to retrieve and render a user interface, which could be the Pay TV programme guide or an operator VOD portal, for example, on the secondary device. The UI is treated like a website, in effect, hosted on a server and displayed on the client.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

truman861 said:


> The way I see it, even after having a indepth phone convo with BHNTechXpert, is that I pay for the programing, I should be able to do what I want with it, if I want to copy it to my comp or iphone, that should be my right as I paid for it.


On Brighthouse or Time Warner? LOL that's funny, you're a day late on April Fools.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

sbiller said:


> Here is my fear with respect to CVP-2... we might be saddled by our subscription TV providers UI.


Yep this gives them the ability to control the user experience, which is what they tried and failed to do with tru2way. The question will be whether it's optional or mandatory, and Tivo won't go with the latter.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Hopefully the RUI will optional and componentized. That way companies like TiVo can ignore it for things they don't need, like the guide, but use it for things they do, like VOD.

For simple playback devices the RUI makes perfect sense and makes it a lot easier for 3rd party manufacturers to deploy devices quickly and easily.


----------



## tomhorsley (Jul 22, 2010)

I keep hoping for the day to come that all programs (except possibly live sports) are on demand, there aren't any networks, or channels, or anything of that ilk. Just the writers and producers free at last from interference by network executives and meddling advertisers.

The advertisers would still exists, of course, but instead of paying networks, they pay viewers in the form of credits the viewers could then use to pay for the on demand programs they want to watch. No advertiser needs to worry about sponsoring offensive shows, since they are now simply sponsoring viewers, not shows.

If only I could figure out how to get there from here .


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

That's an interesting idea. Have all content be PPV but allow people to earn credits toward those PPV shows by watching commercials.

Although it seems ripe for manipulation. I mean what's to stop someone from setting something up to automate commercial watching while they're asleep and then using the resulting credits to watch shows for free? Although I guess that's basically what us DVR users are doing now. We're using technology to manipulate the system and get something for free without paying our dues.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> That's an interesting idea. Have all content be PPV but allow people to earn credits toward those PPV shows by watching commercials.
> 
> Although it seems ripe for manipulation. I mean what's to stop someone from setting something up to automate commercial watching while they're asleep and then using the resulting credits to watch shows for free? Although I guess that's basically what us DVR users are doing now. We're using technology to manipulate the system and get something for free without paying our dues.


In my opinion the Networks and advertisers killed their own system when they moved an hour show from being 52 minutes long to 42 minutes long. If anyone really believe that people without DVRs actually sit there and watch 18 minutes of commercials in an hour, then I have some great swamp land they can invest in. While I am not a fan of advertisements Hulu has it right the commercial breaks are short enough so you really can not do anything else so you end up watching them.


----------



## tomhorsley (Jul 22, 2010)

Dan203 said:


> That's an interesting idea. Have all content be PPV but allow people to earn credits toward those PPV shows by watching commercials.
> 
> Although it seems ripe for manipulation. I mean what's to stop someone from setting something up to automate commercial watching while they're asleep and then using the resulting credits to watch shows for free? Although I guess that's basically what us DVR users are doing now. We're using technology to manipulate the system and get something for free without paying our dues.


I suspect ads would have to become interactive. Maybe role playing games where your objective is to buy a new car and use it to get lunch at a fast food place then go to the mall .

Or maybe you have to take a quiz at the end of your infomercial and your score is used to decide how many credits you get...


----------



## DeltaBill (Dec 15, 2003)

slowbiscuit said:


> Yep this gives them the ability to control the user experience, which is what they tried and failed to do with tru2way. The question will be whether it's optional or mandatory, and Tivo won't go with the latter.


I not worried about having the provider's interface. It still would be possible to place a device between the gateway and the AV network. In our case it would be Tivo. The tivo would request tuners from the gateway and most likely would be able to pick and chose other gateway services to provide. Tivo would wrap this in its own interface which would then provided the content to devices on the AV network.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

DeltaBill said:


> I not worried about having the provider's interface. It still would be possible to place a device between the gateway and the AV network. In our case it would be Tivo. The tivo would request tuners from the gateway and most likely would be able to pick and chose other gateway services to provide. Tivo would wrap this in its own interface which would then provided the content to devices on the AV network.


The concern is that ture2way was suppose to allow the same thing, but then the providers started insisting that they get total control over the UI. So there is a possibility the providers will reject this standard unless they have the option to force their UI on every device.


----------



## DeltaBill (Dec 15, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> The concern is that ture2way was suppose to allow the same thing, but then the providers started insisting that they get total control over the UI. So there is a possibility the providers will reject this standard unless they have the option to force their UI on every device.


I understand the concern and hope the providers do not try to assert themselves into the UI for 3rd party components. However, knowing that the AllVid spec request by the FCC was intended for an open spec and that CVP-2 is the industries response to the request, I believe the probability of the providers controlling the UI 3rd party components is low. Unfortunately, its not zero.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tomhorsley said:


> I keep hoping for the day to come that all programs (except possibly live sports) are on demand, there aren't any networks, or channels, or anything of that ilk. Just the writers and producers free at last from interference by network executives and meddling advertisers.
> 
> The advertisers would still exists, of course, but instead of paying networks, they pay viewers in the form of credits the viewers could then use to pay for the on demand programs they want to watch. No advertiser needs to worry about sponsoring offensive shows, since they are now simply sponsoring viewers, not shows.
> 
> If only I could figure out how to get there from here .


NO! That ads would be super targeted, like online ads. I don't want to see ads for some product I just bought for 3 weeks like I do online. I like seeing general interest ads that are targeted to the average person watching the show, not to ME. I'm not a tinfoil hat, I don't mind transmitting data to whoever wants to use it in a big data set, but I just find it annoying as hell to have the same ads over and over again like online.

I wish every provider would just license the real TiVo interface from TiVo, and then we wouldn't have this problem!  Of course, that wouldn't get us actually owning the hardware...


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

http://investordiscussionboard.com/boards/tivo/fccs-media-bureau-grants-tivos-request-waiver-ip-output-rule

MSO's now have until June 1, 2015 to comply with the IP Output Rule.


----------



## truman861 (Jul 14, 2012)

sbiller said:


> http://investordiscussionboard.com/boards/tivo/fccs-media-bureau-grants-tivos-request-waiver-ip-output-rule
> 
> MSO's now have until June 1, 2015 to comply with the IP Output Rule.


Can you explain this in english to me please? I looked at it and was confused.


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

truman861 said:


> Can you explain this in english to me please? I looked at it and was confused.


It's related to the DLNA CVP-2 article posted earlier in this thread. It appears that DLNA will be the standard that MSOs need to comply with for their set-top boxes. This will theoretically allow a 3rd party "certified" retail box to connect to a cable provided box and receive video services.

I described it this way over on the investment board,



> Essentially, the IP Output Rule requires all MSOs to enable "gateway" functionality on their boxes to allow 3rd party (i.e., retail) to access cable TV video services. It appears that we are going down the path of DLNA being the standards-based mechanism to get this done. If this is implemented properly, you would theoretically be able to get one gateway box from your cable operator and light-up any number of retail devices (e.g., Roku, Apple TV, Amazon Fire, XBox, ...) in your home with cable TV services. The big question is how consistently this will be implemented by the MSOs. The DLNA profiles allow things like hijacking of the 3rd party screen so essentially you might be forced to use the cable operators user interface to access their services. This is currently an option in the DLNA specification. Its really unclear how this will play out but it could be a step in the right direction for retail access to cable services. The question in my mind is how well will it work. This could be like MSO provided Tuning Adapters for Switched Digital Video (SDV) that are finally working well today many years after they were introduced. This new rule does nothing related to the CableCARD status quo at this point but I'm somewhat optimistic that the FCC's Media Burea's chief appeared to be on the side of TiVo in the most recent hearings in the US Senate.


I'm sure Dan or some others can jump in here and explain it better than me.


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

In the latest exchange of comments to the FCC, the principal trade association of the U.S. Cable Industry aggressively attacks TiVo's stance on CableCARD. From a retail CableCARD user perspective, TiVo's stance IS in the consumers best interest. The NCTA is essentially arguing that the cable industry and MVPDs will innovate on their own to provide access to their member(s) signals on 3rd party devices. We've seen many examples where this isn't the case but they continue to argue the point.

Full filing is here --> http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521097227



> The National Cable & Telecommunications Association ("NCTA") hereby replies to comments filed in response to Buckeye Cablevision, Inc.'s ("Buckeye's") request for waiver of the "integration ban" in Section 76.1204(a)(1) of the Commission's Rules - the rule which requires cable operators to use separate security (e.g., CableCARDs) in their leased set-top boxes. While expressing sympathy for a smaller operator seeking to adopt more advanced technology, TiVo, Inc. ("TiVo") urges the Commission to block those advances. TiVo's approach would impede innovation to the detriment of Buckeye's customers, and should be rejected. The Commission should grant Buckeye's waiver request.





> Today, the market is already delivering a wide variety of innovative video platforms and interfaces. As the Commission noted in its last Video Competition Report, "the CPE marketplace is more dynamic than it has ever been, offering consumers an unprecedented and growing list of choices to access video content."20 Cable operators have been key actors in facilitating these marketplace developments by making their services available on a broad and growing array of consumer electronics devices. Numerous cable operators are delivering cable services to iOS and Android tablets and smartphones, PCs and Macs, and game consoles and other video devices, and that trend is accelerating to meet consumer demand for these options. The relative paucity of retail CableCARD devices and the cornucopia of other video devices on which consumers are enjoying cable programming is unequivocal testimony that allowing the marketplace to offer a diversity of approaches is far more successful than attempting to prescribe a uniform government-mandated technology.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

It's obvious to everyone that Cablecard is a dead-end and a successor should be created. But that's where the devil lies because the MSOs all want to roll their own. Sadly, I believe that this will happen by default as they keep kicking the IP Output mandate down the road.


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

slowbiscuit said:


> It's obvious to everyone that Cablecard is a dead-end and a successor should be created. But that's where the devil lies because the MSOs all want to roll their own. Sadly, I believe that this will happen by default as they keep kicking the IP Output mandate down the road.


They are heading down the path that requires an MSO gateway leased device in every home complying with the IP Output rule. The gateway MSO device supports proprietary encryption on a provider-by-provider basis. Any 3rd party device will need to connect to the IP side of the device.


----------



## moedaman (Aug 21, 2012)

BHNtechXpert said:


> No we are not  TWC is a public company we are a private company and while we do share some technology that is the extent of the relationship.


Too bad you're not independent enough to get rid of the crappy CCI byte that TWC uses.


----------



## southerndoc (Apr 5, 2003)

Cable is just wanting to go out of the television broadcast business. Ever increasing rates, difficulty using third-party devices, etc. will drive people to cancel their cable subscriptions.

I know if I can't use TiVo and I'm forced to use Comcast's STB's, I will cancel my television service and just stream shows online. Unless Comcast deploys TiVo's UI and setup.


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

geekmedic said:


> Cable is just wanting to go out of the television broadcast business. Ever increasing rates, difficulty using third-party devices, etc. will drive people to cancel their cable subscriptions.


Cable MSOs make a ton of money by providing video services. There is no way they are looking at getting out of that business. They continue to pass-on the majority of price increases to consumers.


----------



## Neil 420 (Apr 20, 2004)

geekmedic said:


> ...Unless Comcast deploys TiVo's UI and setup.


Comcast might deploy something roughly as good as Tivo. They are working with Apple Inc on it. The main problem will be that the remote control will only have one button. :/


----------



## Neil 420 (Apr 20, 2004)

sbiller, why are the cable MSOs so hostile to Tivo? How is that in their business interest? Do they make so much from leasing us equipment?


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

Neil 420 said:


> sbiller, why are the cable MSOs so hostile to Tivo? How is that in their business interest? Do they make so much from leasing us equipment?


Good question. I think there are multiple facets to the answer.

Many cable MSOs might feel that TiVo is costing them money quarter over quarter because of their previous litigation history and the fact that TiVo is the main reason that they are forced to use separable security in the form of CableCARD. At least the position of the cable industry's trade association, the NCTA, is that TiVo is forcing a technology that costs their members more than a billion dollars.

As far as how much they make leasing equipment, you can do the math. For example, my cable operator charges me $4.00 per month to lease a $60 Modem. It probably costs them closer to $50. So after one year its pure profit for the cable operator other than the occasional replacement after the useful life of the equipment. So yes, they make A LOT of money on equipment rentals. The profit on set-top boxes and DVRs probably contributes even more to the bottom line at $15 to $20 per month for the leased box.


----------



## truman861 (Jul 14, 2012)

As far as how much they make leasing equipment, you can do the math. For example, my cable operator charges me $4.00 per month to lease a $60 Modem. It probably costs them closer to $50. So after one year its pure profit for the cable operator other than the occasional replacement after the useful life of the equipment. So yes, they make A LOT of money on equipment rentals. The profit on set-top boxes and DVRs probably contributes even more to the bottom line at $15 to $20 per month for the leased box.[/QUOTE]

I ended up buying my own modem and gave BH back theirs, only to make the decision to switch to Verizon. Its okay though as I bought my new Verizon modem outright so I don't loose money there. 
Then we come to the STB's. I never realized until about 6 mo ago that I was paying 20.00 for each HD DVR from BH Tampabay. From there I bought three premieres on craigs list cheap and was paying the 12.99 to TiVo and the 4.00 to BH. Since then have sold 2 of the premieres (keeping one just in case) and have moved to the Roamio Plus with 3 Minis. Major significant savings. 9.99 per month on my Roamio, 5.99 on the minis and 1 cable card at 4.00. Total 32.00 per month for all equipment verses 80.00. That's why the cable company doesn't want us using our own equipment. It may not hit BH hard with just me doing it this way but the more and more people that switch, the worse it affects their bottom line


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

sbiller said:


> Good question. I think there are multiple facets to the answer.
> 
> Many cable MSOs might feel that TiVo is costing them money quarter over quarter because of their previous litigation history and the fact that TiVo is the main reason that they are forced to use separable security in the form of CableCARD. At least the position of the cable industry's trade association, the NCTA, is that TiVo is forcing a technology that costs their members more than a billion dollars.


Sam, why didn't the cable/sat MSOs just licences the right to use the TiVo interface and let TiVo provide updates/improvements to the UI and avoid the CableCARD/TA crap. Just add a TiVo "service charge" to the bill.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

gweempose said:


> What's surprising to me is that, despite being the largest MSO, Comcast has turned out to be one of the most CableCARD friendly companies out there:
> 
> Self installs, dedicated CableCARD hotline, proper CCI byte settings, and a full rollout of VoD across all its markets.
> 
> I've certainly been guilty of ripping on Comcast in the past, but I have to admit that it's a great time to be a Comcast/TiVo customer.


My experience was the opposite. I had two Verizon FIOS cards that took no effort at all. I just plugged it in.

Now I live in Comcast HELL and I spent about 14 hours on the phone installing two different cards at two different times. In the end, both required a truck roll. Neither tech had ever installed a CC before and had to call support to walk them through it.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

CrispyCritter said:


> But that's not the law. The content producers get some control of what you do with their content. The DMCA, for instance, guarantees that. If you want to argue that the law should be changed, that's fine. But arguing that other folks should break the law because you don't like it seems unhelpful.


Yeah but some of the content providers have gone way overboard "protecting" content. I haven't seen anyone complain about this in a while but some prohibit copying on EVERY channel (except broadcast). Nobody is asking them to do this. They are just doing it because it makes them feel good.

South Park was right on with the whole nipple rubbing thing. It's exactly what these companies do.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

The CableCARD mandate came along way before TiVo even existed. It was included in a law passed in 1996. The cable companies drug their feet and resisted it until 2006. I think they think that at this point the whole "experiment" has failed and the only reason they're forced to keep supporting CableCARDs is because of TiVo.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

Why the MSOs, especially the large ones, don't like TiVo is simply a matter of cost. It's obvious that TiVo's services for MSOs are more expensive. Plus, you outsource your customer experience--a key way that the companies plan to differentiate, plus TiVo owns a lot of the data, not the MSO.


----------



## Neil 420 (Apr 20, 2004)

It seems to me that if I invest $1,000+ in Tivo hardware and subscriptions that I would be even more committed to staying with my cable co rather than switching to DirecTV or Dish. If everybody leases equipment, then it's easier to keep switching out every year when the introductory price expires.

BTW, I wish Fios were an option here, then I would have a real alternative to cable.


----------



## Neil 420 (Apr 20, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> The CableCARD mandate came along way before TiVo even existed. It was included in a law passed in 1996. The cable companies drug their feet and resisted it until 2006. I think they think that at this point the whole "experiment" has failed and the only reason they're forced to keep supporting CableCARDs is because of TiVo.


I remember the debate at the time was all about being able to buy a tv with a slot and not need to add an ugly box on top of it. It had nothing to do with Tivo, but I'm not sure that it was "way before Tivo even existed."


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

aadam101 said:


> My experience was the opposite. I had two Verizon FIOS cards that took no effort at all. I just plugged it in.
> 
> Now I live in Comcast HELL and I spent about 14 hours on the phone installing two different cards at two different times. In the end, both required a truck roll. Neither tech had ever installed a CC before and had to call support to walk them through it.


This is what it used to be like for me with my S3's back in the early days of CableCARDs. It was a total nightmare getting the cards paired, and nobody knew what they were doing. In fact, there was only one guy at the head end who had any clue, and I had his name memorized. When the guys came for the truck roll, I would just tell them to call Phil. 

This hasn't been the case for me at all the last couple years, though. All of my Minis and Roamios were paired easily with a single five minute phone call to the CableCARD hotline. I wonder why your experience is so different than mine. Perhaps the infrastructure in your area is different. I believe the CableCARD hotline is national, so we should be talking to the same department when we call.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

Neil 420 said:


> sbiller, why are the cable MSOs so hostile to Tivo? How is that in their business interest? Do they make so much from leasing us equipment?


It's not just the money that they make leasing equipment. They want to keep their position as the gatekeeper for all of your video services. They want to control your experience so they can feed you their ads, their premium content, etc, etc.

On the topic of DLNA I think people are getting their hopes up a little too much that it might be a viable alternative to the Allvid proposal. I don't see anyone in the cable industry thinking of this as a "gateway". This is a recordable output from their cable box. So first you have to have their cable box. Then, unless the FCC requires strict compliance with specific DLNA specifications and actually enforces it, this interface will be half working on some boxes and half broken on the rest. TiVo may as well contemplate going back to IR blasters.

On the industry filings, they love to natter on about their Roku partnerships, iPad apps, and their proprietary downloadable security innovations when they know full well that none of those things are even close to addressing the intent of the Communications Act. The intent is really clear: any CE company should be able to build a TV or box that can be hooked up to any cable or satellite system and receive every channel without that CE company having to negotiate an agreement with each provider.

It's amazing that this FCC, which seemed prepared to aggressively push first for CableCard reform and then for a legitimate CableCard successor technology, has shifted so quickly to being under the Cable industry's thumb. It seems likely that after that initial shot across the bow from the FCC a full force effort with lobbiests and campaign contributions was applied to get the agency into a more friendly mood.


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

As chief U.S. communications regulator in 2003, Michael Powell called TiVo Inc. (TIVO)s pioneering video recorder Gods machine.

Now Powell, leading a lobbying campaign for cable providers led by Comcast Corp. (CMCSA), is pushing for legislation that TiVo says could threaten its reign as the cult favorite for fast forwarding past commercials.

TiVo, outspent more than 60-to-1 by the cable industry on lobbying for all issues, says the change would make it impossible for its users to view some programs. Anxiety levels rose as cable won a preliminary vote in the House last month....

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-10/tivo-tries-to-keep-remote-interest-over-cable-lobbying.html


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Interesting  Thanks and .... arrrghh!

The cable industry may succeed in stomping Tivo in the short term but in the long run they're just hastening the end of cable TV as we know it. Unfortunately the same operators also have local monopolies on HSI in most localities.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

nrc said:


> On the topic of DLNA I think people are getting their hopes up a little too much that it might be a viable alternative to the Allvid proposal. I don't see anyone in the cable industry thinking of this as a "gateway". This is a recordable output from their cable box. So first you have to have their cable box. Then, unless the FCC requires strict compliance with specific DLNA specifications and actually enforces it, this interface will be half working on some boxes and half broken on the rest. TiVo may as well contemplate going back to IR blasters.


Based on what I've read about DLNA CVP-2 it isn't an alternative to AllVid, it IS AllVid. At least technologically it has all the big features that were part of the original AllVid purposal.

The only difference is the mandate. Right now the whole IP mandate is very vague and allows MSOs to use any "open standard". Also DSS providers continue to be exempt from the mandate which kills some of the interoperability of the AllVid purposal. The only reason I have my hopes up is because as of right now DLNA is the only "open standard" currently approved by the FCC so there is still a chance the MSOs will migrate to it out of convenience. Although you're probably right that it will be half baked on a lot of devices which will still make it difficult for TiVo to function properly. But really that's true even of CableCARDs after nearly a decade in the field, so I wouldn't expect any better even if AllVid was a forced mandate.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

Dan203 said:


> Based on what I've read about DLNA CVP-2 it isn't an alternative to AllVid, it IS AllVid. At least technologically it has all the big features that were part of the original AllVid purposal.
> 
> The only difference is the mandate. Right now the whole IP mandate is very vague and allows MSOs to use any "open standard".


This is why I think that considering this interface as a means of creating a "gateway" is mostly wishful thinking. Without a very specific mandate for exactly what standards are required and some credible threat of enforcement, this interface will be broken for anything but the most trivial uses. You may as well contemplate going back to IR blasters.

I think Tivo's interest in this is to drive home the point that no progress is being made. Progress has stalled and the gains of the last few years are starting to erode.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

nrc said:


> You may as well contemplate going back to IR blasters.
> 
> I think Tivo's interest in this is to drive home the point that no progress is being made. Progress has stalled and the gains of the last few years are starting to erode.


I though that under all cases the IR blaster was good for only SD TV at best, no way for anybody to take in a HDMI input and record that signal with any DVR and output that DVR program with a HDMI output.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

lessd said:


> I though that under all cases the IR blaster was good for only SD TV at best, no way for anybody to take in a HDMI input and record that signal with any DVR and output that DVR program with a HDMI output.


That was intended to be tongue-in-cheek since I think using this broadly defined interface would have set-up and reliability problems similar to the old IR blasters.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

nrc said:


> This is why I think that considering this interface as a means of creating a "gateway" is mostly wishful thinking. Without a very specific mandate for exactly what standards are required and some credible threat of enforcement, this interface will be broken for anything but the most trivial uses. You may as well contemplate going back to IR blasters.
> 
> I think Tivo's interest in this is to drive home the point that no progress is being made. Progress has stalled and the gains of the last few years are starting to erode.


I get your point, but for TiVo to use this only the most basic part, the tuner part, would need to function. All the other stuff is great, and maybe we'll see it someday, but if the tuner part works then TiVo will have the ability to record which is all we really need. And that's the part that is being mandated by the FCC. So there is still hope that something will arise from this. And if it does maybe it'll evolve until they are actually using the full standard and we can get all the benefits of the full spec.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

*You cannot sell a consumer a retail device that doesn't get all the cable channels, no matter how good the device is, Matthew Zinn, general counsel of San Jose, California-based TiVo, said in an interview. We would have to adjust. We might go into other businesses.*

So, what *"other businesses"*could TiVo go into?


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Johncv said:


> *You cannot sell a consumer a retail device that doesn't get all the cable channels, no matter how good the device is, Matthew Zinn, general counsel of San Jose, California-based TiVo, said in an interview. We would have to adjust. We might go into other businesses.*
> 
> So, what *"other businesses"*could TiVo go into?


The MSO support business.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

tarheelblue32 said:


> The MSO support business.


My thoughts as well. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

Actually, it kind of seems like it's already going that direction anyway...

The Roamio could be the last retail DVR TiVo ever releases, if this cablecard mess, and all the waivers to not comply, doesn't change for the better.


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

Yesterday, I filed a letter on the FCC's Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for Delivery of Video Programming. I urged the Commission to reinstate the CableCARD rules and move forward with a successor to CableCARD.

My letter can be read here --> http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521098093

Reading through many of the posts, the comments of the AllVid Tech Company Alliance, CCIA, Consumer Action, National Consumers League and Public Knowledge are excellent and should be reviewed by anyone interested in continued access to cable video programming via 3rd party devices.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521094796

TiVo's comments can be viewed here --> http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521094783


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Very nice work. If you had asked for co-signers, I would have put my name on that letter.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Very nice work. If you had asked for co-signers, I would have put my name on that letter.


+1 on that.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

sbiller said:


> Yesterday, I filed a letter on the FCC's Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for Delivery of Video Programming. I urged the Commission to reinstate the CableCARD rules and move forward with a successor to CableCARD.
> 
> My letter can be read here --> http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521098093
> 
> ...


That's very well written. You have an interesting point about SDV. It's interesting to note that if Comcast chose to roll out SDV, only MCE machines would need TAs, as TiVos could be handled through software/IP.

However, I'm not convinced that IP is going anywhere outside of systems like U-Verse or FTTH systems. FIOS may start putting some channels on IP, but my bet is that a decade or two down the road, Comcast is still running linear QAMs, just with MPEG-4 and HEVC encoding.


----------



## truman861 (Jul 14, 2012)

sbiller said:


> Yesterday, I filed a letter on the FCC's Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for Delivery of Video Programming. I urged the Commission to reinstate the CableCARD rules and move forward with a successor to CableCARD.
> 
> My letter can be read here --> http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521098093
> 
> ...


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

truman861 said:


> Great paper, very well put. count me in for support Sam and hey, if you hear of anything and need beta testers for the new system - hint hint - lol.
> 
> Truman861


Thanks... I'm guessing that we are a long way from any sort of beta test on a replacement for CableCARD. If the industry wanted to support a new nationally portable standard, we could have had a software-based system years ago.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

Nice letter, Sam.

The cable industry folks keep pointing to their apps as proof of competition, and I keep wanting to shake someone silly for that misrepresentation and point out that their blessed, controlled expansion (and retraction) of their walled garden is not a substitute for real competition.

I'm glad you referred to it in your letter.

Edit: I recall Verizon also yanked their Fios app from certain LG products (blu-ray players).


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Agreed, great letter Sam. I think your example of how the Xbox disappeared as a supported U-Verse 'app' is a perfect example of what can and will happen if the MSOs get to go their own way with IP-based apps.

I'm concerned at this point that as with AllVid, the FCC foot-dragging on compelling them to come up with a standards-based IP access method will lead to nothing more than MSO-specific fragmentation of the market, which is exactly what they want. Third-party DVRs will eventually go away for lack of common access and everything will go back into the control of whatever MSO you subscribe to, which means cloud-based content subject to come and go at their whims. And oh by the way, no more commskip etc.

One other thing that you may not know or might want to mention in a future FCC followup - usage of the Xfinity Xbox app is not subject to Comcast's HSI data caps, which IMO is a direct violation of the Comcast/NBCU merger agreement (which prohibits them from favoring their own content over the net). Comcast claims that the Xbox is just another STB in this context and that since the data doesn't leave their servers it's not 'Internet' data, but the app doesn't have all the linear programming that an STB would get. It's essentially VOD that Comcast is pushing via their own content provider agreements and it has a direct impact on Netflix et al which are subject to the caps.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Where do these apps from the channels stand in all this? I mentioned it earlier but no one really addressed it. It seems to me, that apps like HBO Go or ESPN3 are a step towards turning the cable co into a dump pipe. And that makes some of the concerns here seem like a moot point. Hell even some specific shows have their own app. I can go watch 48 hrs and much if not all its archive for a fairly cheap sum of $5/yr. 


My feeling is the cable cos can't keep the inevitable from happening. They are already allowing (if that's the right word even) content available via your subscription to be viewable in apps/UIs that they have nothing to do with. Sure much of this is seen as a value add for now. But ....what happens when your value add has a better UI and features than your main product and starts being used more and more. Something has to give.

Content creators have power here and if more and more of their customers like the apps better.....then...

Plus we have all the content available on devices like ATVs without a cable subscription that you purchase per show or season.

IN the long run I don't see how cable cos can keep the floodgates closed.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Then they just make the caps and fees for overages make up for the lost cable TV subs (this is already happening on Comcast). It's pretty simple to do when your government is looking the other way about the sad state of wired HSI access in this country.

There's no way that Comcast et al are going to accept being dumb pipes, either by consumer choice or the government making them common carriers. They will get their money no matter what and fight like hell to avoid losing control because they know HSI is where it will all end up.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

OH and the thing is I don't think Tivo wants an app based or an IP based video services world either...do they?

IF things move to IP based video in the long run that leaves Tivo stuck making a box to compete against a Roku or ATV or Amazon Firebox or whatever its called or even competing against TVs in the long run.

CAblecard is good for Tivo in some f'd up way.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

You're kind of confusing two different types of IP. OTT apps, Like Netflix, are IP but they also employ a pure VOD model. The MSOs can still be IP based while retaining their "live TV" model. Services like UVerse are already IP based and yet still use the "live TV" model. As long as there are services that use the "live TV" model there will be a place for TiVo and DVRs. If we switch to a pure VOD system then TiVo is toast.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> You're kind of confusing two different types of IP. OTT apps, Like Netflix, are IP but they also employ a pure VOD model. The MSOs can still be IP based while retaining their "live TV" model. Services like UVerse are already IP based and yet still use the "live TV" model. As long as there are services that use the "live TV" model there will be a place for TiVo and DVRs. If we switch to a pure VOD system then TiVo is toast.


Yeah I'm talking about delivering video over the internets like Netflix or HBOGo or ESPN3.

Not U-Verse.

U-Verse isn't where things are headed from what I can see at least from a consumer point of view because it would mean less to consumers than the switch from analog to digital. Now maybe cable cos switch to IP cable model for technical/financial reasons. Maybe as more content will be distributed via IP to mobile and other devices a move to IP based traditional cable delivery would bring synergies between the two.

But I think things are going to the "VoD" model. TV guides as they are now will be passe. Why wouldn't this be where things are headed? Even if the cable co ultimately was in control of it. The cable co could maintain control here if they got out in front of it, but they seem to be behind it. And they just don't have the talent/culture to pull it off.

Cable companies have had VoD testbeds in their labs for 15 years if not more. Yet somehow a Netflix can rise up from nothing and put them to shame.


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

trip1eX said:


> Yeah I'm talking about delivering video over the internets like Netflix or HBOGo or ESPN3.
> 
> Not U-Verse.
> 
> U-Verse isn't where things are headed from what I can see.


Most of the cable operators are moving to IP and are considering network DVRs. For example, here is a tweet from RCN's Jason Nealis today,



> Putting together a plan to Transition Video distribution to all IP with Network DVR is a #struggle, given it changes every week!


The transition to IP a la AT&T U-Verse is happening although it will require a hybrid (i.e., QAM/IP) network to be in place for a very long time since a complete transition to IP is extremely capital intensive on the CPE (consumer premises equipment) side. While I think VOD will continue to grow, I don't see it completely eliminating linear/scheduled television over QAM or IP.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

sbiller said:


> Most of the cable operators are moving to IP and are considering network DVRs. For example, here is a tweet from RCN's Jason Nealis today,


Yeah I clarified what I meant when I said it isn't where things are headed.

I'm talking from a consumer point of view. From a user experience point of view.

An IP-based traditional cable model is really just a technicality. LIke the switch from analog to digital. Same difference to consumers. And I don't think it changes that we're headed to a "VoD" model as Dan called it.

IF anything ......doesn't a move to traditional video services IP-based bring synergy for the cable co with delivering content to mobile and other devices?

I don't see why scheduled tv wouldn't be completely eliminated as we know it. Live events are one thing. But tv guides as they are now? Passe. No point in them.

And what are live events? Sports. Awards shows. Saturday Night Live. News events like live reporting, presidential speeches etc. ....What am I missing? That's your linear tv guide of tomorrow. It will be called the Live Events guide. With those categories. 

Cable company is just in the way of this happening. Like the BCS was in the way of college football playoffs.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

trip1eX said:


> But I think things are going to the "VoD model." TV guides as they are now will be passe. Why wouldn't this be where things are headed?


Because this is not where the content owners want it to go. Content owners don't like the "all you can eat" VOD model like Netflix. They're OK selling you episodes for $3/ea on iTunes but there is a reason shows on Netflix/Amazon are typically a season, or more, behind. They still make a LOT of money from advertising. If we do end up with an all VOD model then there are going to be forced commercials, in which case people will still seek out DVRs to try and skip them.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> Because this is not where the content owners want it to go. Content owners don't like the "all you can eat" VOD model like Netflix. They're OK selling you episodes for $3/ea on iTunes but there is a reason shows on Netflix/Amazon are typically a season, or more, behind. They still make a LOT of money from advertising. If we do end up with an all VOD model then there are going to be forced commercials, in which case people will still seek out DVRs to try and skip them.


I think content owners like this direction actually. They don't like DVRs afaik. And I don't see why they wouldn't mind if the cable company was a dumb pipe. Just think of all the disagreements between content creators and cable/satellite cos.

Content creators are already creating their own apps that offer up their content too.

They just don't want to give it away for nothing that's why you don't see new tv shows on Netflix and why much of this so far is restricted to mobile where it is viewed as a value add just like Netflix was not too long ago when it was on the pc only. Content owners want to get paid. VoD doesn't preclude getting paid.

Yes a new breed of DVR might emerge from all of this. Although one major reason for the DVR - time shifting - would no longer be a reason to get one. VoD already provides that. Also I am thinking the new breed of DVR might not exist except on the black market.


----------



## truman861 (Jul 14, 2012)

Dan203 said:


> Because this is not where the content owners want it to go. Content owners don't like the "all you can eat" VOD model like Netflix. They're OK selling you episodes for $3/ea on iTunes but there is a reason shows on Netflix/Amazon are typically a season, or more, behind. They still make a LOT of money from advertising. If we do end up with an all VOD model then there are going to be forced commercials, in which case people will still seek out DVRs to try and skip them.


So basically kind of like TWC and FIOS do with some of their on demand shows from fox or cbs where they remove fast forwarding capabilities so you have no choice but to watch the commercials ?


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

trip1eX said:


> Yes a new breed of DVR might emerge from all of this. Although one major reason for the DVR - time shifting - would no longer be a reason to get one. VoD already provides that. Also I am thinking the new breed of DVR might not exist except on the black market.


The biggest benefit for me of a DVR is the ability to skip commercials. Unless VoD is commercial free, I'm not interested.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

truman861 said:


> So basically kind of like TWC and FIOS do with some of their on demand shows from fox or cbs where they remove fast forwarding capabilities so you have no choice but to watch the commercials ?


Yes. That's what I'm worried will happen in an all VOD world. You can either watch with commercials for free or pay $2-3/episode for commercial free. In the eyes of the content creators DVR users are moochers. They put no weight in the fact that we typically pay $100+ a month for cable just to get access to their content.

Maybe someday we'll have a pure internet based model where you subscribe to individual channels for an all you can eat model, ala HBO, but the cable companies are going to fight tooth and nail to prevent that. They like being the middle man between us and content.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

tarheelblue32 said:


> The biggest benefit for me of a DVR is the ability to skip commercials. Unless VoD is commercial free, I'm not interested.


Hey I want things to remain the same too because I like paying ad-subsidized prices for my ad-free content.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> Because this is not where the content owners want it to go. Content owners don't like the "all you can eat" VOD model like Netflix. They're OK selling you episodes for $3/ea on iTunes but there is a reason shows on Netflix/Amazon are typically a season, or more, behind. They still make a LOT of money from advertising. If we do end up with an all VOD model then there are going to be forced commercials, in which case people will still seek out DVRs to try and skip them.


And because 80%+ of TV viewing is still live (!!!). Even though DVR adoption is above half (only just above half?!?!?), apparently people either are still stuck in 1998 before TiVo and the watch whatever you want whenever you want model, or they have, in many cases, totally leapfrogged the local DVR model, going to On Demand streaming, either through their MSO, or through Netflix/OTT services. It's weird because I embraced the DVR model, now I feel like I'm old school for not streaming stuff, and using the DVR as much as possible, since I have total control over it once it's on my TiVo's hard drive...


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

sbiller said:


> Yesterday, I filed a letter on the FCC's Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for Delivery of Video Programming. I urged the Commission to reinstate the CableCARD rules and move forward with a successor to CableCARD.


Thank you for your effort, well done. I'm flattered to be quoted.



tarheelblue32 said:


> Very nice work. If you had asked for co-signers, I would have put my name on that letter.


Perhaps we could put together a simple filing expressing our support and agreement with sbiller, Tivo, et al, and urging the Commission take action on a legitimate successor to CableCard and then gather "signatures" of those who agree.


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

nrc said:


> Thank you for your effort, well done. I'm flattered to be quoted.
> 
> Perhaps we could put together a simple filing expressing our support and agreement with sbiller, Tivo, et al, and urging the Commission take action on a legitimate successor to CableCard and then gather "signatures" of those who agree.


Thank you for contributing to the thread and raising your concern!

Regarding a filing or filings, I think it is a great idea. Here is a link to a Google Drive version of my filing which could be used as a template for format, etc.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oPFS6PR1VUZ9FIeOAZ14AzFYkrUic0adSj5InE3SO_4/edit?usp=sharing

Thanks to everyone,
S


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

http://www.v-net.tv/what-the-cvp-2-guidelines-provide-for-whole-home-media-sharing

The video clearly points to a conclusion of some in this thread that the HTML5 Remote User Interface technology may be leveraged by operators to essentially "lock-down" 3rd party devices.


----------



## truman861 (Jul 14, 2012)

sbiller said:


> Thank you for contributing to the thread and raising your concern!
> 
> Regarding a filing or filings, I think it is a great idea. Here is a link to a Google Drive version of my filing which could be used as a template for format, etc.
> 
> ...


Hey Sam, Sorry - cant get the page to load with the docs, :-( can we double check the link is up please. many thanks


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

truman861 said:


> Hey Sam, Sorry - cant get the page to load with the docs, :-( can we double check the link is up please. many thanks


Link seems to work for me using an incognito browser... anyone else having issues accessing?


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

Link works for me. Thanks for sharing. That may be helpful.


----------



## jwbelcher (Nov 13, 2007)

JosephB said:


> More than anything else, we're protected by the fact that there are tens of millions of CableCard set tops from the MSOs themselves in use, and there's no way that they would be shut off overnight.





sbiller said:


> The transition to IP a la AT&T U-Verse is happening although it will require a hybrid (i.e., QAM/IP) network to be in place for a very long time since a complete transition to IP is extremely capital intensive on the CPE (consumer premises equipment) side. While I think VOD will continue to grow, I don't see it completely eliminating linear/scheduled television over QAM or IP.


I'm unconvinced of either of these arguments will slow or protect us from IP delivery of content. Sam, as we recently experienced on BHN, many of the deployed cable boxes had their DSG (DOCSIS Set-top Gateway) modems enabled with the last ODN deployment. The enablement of DSG has allowed BHN to deploy advanced guide content (such as art work and search capabilities) via IP delivery today.

I see this as a significant advancement toward obtaining content without the use of the STB internal QAM tuner. While ODN may or may not have the ability to stream video content via IP at this time, it clearly allows for the migration without the whole-sale replacement of leased customer equipment. Unlike U-Verse, the most important aspect of DSG is the coax stays hooked up to the STB; which means no rewiring or Ethernet is required. If anything the cost of back-office enhancements and newer STB middleware being the main capital investment by the cable operator.

I do believe the migration would occur slowly, much like the move to MPEG4 (e.g. BHN Starz HD), as new channels are added they'll be via IP delivery. In the cases where older equipment miss the necessary equipment to access them, the MSO will replace the box on an as needed basis. If you have customer provided equipment, e.g. TiVo, you may have access to existing Cablecard channels, but miss out on newer IP based additions.

We may hope that existing MSO deployments of Cablecard enabled boxes will keep the status quo / de facto support; unfortunately, that is not accurate portrayal by Mr. Powell on lifting the integration ban. We could easily find our purchased-at-retail Roamios losing access to content and eventually becoming obsolete without the FCC enforcing current rules and mandating a national Cablecard successor.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

sbiller said:


> http://www.v-net.tv/what-the-cvp-2-guidelines-provide-for-whole-home-media-sharing
> 
> The video clearly points to a conclusion of some in this thread that the HTML5 Remote User Interface technology may be leveraged by operators to essentially "lock-down" 3rd party devices.


I didn't hear that. He said it allows them to use RUI to maintain branding, but he didn't say the receiver is required to use it.

I think in most cases the receiving device will use RUI because why develop your own UI when the host is providing one for free? But in special cases like TiVo there seems to be other protocols they can use to manually tune the gateway device without using the RUI.

Now they may be required to display the full RUI to allow access to things like VOD, but for basic tuning and streaming they should be able to bypass the RUI using the other protcols. Although I don't have access to the full spec, so it's possible there is a way for the gateway device to disable basic tuning/streaming unless initiated by the RUI. In which case this would be useless to TiVo.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

jwbelcher said:


> I'm unconvinced of either of these arguments will slow or protect us from IP delivery of content. Sam, as we recently experienced on BHN, many of the deployed cable boxes had their DSG (DOCSIS Set-top Gateway) modems enabled with the last ODN deployment. The enablement of DSG has allowed BHN to deploy advanced guide content (such as art work and search capabilities) via IP delivery today.
> 
> I see this as a significant advancement toward obtaining content without the use of the STB internal QAM tuner. While ODN may or may not have the ability to stream video content via IP at this time, it clearly allows for the migration without the whole-sale replacement of leased customer equipment. Unlike U-Verse, the most important aspect of DSG is the coax stays hooked up to the STB; which means no rewiring or Ethernet is required. If anything the cost of back-office enhancements and newer STB middleware being the main capital investment by the cable operator.
> 
> ...


I just don't see this whole IP thing being the case within the next couple of decades. QAM is so entrenched, that the only thing I forsee happening in the near future is switching to MPEG-4. Maybe some new adds or really specialized stuff will be IP-only, but at that point, they may as well just use SDV, and MPEG-4 on a 860mhz or 1ghz system has a ton of capacity in the first place.

The CPE costs to going IP would be astronomical for anyone other than Verizon, who already has IP boxes out there. MPEG-4 wouldn't be too bad, as there aren't that many MPEG-2 only HD boxes left.

IP can be used to deliver a lot of cool guide content, but the bandwidth requirements for that are several orders of magnitude smaller than for actually delivering video content over IP.


----------



## jwbelcher (Nov 13, 2007)

Bigg said:


> I just don't see this whole IP thing being the case within the next couple of decades. QAM is so entrenched, that the only thing I forsee happening in the near future is switching to MPEG-4. Maybe some new adds or really specialized stuff will be IP-only, but at that point, they may as well just use SDV, and MPEG-4 on a 860mhz or 1ghz system has a ton of capacity in the first place.
> 
> The CPE costs to going IP would be astronomical for anyone other than Verizon, who already has IP boxes out there. MPEG-4 wouldn't be too bad, as there aren't that many MPEG-2 only HD boxes left.
> 
> IP can be used to deliver a lot of cool guide content, but the bandwidth requirements for that are several orders of magnitude smaller than for actually delivering video content over IP.


I don't argue its a ways off. I just don't see as much equipment needing replaced since even early set-top boxes like the SA 8300HDC have DSG (internal modem) on board. That's not to say there wouldn't be impact; for example, BHN in Orlando is going digital-only. They began issuing a number of digital adapters that are cheap UDCP boxes that only support digital-only QAM tuning. Those would become obsolete with an IP transition for the basic digital tier.

As for bandwidth, it would only make sense for IP delivery to be multicast; otherwise they're worse off than today. However, even with today's technology, MPEG4 would provide much greater bang for the buck.


----------



## truman861 (Jul 14, 2012)

Bigg said:


> I just don't see this whole IP thing being the case within the next couple of decades. QAM is so entrenched, that the only thing I forsee happening in the near future is switching to MPEG-4. Maybe some new adds or really specialized stuff will be IP-only, but at that point, they may as well just use SDV, and MPEG-4 on a 860mhz or 1ghz system has a ton of capacity in the first place.
> 
> The CPE costs to going IP would be astronomical for anyone other than Verizon, who already has IP boxes out there. MPEG-4 wouldn't be too bad, as there aren't that many MPEG-2 only HD boxes left.
> 
> IP can be used to deliver a lot of cool guide content, but the bandwidth requirements for that are several orders of magnitude smaller than for actually delivering video content over IP.


So help me out here, Im trying to follow along but i'm no techie (not insulting anyone).
So if Verizon is an ip based service through fiber optics as opposed to co-axial, is it because the capabilities of the cable card itself that they cant offer customers VOD ?
I think i understand, just clarifying. Also if this is the case, how is comcast doing it upcoming in June and already been doing it with their xfinity - ?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> I just don't see this whole IP thing being the case within the next couple of decades. QAM is so entrenched, that the only thing I forsee happening in the near future is switching to MPEG-4. Maybe some new adds or really specialized stuff will be IP-only, but at that point, they may as well just use SDV, and MPEG-4 on a 860mhz or 1ghz system has a ton of capacity in the first place.
> 
> The CPE costs to going IP would be astronomical for anyone other than Verizon, who already has IP boxes out there. MPEG-4 wouldn't be too bad, as there aren't that many MPEG-2 only HD boxes left.
> 
> IP can be used to deliver a lot of cool guide content, but the bandwidth requirements for that are several orders of magnitude smaller than for actually delivering video content over IP.


I don't think they're going to switch to a pure IP system. But I do think that they will eventually transition to a pure SDV solution which sorta encompasses the best of both worlds. SDV offers the same dynamic bandwidth allocation of IP while also allowing multiple users on a node to share a stream that they are both watching simultaneously.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

truman861 said:


> So help me out here, Im trying to follow along but i'm no techie (not insulting anyone).
> So if Verizon is an ip based service through fiber optics as opposed to co-axial, is it because the capabilities of the cable card itself that they cant offer customers VOD ?
> I think i understand, just clarifying. Also if this is the case, how is comcast doing it upcoming in June and already been doing it with their xfinity - ?


The video side of FiOS is not IP based. It's QAM-encoded video just like Comcast or Time Warner Cable or Charter. All of those cable companies distribute via fiber optics as well. The only difference is the conversion to coax happens at your house on Verizon, and with any other cable company the conversion from fiber optics to coax happens further away from your house--up to a few miles away.

Now, there are some other implementation differences such as the fact that the data side does not use QAM, whereas on cable internet service it does but that doesn't really matter. Verizon could offer VoD on TiVo if they wanted to make a deal happen. No technical reason it couldn't work today.



Dan203 said:


> I don't think they're going to switch to a pure IP system. But I do think that they will eventually transition to a pure SDV solution which sorta encompasses the best of both worlds. SDV offers the same dynamic bandwidth allocation of IP while also allowing multiple users on a node to share a stream that they are both watching simultaneously.


I think they'll go all IP eventually, but it will be a private IP network and use multicast like U-Verse does. I don't see linear video channels going away completely, pure VoD is simply too inefficient. But, eventually MUXes of MPEG packets on QAM carriers will turn into IP frames on QAM carriers. It just makes too much sense. It'll be how they applied VoIP to MSO voice service. Instead of it going over the public internet and using your "internet" connection like Vonage, they'll apply the PacketCable architecture to it and keep it off the public internet and provision video IP bandwidth separately from your internet bandwidth.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

jwbelcher said:


> As for bandwidth, it would only make sense for IP delivery to be multicast; otherwise they're worse off than today. However, even with today's technology, MPEG4 would provide much greater bang for the buck.


Yeah, it would have to be multicast. And unless you move to DOCSIS 3.1, there is no bandwidth advantage to that over just doing SDV.



truman861 said:


> So help me out here, Im trying to follow along but i'm no techie (not insulting anyone).
> So if Verizon is an ip based service through fiber optics as opposed to co-axial, is it because the capabilities of the cable card itself that they cant offer customers VOD ?
> I think i understand, just clarifying. Also if this is the case, how is comcast doing it upcoming in June and already been doing it with their xfinity - ?


FIOS is QAM256, but they have IP capabilities because of their IP-VOD system. They could theoretically put linear IP-only channels out tomorrow if they wanted to.

Comcast does VOD on TiVo through CableCard and has for a while. XFinity IS Comcast. Verizon's VOD system is IP not QAM, so if they supported TiVo, they would have to do it in software, working with TiVo.



Dan203 said:


> I don't think they're going to switch to a pure IP system. But I do think that they will eventually transition to a pure SDV solution which sorta encompasses the best of both worlds. SDV offers the same dynamic bandwidth allocation of IP while also allowing multiple users on a node to share a stream that they are both watching simultaneously.


Maybe. What I could see is all the locals being linear in HD and SD, expanded basic in SD being linear (for the DTAs), and then everything else being SDV. However, SDV really screws a company like Comcast over, who likes to goof around with compression, as you can no longer compress as much, since you never know what channel is going to be paired up with what other channel in a given QAM, so you may not really gain that much, unless you have really small nodes and ton of rarely-watched channels. OTOH, it does allow a ton of those channels.

However, I don't think there is even a need for SDV. Let's say Comcast went all MPEG-4 on their HD. They are currently running 860mhz systems with about 100mhz empty. Their current offering of 110 HD's takes up about 230-240mhz, or about 38 QAM's. Say they go to MPEG-4 and move from 2 or 3 HD's per QAM to 5. Now 40 QAM's can get them over the 200 HD mark. So now there's still close to 100mhz left. They could move some lesser watched SD stuff to MPEG-4 or just compress the living crap of any SD channel that has an HD version, since the users who are still on SD don't care anyways. So say you end up with 90mhz left over. That's an addition 15 DOCSIS 3 QAMs, which is only one QAM short of going to 24 downstream DOCSIS 3 channels. Now you're looking at offering 300+mbps internet and 200 HD's in better quality than today with exactly zero SDV channels.



JosephB said:


> The video side of FiOS is not IP based. It's QAM-encoded video just like Comcast or Time Warner Cable or Charter. All of those cable companies distribute via fiber optics as well. The only difference is the conversion to coax happens at your house on Verizon, and with any other cable company the conversion from fiber optics to coax happens further away from your house--up to a few miles away.
> 
> Now, there are some other implementation differences such as the fact that the data side does not use QAM, whereas on cable internet service it does but that doesn't really matter. Verizon could offer VoD on TiVo if they wanted to make a deal happen. No technical reason it couldn't work today.
> 
> I think they'll go all IP eventually, but it will be a private IP network and use multicast like U-Verse does. I don't see linear video channels going away completely, pure VoD is simply too inefficient. But, eventually MUXes of MPEG packets on QAM carriers will turn into IP frames on QAM carriers. It just makes too much sense. It'll be how they applied VoIP to MSO voice service. Instead of it going over the public internet and using your "internet" connection like Vonage, they'll apply the PacketCable architecture to it and keep it off the public internet and provision video IP bandwidth separately from your internet bandwidth.


They would have to write some interesting software to get VOD onto TiVo, but yes, it should work in theory. I doubt QAM is going anywhere for them. Why would they just give up their 870mhz QAM system? They have an advantage with it already over the cable providers, as they have no VOD, no internet, no phone, and no home security/automation sharing bandwidth with their linear TV channels, and they are ahead of the curve on the MPEG-4 transition.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

Bigg said:


> Maybe. What I could see is all the locals being linear in HD and SD, expanded basic in SD being linear (for the DTAs), and then everything else being SDV. However, SDV really screws a company like Comcast over, who likes to goof around with compression, as you can no longer compress as much, since you never know what channel is going to be paired up with what other channel in a given QAM, so you may not really gain that much, unless you have really small nodes and ton of rarely-watched channels. OTOH, it does allow a ton of those channels.
> 
> However, I don't think there is even a need for SDV. Let's say Comcast went all MPEG-4 on their HD. They are currently running 860mhz systems with about 100mhz empty. Their current offering of 110 HD's takes up about 230-240mhz, or about 38 QAM's. Say they go to MPEG-4 and move from 2 or 3 HD's per QAM to 5. Now 40 QAM's can get them over the 200 HD mark. So now there's still close to 100mhz left. They could move some lesser watched SD stuff to MPEG-4 or just compress the living crap of any SD channel that has an HD version, since the users who are still on SD don't care anyways. So say you end up with 90mhz left over. That's an addition 15 DOCSIS 3 QAMs, which is only one QAM short of going to 24 downstream DOCSIS 3 channels. Now you're looking at offering 300+mbps internet and 200 HD's in better quality than today with exactly zero SDV channels.


But SDV is already out there and works with all the STBs out there. I don't have a problem with SDV if it's implemented competently. So far, so good on my Charter system. If they can use SDV, make it work, and it allows us to have additional internet bandwidth? I'm OK with that tradeoff.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Yeah SDV can potentially free up way more bandwidth then H.264. Plus almost all legacy settops can use SDV with nothing more then a firmware update, since it's basically the same technology as VOD. With H.264 a big chunk of settops would need to be replaced which is expensive.


----------



## truman861 (Jul 14, 2012)

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=10080145#post10080145

hey guys, had a very tech savvy installer for my fios yesterday who provided info about verizon going ip based with dlna. The link is above for more info.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

JosephB said:


> But SDV is already out there and works with all the STBs out there. I don't have a problem with SDV if it's implemented competently. So far, so good on my Charter system. If they can use SDV, make it work, and it allows us to have additional internet bandwidth? I'm OK with that tradeoff.


But why bother when the technology is out there to run 200 HDs and 200mbps internet without using SDV? It's also been extremely buggy to date. And you've got idiotic stuff out there like systems that still have ancient analog channels on them and then SDV because they squandered so much bandwidth on analog that they have to use SDV to make up for it. How about doing it right in the first place with no analog and then not needing SDV? There's a zillion different combinations of technology out there, but it looks like the basic order of transition is:

1. System upgrade to 860mhz or higher
2. Eliminate analog
3. MPEG-4
4. SDV
5. IP

4 and 5 shouldn't be needed to this point in the game. Most systems have finished 2 and haven't gotten to 3 yet. Verizon FIOS supposedly just started doing 3, but hasn't gotten very far into it yet. FIOS also started with 1 done, since they built a brand new system in the mid-2000's with 870mhz of bandwidth.



Dan203 said:


> Yeah SDV can potentially free up way more bandwidth then H.264. Plus almost all legacy settops can use SDV with nothing more then a firmware update, since it's basically the same technology as VOD. With H.264 a big chunk of settops would need to be replaced which is expensive.


How many DCTs and DCHs are still out there? Not many. Most are DCXs or newer, which are all MPEG-4 (or the equivalent for those oddball Sci Atlanta systems out there). And besides, if for some crazy reason they didn't just scrap them, they could re-use the DCTs and DCHs as SD DVR boxes for all 5 people who don't have HD yet.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

There are still a LOT of DCTs in this area. We recently went through a digital transition and I had to go to the office to pick up a box. There was a big line and they were asking people whether their TVs were SD or HD. If they said SD they got an old DCT box. I saw at least 8 go out the door in the brief time I was there. And both my Mom and Sister ended up with one for secondary TVs.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

Bigg said:


> 1. System upgrade to 860mhz or higher
> 2. Eliminate analog
> 3. MPEG-4
> 4. SDV
> ...


Yep, I'm on a full 1GHz Cox RF network, still supporting analog, using SDV, with some MPEG-4 channels, and they did experiment with IP backchannels on their own equipment, prior to SDV.

On top of all that, they double (sometimes less than, or more than, double) internet speeds for most tiers, yearly. Just recently, my DOCSIS 3 CM started running on all 8 downstream bonded channels, and all four upstream bonded channels, plus 12+ downstream bonded channels in the works. I hear the top tier internet hits Gigabit speeds, and they don't plan on stopping there.

How many people can say that they have multiple TV channels on frequencies just under 1GHz? It's a real PITA even finding 1GHz rated splitters that will let those channels pass. I even had to exchange a Roamio what worked fine, other than not tuning those 900+ MHz channels.

The net result is a very finicky RF network, which any little thing can wreak havoc on. It's definitely not very TiVo friendly...


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

Bigg said:


> But why bother when the technology is out there to run 200 HDs and 200mbps internet without using SDV? It's also been extremely buggy to date. And you've got idiotic stuff out there like systems that still have ancient analog channels on them and then SDV because they squandered so much bandwidth on analog that they have to use SDV to make up for it. How about doing it right in the first place with no analog and then not needing SDV? There's a zillion different combinations of technology out there, but it looks like the basic order of transition is:
> 
> 1. System upgrade to 860mhz or higher
> 2. Eliminate analog
> ...


Maybe we're talking about two different things. You seem to be talking about a specific company, and I'm referring to the industry as a whole. My local Charter system has been doing SDV for a while (as has TWC and BHN) and is just now going all digital. There's no MPEG-4 on my local Charter system, and I'm not aware of Charter, TWC, or BHN using MPEG-4 at all yet. I have no idea of the bandwidth of my local system, but they haven't been ripping out amps and nodes and replacing coax, and some of the areas of town are very, very old systems so I highly, highly doubt they are anywhere close to 1ghz systems. Plus, they are still distributing old STBs (Cisco in my area, so the DCT/DCX stuff doesn't apply) so MPEG-4 isn't really ready yet.

Charter has said that part of the reason they are going all digital is to get rid of SDV, which is great. I hope that happens, but I haven't had any trouble out of my tuning adapters.

MPEG-4 I'm sure will happen eventually but it will be slow. Not even the satellite companies who control every single piece of the chain are 100% MPEG-4.

And finally, IP video doesn't really have as much to do with bandwidth savings as it does flexibility. By moving to IP video to your TV, they can standardize on the same distribution for both apps on your phone or tablet or xbox as well as their set top boxes. IP-encapsulated video will take the same bandwidth (actually a tiny amount more) than raw MPEG packets over a QAM carrier, if the video is encoded at the same bitrate.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> There are still a LOT of DCTs in this area. We recently went through a digital transition and I had to go to the office to pick up a box. There was a big line and they were asking people whether their TVs were SD or HD. If they said SD they got an old DCT box. I saw at least 8 go out the door in the brief time I was there. And both my Mom and Sister ended up with one for secondary TVs.


SD likely wouldn't be affected by an MPEG-4 transition, as the goal is to migrate HD over to MPEG-4. That being said, that's pretty bad that they're still giving those ancient things out.



nooneuknow said:


> Yep, I'm on a full 1GHz Cox RF network, still supporting analog, using SDV, with some MPEG-4 channels, and they did experiment with IP backchannels on their own equipment, prior to SDV.


That sucks that they're forcing SDV down people's throats while squanding bandwidth on useless analog channels.



> On top of all that, they double (sometimes less than, or more than, double) internet speeds for most tiers, yearly. Just recently, my DOCSIS 3 CM started running on all 8 downstream bonded channels, and all four upstream bonded channels, plus 12+ downstream bonded channels in the works. I hear the top tier internet hits Gigabit speeds, and they don't plan on stopping there.


Gigabit would be fiber.



> How many people can say that they have multiple TV channels on frequencies just under 1GHz? It's a real PITA even finding 1GHz rated splitters that will let those channels pass. I even had to exchange a Roamio what worked fine, other than not tuning those 900+ MHz channels.
> 
> The net result is a very finicky RF network, which any little thing can wreak havoc on. It's definitely not very TiVo friendly...


Wow, that sucks. Sounds like 860mhz may really be the end of the line for QAM plants...



JosephB said:


> Maybe we're talking about two different things. You seem to be talking about a specific company, and I'm referring to the industry as a whole. My local Charter system has been doing SDV for a while (as has TWC and BHN) and is just now going all digital. There's no MPEG-4 on my local Charter system, and I'm not aware of Charter, TWC, or BHN using MPEG-4 at all yet. I have no idea of the bandwidth of my local system, but they haven't been ripping out amps and nodes and replacing coax, and some of the areas of town are very, very old systems so I highly, highly doubt they are anywhere close to 1ghz systems. Plus, they are still distributing old STBs (Cisco in my area, so the DCT/DCX stuff doesn't apply) so MPEG-4 isn't really ready yet.
> 
> Charter has said that part of the reason they are going all digital is to get rid of SDV, which is great. I hope that happens, but I haven't had any trouble out of my tuning adapters.
> 
> ...


I'm talking about the whole industry. Some companies have done things better than others. Comcast, although known for some pretty ridiculous compression, has finally done things right, by just killing analog, and not using SDV. They haven't gotten to MPEG-4, however.

Satellite is all MPEG-4 for HD, and DISH's EA is all MPEG-4 period. They may still be getting feeds in MPEG-2 from the content providers, but they are using MPEG-4 on their entire systems.

I doubt that the same IPTV streams used for STBs could be used for tablets and other wireless devices. Plus, if that was a big deal, they could always just have a gateway or STB that tunes a QAM channel, re-compresses it, and sends it to a wireless device, or do what they do now, and have two totally different systems. I just don't see much upside to IPTV over QAM.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

Bigg said:


> I doubt that the same IPTV streams used for STBs could be used for tablets and other wireless devices. Plus, if that was a big deal, they could always just have a gateway or STB that tunes a QAM channel, re-compresses it, and sends it to a wireless device, or do what they do now, and have two totally different systems. I just don't see much upside to IPTV over QAM.


Why couldn't the same IP stream destined for a STB be used for a tablet or phone? Or, more importantly, why couldn't it be used for a Roku or Xbox or other retail device running the MSO's app? For the transition to IP, you have to keep in mind they'd probably replace all CPE, so new set tops for everyone. That's why it will be a slow transition, but it's also why you should forget all the other existing problems that exist today.

And putting an IP gateway that converts from QAM to IP totally misses the point. The point is to eliminate the QAM infrastructure. The advantage to moving to IP on the delivery-to-TV side is that you can consolidate that with the infrastructure (encoders, modulators, IP distribution, etc) for the delivery-to-mobile/apps world. The whole point is to NOT have two totally different systems.


----------



## jwbelcher (Nov 13, 2007)

JosephB said:


> Why couldn't the same IP stream destined for a STB be used for a tablet or phone? Or, more importantly, why couldn't it be used for a Roku or Xbox or other retail device running the MSO's app? For the transition to IP, you have to keep in mind they'd probably replace all CPE, so new set tops for everyone. That's why it will be a slow transition, but it's also why you should forget all the other existing problems that exist today.
> 
> And putting an IP gateway that converts from QAM to IP totally misses the point. The point is to eliminate the QAM infrastructure. The advantage to moving to IP on the delivery-to-TV side is that you can consolidate that with the infrastructure (encoders, modulators, IP distribution, etc) for the delivery-to-mobile/apps world. The whole point is to NOT have two totally different systems.


It will be consolidated infrastructure in the fact that your DOCSIS modem and STB will both use IP over QAM (your comment about QAM carriers). However, your cable modem will have filters that prevent the TV Multicast to your STB from flooding your wireless networks. While the two will share technology, they will be largely segmented by the type of box able to receive them (STB vs CM). In many ways they will still be two networks such that your Roku or TiVo wont be able to access them w/o a gateway device.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

jwbelcher said:


> It will be consolidated infrastructure in the fact that your DOCSIS modem and STB will both use IP over QAM (your comment about QAM carriers). However, your cable modem will have filters that prevent the TV Multicast to your STB from flooding your wireless networks. While the two will share technology, they will be largely segmented by the type of box able to receive them (STB vs CM). In many ways they will still be two networks such that your Roku or TiVo wont be able to access them w/o a gateway device.


At the point that it is IP, the fact that DOCSIS uses QAM carriers is irrelevant. Yes, you'll need different CPE on the internet side if they move to all IP, but you'd need different CPE anyway for the TV set top. I wouldn't be surprised to see a gateway that joined multicast streams on the WAN side and then unicast that IP stream back out on the LAN side. However, that would still allow them to decommission all of the old QAM-based video stuff for a single IP infrastructure on the backend.


----------



## jwbelcher (Nov 13, 2007)

JosephB said:


> At the point that it is IP, the fact that DOCSIS uses QAM carriers is irrelevant. Yes, you'll need different CPE on the internet side if they move to all IP, but you'd need different CPE anyway for the TV set top. I wouldn't be surprised to see a gateway that joined multicast streams on the WAN side and then unicast that IP stream back out on the LAN side. However, that would still allow them to decommission all of the old QAM-based video stuff for a single IP infrastructure on the backend.


I'd disagree that QAM is irrelevant, but rather it makes it more so. The difference being, these packets once encoded as QAM are no longer routable -- meaning they become frequency. In a large IPTV network, I don't see that you would route (encode) TV traffic with general internet traffic being sent to a single CM. You need dedicated / shared QAM frequencies for broadcast streams so these are available to other premises simultaneously. For this reason, I still see the need to architect how the downward streams are bonded to available frequencies. For broadcast channels I fully expect static multicast meaning the downward streams will be grouped and bonded to a dedicated RF. The CM in the STB will then will tune the necessary frequency for the requested IP stream. In some ways, it will look like a traditional broadcast network. Its hard to see the upside, since the same bandwidth hurdles will still exist, this could be why FiOS is still using MPEG encoding. I don't see going to IP making anything easier on the network side because of the network topology. However, all that should be transparent on the residence side and make for cheaper CPE.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

That FCC filing was well written.

I don't mean to take away from it, but it reminds me when I get into reading through a lot of the FCC documents, I start questioning is the whole thing hopeless. Because I feel there's a huge disconnect between the state of affairs as reported in the commission documents and what I get in the real world when I talk to virtually any cable company employee.

Most my disagreements would inevitably degrade into me citing FCC requirements but so far that has never worked in making any Comcast employee do anything differently.

Is this just me misinterpreting, or is it well understood the cable companies will just ignore and break the rules (until?) ?


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

telemark said:


> That FCC filing was well written.
> 
> I don't mean to take away from it, but it reminds me when I get into reading through a lot of the FCC documents, I start questioning is the whole thing hopeless. Because I feel there's a huge disconnect between the state of affairs as reported in the commission documents and what I get in the real world when I talk to virtually any cable company employee.
> 
> ...


If it wasn't for the Congress and the FCC, we wouldn't have retail access to cable signals, albeit crippled, today. Just look internationally and you'll see a market where a consumers only choice is to lease a box from the operator or look at AT&T U-Verse, DIRECTV or Dish for examples of MVPDs today where consumers don't have a choice. I'm hopeful that the Tom Wheeler Commission will see the light that the cable operators are attempting to mislead and move towards a crippled app-centric world where our capabilities to consume cable content is limited and controlled by the operator. The current Media Bureau Chief, Bill Lake, extolled the virtue of "common reliance" (i.e., a nationally portable security standard) during recent testimony to a Senate Committee. As a huge fan of "House of Cards", I'm hoping that the cable lobbying efforts led by the NCTA will not be successful.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

telemark said:


> That FCC filing was well written.
> 
> I don't mean to take away from it, but it reminds me when I get into reading through a lot of the FCC documents, I start questioning is the whole thing hopeless. Because I feel there's a huge disconnect between the state of affairs as reported in the commission documents and what I get in the real world when I talk to virtually any cable company employee.
> 
> ...


Human nature 101. As a child did you always obey every rule your parents set when they weren't around to enforce them? There is no business incentive for support of TiVo's as required by FCC regs. And the enforcement mechanism is puny at best. (Write a letter to the FCC and they might write a letter to the Cable Co. -- wow!) Meanwhile the cable executives and their lawyers are having dinner meetings with FCC officials and contributing to campaigns. And they create glowing reports "documenting" compliance so everyone has a clean record to stand on.

But it could be worse. We could spend $billions on a cable police force. This would put us that much further in debt and its primary result would be providing employment for a few thousand cable police. Because the paycheck is the highest priority, trumping performance by a large margin in government agencies. (Human nature 101 again).


----------



## ftg (Apr 20, 2014)

Regarding cable companies and CableCards.

I recently came across a Comcast cable box for sale in a thrift store. (I know. Not supposed to see that.)

Anyway, I could clearly see a CableCard thru the air vents. I checked later at home on the model number and indeed it does use a standard M-card for authorization. Other cable companies also used this box.

So cable companies themselves saw the advantage of CableCards and used them. But that is the past.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Cable comanies are required to use CableCARDs. That's the "common reliance" portion of the law. The reason their boxes don't have trouble while many TiVos do is because they preauthorize those CableCARDs through a completely different system then the one used for retail devices. So while they are technically using the same technology the experience from the user perspective is rarely the same.


----------



## jwbelcher (Nov 13, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> Cable comanies are required to use CableCARDs. That's the "common reliance" portion of the law. The reason their boxes don't have trouble while many TiVos do is because they preauthorize those CableCARDs through a completely different system then the one used for retail devices. So while they are technically using the same technology the experience from the user perspective is rarely the same.


I've never heard how they get by with the digital adapters - like the Cisco DTA 170HD - not having a CableCard for conditional access. Any ideas why they're allowed w/o cablecards vs a traditional set-top box?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

There is probably a CableCARD inside. As far as I know there are no waivers that allow them to deploy a box without a CableCARD.


----------



## jwbelcher (Nov 13, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> There is probably a CableCARD inside. As far as I know there are no waivers that allow them to deploy a box without a CableCARD.


I actually have two of these and there's definitely not one inside. You have to look through the grates, but its just a circuit board + tuner. The thing is tiny too. I'd really doubt that a PCMCIA interface and CableCard could fit without increasing its footprint.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

I just meant that there are prior FCC rules that are "wins" but on the streets it's murkier. So I wanted hear your wise perspectives if that was a bigger problem. Obviously, during rule making and comment periods is the best time to lobby for proper policy in the first place. Thanks to all for continuing the fight. 

Ya, I saw such a cablebox in a recycling pile. I suspect a number of the ebay CableCards must be pulls from retired or dead boxes. Which makes me question the NCTA. The CableCard encryption mandate should have saved them significant money in development costs over the years, but they're just harping about increased costs. The only way I can think it could increase costs is if chip integration has gotten to the point that the newest DTA's are single chip boards. Yet even if they are, at least for Comcast they lowered the grade of encryption to be able to support it.

I think the mpeg4 transition is going to occur faster than people realize. The chip differences between an mpeg2 and mpeg4 decoder is small, and it's cheaper to license just one of them. That will cover the CPE cost issue in a generation or two. Phones, Tablets, Streamers already skipped mpeg2. That just leaves some TV's that are mpeg2 only. TV's that can't effectively decode cable already.

What we're doing now, putting a transcoder chip in every household to support mobile, is technically cool, but complicated and encoders will always cost more than decoders.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

There is a waiver, let me find it.

Maybe it's this one?
http://www.lightreading.com/fcc-approves-dtas-from-moto-cisco-thomson-and-pace/d/d-id/670159

Comcast always insisted these can't get the higher channels, but I eventually figured out what they're talking about. These boxes use an alternate DES encryption called Privacy Mode, so they must not be broadcasting all the channels that way. Maybe even doing it twice, once for cablecards and again for DTA's.

Interesting perspective/predictions from 2008 about it:
http://www.heavyreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=163600&site=cdn


----------



## jwbelcher (Nov 13, 2007)

telemark said:


> There is a waiver, let me find it.
> 
> Maybe it's this one?
> http://www.lightreading.com/fcc-approves-dtas-from-moto-cisco-thomson-and-pace/d/d-id/670159
> ...


I think Comcast is being a bit misleading. My DTAs "cant" receive premium content, but its really b/c they want you to rent a digital box. The first day I plugged in the DTA it _was_ receiving SD HBO, but as soon as it received a firmware update, those went away. BHN rep explained they "hot" / unconfigured out of the box, but once they receive their updates will only support basic digital tier. However, I am receiving the higher channels, including channels previously unavailable over analog, including HD versions.

Edit, it could be that processors for conditional access has improved since Comcast started their digital rollout such that newer DTA models are able to support the same encryption. On the Cisco DTA, I think the only limitation is receiving any SDV content.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

jwbelcher said:


> I've never heard how they get by with the digital adapters - like the Cisco DTA 170HD - not having a CableCard for conditional access. Any ideas why they're allowed w/o cablecards vs a traditional set-top box?





Dan203 said:


> There is probably a CableCARD inside. As far as I know there are no waivers that allow them to deploy a box without a CableCARD.


There are no CableCards within Tuning Adapters. They do receive authorization and tiers and whatnot from the Conditional Access system, but I would assume they're exempt from requiring CableCards since they're used exclusively to support UDCPs and that there are no retail Tuning Adapters on the market. I think if you are going to complain that TAs don't have separable security you're starting to be unreasonable.



jwbelcher said:


> I'd disagree that QAM is irrelevant, but rather it makes it more so. The difference being, these packets once encoded as QAM are no longer routable -- meaning they become frequency. In a large IPTV network, I don't see that you would route (encode) TV traffic with general internet traffic being sent to a single CM. You need dedicated / shared QAM frequencies for broadcast streams so these are available to other premises simultaneously. For this reason, I still see the need to architect how the downward streams are bonded to available frequencies. For broadcast channels I fully expect static multicast meaning the downward streams will be grouped and bonded to a dedicated RF. The CM in the STB will then will tune the necessary frequency for the requested IP stream. In some ways, it will look like a traditional broadcast network. Its hard to see the upside, since the same bandwidth hurdles will still exist, this could be why FiOS is still using MPEG encoding. I don't see going to IP making anything easier on the network side because of the network topology. However, all that should be transparent on the residence side and make for cheaper CPE.


I'm saying this in as respectful a way as possible, but it's obvious you have little to know knowledge as to how IP networks actually work. U-Verse is 100% IP based. Read up on multicast and you'll figure out how IP video distribution would work without using more bandwidth than QAM based video distribution. As a matter of fact, if the system is build appropriately, it could use drastically less bandwidth.


----------



## jwbelcher (Nov 13, 2007)

JosephB said:


> I'm saying this in as respectful a way as possible, but it's obvious you have little to know knowledge as to how IP networks actually work. U-Verse is 100% IP based. Read up on multicast and you'll figure out how IP video distribution would work without using more bandwidth than QAM based video distribution. As a matter of fact, if the system is build appropriately, it could use drastically less bandwidth.


I don't think you understand or realize the difference in how data transmits on a cable networks. You should spend a bit time reading about cable networks and multicast over QAM before making such an assertion. There's a load of info out there that explains exactly how multicast on DOCSIS works. DOCSIS is not the same as TCP/IP; you certainly should spend some time researching before posting based on your assumptions.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

JosephB said:


> There are no CableCards within Tuning Adapters. They do receive authorization and tiers and whatnot from the Conditional Access system, but I would assume they're exempt from requiring CableCards since they're used exclusively to support UDCPs and that there are no retail Tuning Adapters on the market. I think if you are going to complain that TAs don't have separable security you're starting to be unreasonable.


Before we start arguing about 2 different devices...

DTA's are not Tuning Adapters. DTA's are the new "cheapest" conceivable convertor box, Comcast for example, are giving out (they promised the FCC for free for a year or so) when they go all digital, and encrypt everything at the same time.

The people on this thread know a lot about a lot of technology but I guess since everyone has TIvo's many were insulated from this migration debacle.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

jwbelcher said:


> I don't think you understand or realize the difference in how data transmits on a cable networks. You should spend a bit time reading about cable networks and multicast over QAM before making such an assertion. There's a load of info out there that explains exactly how multicast on DOCSIS works. DOCSIS is not the same as TCP/IP; you certainly should spend some time researching before posting based on your assumptions.


I totally understand that DOCSIS isn't TCP/IP, because those are two different layers of the network stack. I really didn't mean to offend you, but it still seems like you don't know what you're talking about. I'm not a cable TV network engineer, but I do work in computer networking as a career.

The entire reason an MSO would switch to IP-based video delivery would be to eliminate the old baseband/QAM encoded video distribution equipment. If they're going to build out the IP infrastructure to serve apps on devices such as iPads, Xboxes, and Rokus, why would they also maintain the old legacy equipment? What would be the advantage to a QAM-to-IP gateway that was mentioned before?

Of course multicast on DOCSIS is different than multicast on Ethernet (which would be the appropriate level of comparison to DOCSIS, not TCP/IP, which are two distinct protocols at different levels of the network stack themselves), but the theory behind it would be the same. Implementation details aren't really important because they are not insurmountable problems. There's no reason that a DOCSIS-compliant cable modem couldn't join a multicast session upon the request of a network device in the home. AT&T has already solved this problem, the point at which it "splits" off into a dedicated line is just further up the chain at the DSLAM instead of at your modem.


----------



## jwbelcher (Nov 13, 2007)

JosephB said:


> I'm saying this in as respectful a way as possible, but it's obvious you have little to know knowledge as to how IP networks actually work. U-Verse is 100% IP based. Read up on multicast and you'll figure out how IP video distribution would work without using more bandwidth than QAM based video distribution. As a matter of fact, if the system is build appropriately, it could use drastically less bandwidth.


My main point before the personal attack was to call out the difference in managing multicast traffic on the wire for iptv. There is plenty enough public info on this from Cisco with regard to static channel bonding for high value iptv streams. IPTV traffic will have dedicated channels bonded for pushing out multicast to the CM / STB. More specifically, most operators would not set it up to travel in or with the same channels used for high-speed data (for QoS) to your PC even though they are both talking "IP". In this way, IPTV is distinguishable from HSD traffic.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

jwbelcher said:


> I think Comcast is being a bit misleading. My DTAs "cant" receive premium content, but its really b/c they want you to rent a digital box. The first day I plugged in the DTA it _was_ receiving SD HBO, but as soon as it received a firmware update, those went away. BHN rep explained they "hot" / unconfigured out of the box, but once they receive their updates will only support basic digital tier. However, I am receiving the higher channels, including channels previously unavailable over analog, including HD versions.
> 
> Edit, it could be that processors for conditional access has improved since Comcast started their digital rollout such that newer DTA models are able to support the same encryption. On the Cisco DTA, I think the only limitation is receiving any SDV content.





telemark said:


> There is a waiver, let me find it.
> 
> Maybe it's this one?
> http://www.lightreading.com/fcc-approves-dtas-from-moto-cisco-thomson-and-pace/d/d-id/670159
> ...


It may partially be the encryption mode, but another big reason is that the DTAs are one-way devices. They cannot view any switched channels, so I would imagine to keep it simple they just don't authorize any tiers on those devices that contain channels that aren't viewable on those devices.



telemark said:


> Before we start arguing about 2 different devices...
> 
> DTA's are not Tuning Adapters. DTA's are the new "cheapest" conceivable convertor box, Comcast for example, are giving out (they promised the FCC for free for a year or so) when they go all digital, and encrypt everything at the same time.
> 
> The people on this thread know a lot about a lot of technology but I guess since everyone has TIvo's many were insulated from this migration debacle.


You're right, I misread one post and thought the discussion was about Tuning Adapters, not the Digital Transport Adapters. Ignore my previous post.

I imagine the fact that they're designed for analog only customers, are one way devices, and most MSOs have committed to providing them for super cheap or free to customers is why the FCC let them get by with integrated security.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

jwbelcher said:


> My main point before the personal attack was to call out the difference in managing multicast traffic on the wire for iptv. There is plenty enough public info on this from Cisco with regard to static channel bonding for high value iptv streams. IPTV traffic will have dedicated channels bonded for pushing out multicast to the CM / STB. More specifically, most operators would not set it up to travel in or with the same channels used for high-speed data (for QoS) to your PC even though they are both talking "IP". In this way, IPTV is distinguishable from HSD traffic.


Again, it was not a personal attack. I know it sounded that way, but there are plenty of things that I am ignorant of. Maybe I was misinterpreting what you were trying to say but it wasn't making any sense.

Also, of course it would be segregated traffic. Cable company provided telephone service is Voice over IP, but it is segregated from your commodity internet traffic that goes over your home network. It would be completely expected for them to handle video service over IP just like they handle PacketCable provided telephone service. On the other hand, it's also likely that there would be a way for "public" devices such as your Xbox to join those multicast sessions. How they handle that problem would be interesting. It could entirely be a gateway device, like a set top box, that is on both networks, or it could be logic in the modem that passes that traffic into your home LAN.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

Interesting, how I keep seeing reports (not just on TCF) about scrapped cable boxes that contain cablecards.

I was watching "how to reclaim gold from electronics" type YouTube videos, and kept seeing cable boxes being featured, and they had CABLECARDs inside. Many of them do specify that you shouldn't be scrapping a cable box, unless it was part of legitimate scrap.

Cox, in my market, deploys old boxes without cablecards, claiming that the rules don't apply to anything they can re-issue, or refurbish, only new boxes.

What sucks about this, is it's near impossible to get a STB w/HDMI, as those had the cablecards, while the older ones w/o the card have DVI, at best.

For a short time, right after the integration-ban, the cablecard w/HDMI boxes were all they were issuing. Now, I keep hearing "Yeah, those are hard to come by, so this is what you get". I keep asking for a STB, then refuse to accept, when they try to give me the old ones.

I bring this up, when I see the topic come up, and nobody ever says whether this is them breaking the rules, exploiting a loophole, or acceptable. It sure would be nice to know if I'm wasting my time documenting every occasion I'm denied a non-integrated STB.

It sure seems like I am, if there are so many non-integrated (separable cablecard) boxes being scrapped, including the cablecards inside...


----------



## jwbelcher (Nov 13, 2007)

JosephB said:


> Again, it was not a personal attack. I know it sounded that way, but there are plenty of things that I am ignorant of. Maybe I was misinterpreting what you were trying to say but it wasn't making any sense.
> 
> Also, of course it would be segregated traffic. Cable company provided telephone service is Voice over IP, but it is segregated from your commodity internet traffic that goes over your home network. It would be completely expected for them to handle video service over IP just like they handle PacketCable provided telephone service. On the other hand, it's also likely that there would be a way for "public" devices such as your Xbox to join those multicast sessions. How they handle that problem would be interesting. It could entirely be a gateway device, like a set top box, that is on both networks, or it could be logic in the modem that passes that traffic into your home LAN.


My perspective was how they'd implement the traffic efficiently given the shared bandwidth nature of cable lines. I'm sure you'll likely take exception to my analogy, but I see the cable network similar to a hub than a switch since everyone receives the same RF. Maybe that's why they call it a cable network "hub".

It was my opinion that IPTV and HSD will be separate silos. If for no other reason but to prevent (screw?) access from non-STB. I made the comment for WRT an IP gateway for a TiVo because of this expectation. Additionally, I don't see cable requiring their customers to re-wire with Ethernet. My expectation is that new CPE will travel with built-in DOCSIS 3.0 modems to access the IPTV service groups. So CPE still receives QAM and require "tuners" for IP traffic now; how does that save any $$$???

I don't see ipads, xboxes and rokus receiving any benefit. In fact the video bit rates pushed to the STB would choke such devices. I kind of doubt video distribution for these devices will change a whole lot from how its delivered today. However, I would like to be surprised.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

jwbelcher said:


> My perspective was how they'd implement the traffic efficiently given the shared bandwidth nature of cable lines. I'm sure you'll likely take exception to my analogy, but I see the cable network similar to a hub than a switch since everyone receives the same RF. Maybe that's why they call it a cable network "hub".
> 
> It was my opinion that IPTV and HSD will be separate silos. If for no other reason but to prevent (screw?) access from non-STB. I made the comment for WRT an IP gateway for a TiVo because of this expectation. Additionally, I don't see cable requiring their customers to re-wire with Ethernet. My expectation is that new CPE will travel with built-in DOCSIS 3.0 modems to access the IPTV service groups. So CPE still receives QAM and require "tuners" for IP traffic now; how does that save any $$$???
> 
> I don't see ipads, xboxes and rokus receiving any benefit. In fact the video bit rates pushed to the STB would choke such devices. I kind of doubt video distribution for these devices will change a whole lot from how its delivered today. However, I would like to be surprised.


I think you're missing the forest for the trees.

First off, iPads and Xboxes and Rokus would receive the *exact same bitstream* as the cable company's set top box. I'm not sure how the bitrates "pushed to the STB" would "choke" those third party devices. In an IP world, the set top box provided by the cable company would be indistinguishable from a device such as an Xbox. They're all just apps consuming IP video streams.

And yes, I understand how the HFC networks of MSOs work, and I do understand that it's a shared medium akin to an ethernet hub. However, in multicast that doesn't matter, and is in fact more efficient, since a multicast stream is only placed on the wire once. Then, when a device at your house wants to "subscribe" to that stream, your modem (or gateway or whatever) starts forwarding those packets to wherever they need to go. In an IP multicast world, each TV does not have a dedicated amount of bandwidth usage it is soaking up. This is exactly how U-Verse works, all the multicast streams being requested are sent only ONCE to the DSLAM, and when your set top requests a channel it is then forwarded to your house. Only one copy of ESPN goes to the point of distribution, not a copy for every TV trying to watch it.

And finally, such a world would not require re-wiring with Ethernet. MoCA is more than sufficient for distributing IP-based video. The bitrates aren't going to change (in fact, they'll probably go down since that is a perfect time to switch to MPEG-4 or H.264 encoding). Coax is already used for IP networks every day.

And I think you are confusing a couple of different issues and objectives to switching to IP distribution of video. Of course, there will still be DOCSIS modems/gateways that tune a QAM carrier. The point isn't to get rid of QAM modulation on the cable wire. The point is to combine the video distribution of their app ecosystem with the video distribution of their legacy baseband infrastructure.


----------



## jwbelcher (Nov 13, 2007)

JosephB said:


> I think you're missing the forest for the trees.


Dude, I don't know why you cant stop going personal. Oh I do, its the typical arrogance spewed from sysadmins suffering from delusions of grandeur. I'll pass on further exchange.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

jwbelcher said:


> Dude, I don't know why you cant stop going personal. Oh I do, its the typical arrogance spewed from sysadmins suffering from delusions of grandeur. I'll pass on further exchange.


If you take that personally, you are way too sensitive. It's a common figure of speech, and was not meant to mean you are a bad person, your argument just was a poor one.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

JosephB said:


> Why couldn't the same IP stream destined for a STB be used for a tablet or phone? Or, more importantly, why couldn't it be used for a Roku or Xbox or other retail device running the MSO's app? For the transition to IP, you have to keep in mind they'd probably replace all CPE, so new set tops for everyone. That's why it will be a slow transition, but it's also why you should forget all the other existing problems that exist today.
> 
> And putting an IP gateway that converts from QAM to IP totally misses the point. The point is to eliminate the QAM infrastructure. The advantage to moving to IP on the delivery-to-TV side is that you can consolidate that with the infrastructure (encoders, modulators, IP distribution, etc) for the delivery-to-mobile/apps world. The whole point is to NOT have two totally different systems.


The mobile devices couldn't reliably handle a nearly constant stream of multicast data. They need to be on bandwidth-adaptive unicast to work reliably.

I don't see QAM going away. Few companies have even got to MPEG-4, which is easy compared to going IP. IP would require all new STBs, and some sort of transition period _after every box supported IP_ where channels are moved from QAM to IP.



JosephB said:


> I'm saying this in as respectful a way as possible, but it's obvious you have little to know knowledge as to how IP networks actually work. U-Verse is 100% IP based. Read up on multicast and you'll figure out how IP video distribution would work without using more bandwidth than QAM based video distribution. As a matter of fact, if the system is build appropriately, it could use drastically less bandwidth.


Well actually, given the same codec, IP running over DOCSIS 3 and SDV would use almost exactly the same amount of bandwidth. Both get 38mbps per channel. If you're claiming huge bandwidth savings of IPTV over QAM256, you're looking at not transmitting channels that aren't in use, which is exactly what SDV already does with QAM256. Now DOCSIS 3.1 could theoretically get quite a bit more capacity, as it's using OFDMA rather than QAM256, which is the same change that is happening going from HSPA+ to LTE on the mobile side... However, we're now really out in dream land. MPEG-4 AVC has been out for 11 years, and few cable companies are using it much, if at all, and that's an easy change from MPEG-2...



telemark said:


> The people on this thread know a lot about a lot of technology but I guess since everyone has TIvo's many were insulated from this migration debacle.


Migration debacle? More like a non-event except for some secondary TVs that people didn't use much anyways. It was easy when Comcast switched over, we got two DTAs, later migrated one TV to a box with WHDVR access, and later returned both DTAs when they started charging $2.50/mo for the DTAs. Now, everything is just digital. No need to even think about analog.



nooneuknow said:


> Cox, in my market, deploys old boxes without cablecards, claiming that the rules don't apply to anything they can re-issue, or refurbish, only new boxes.
> 
> What sucks about this, is it's near impossible to get a STB w/HDMI, as those had the cablecards, while the older ones w/o the card have DVI, at best.
> 
> ...


Perfectly legal. HDMI and CableCard have nothing to do with each other, however, just by chance it sounds like they ordered a new line of boxes that happened to get both at the same time. I've seen HDMI boxes that don't have CableCards or MPEG-4 decoding capability.

They can continue to use boxes purchased before the integration ban as long as they continue to function. They are required to give you a separate CableCard to work with your TiVo, but they are not required to give you a box with a CableCard in it.



jwbelcher said:


> Additionally, I don't see cable requiring their customers to re-wire with Ethernet. My expectation is that new CPE will travel with built-in DOCSIS 3.0 modems to access the IPTV service groups. So CPE still receives QAM and require "tuners" for IP traffic now; how does that save any $$$???
> 
> I don't see ipads, xboxes and rokus receiving any benefit. In fact the video bit rates pushed to the STB would choke such devices. I kind of doubt video distribution for these devices will change a whole lot from how its delivered today. However, I would like to be surprised.


MoCA. They're already using MoCA for WHDVR functions. AT&T uses HPNA to transmit their IP data to their STBs, DirecTV uses DECA for streaming from the HR34/HR44 to the C31s. AT&T will let you use Ethernet, but it's certainly not recommended or required.

They would likely have a gateway that received IPTV and then transmitted that via MoCA to the boxes. However, the whole IPTV thing makes no sense, as almost none of their existing equipment is IPTV capable.

The bitrates wouldn't choke an iPad per se, as it would likely be something like 6-8mbps MPEG-4, however, it wouldn't be practical for use on consumer devices, as the bandwidth isn't consistent enough, so unicast streams that are bandwidth-adaptive would still need to be used...


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

Bigg said:


> The mobile devices couldn't reliably handle a nearly constant stream of multicast data. They need to be on bandwidth-adaptive unicast to work reliably.


multicast isn't inherently more data. yes, a mobile device like an iPhone would likely get a lower bandwidth stream, but it could still be multicast. and the more likely scenario of a roku or an xbox in the home would get the same bandwidth stream that the set tops get.



> I don't see QAM going away. Few companies have even got to MPEG-4, which is easy compared to going IP. IP would require all new STBs, and some sort of transition period _after every box supported IP_ where channels are moved from QAM to IP.


Moving to MPEG-4 requires all new boxes, too. We're rapidly approaching the point that the old, antiquated networks need to be replaced. Why would they replace them with the same thing instead of the newest technology? And many, many cable companies including Comcast and TWC have publicly stated that IP distribution of video is the end goal. It's not a debate, it will happen. The only question is how long it's going to take. And, germane to us TiVo customers, how open the system will be.



> Well actually, given the same codec, IP running over DOCSIS 3 and SDV would use almost exactly the same amount of bandwidth. Both get 38mbps per channel. If you're claiming huge bandwidth savings of IPTV over QAM256, you're looking at not transmitting channels that aren't in use, which is exactly what SDV already does with QAM256. Now DOCSIS 3.1 could theoretically get quite a bit more capacity, as it's using OFDMA rather than QAM256, which is the same change that is happening going from HSPA+ to LTE on the mobile side... However, we're now really out in dream land. MPEG-4 AVC has been out for 11 years, and few cable companies are using it much, if at all, and that's an easy change from MPEG-2...


My claim of bandwidth savings had nothing to do with the modulation of the RF carrier on the wire. It had to do with the fact that you'd be effectively 100% "SDV" (although not using any of the current SDV infrastructure) as well as the fact that, since you'd have to replace all set tops and all encoders and all modulators, you would move to MPEG-4/h.264 or even HEVC/h.265. From a purely like for like situation where the same bitrate, same codecs, and same number of streams were sent you'd actually increase bandwidth ever so slightly since every packet would be encapsulated in an IP frame.



> They would likely have a gateway that received IPTV and then transmitted that via MoCA to the boxes. However, the whole IPTV thing makes no sense, as almost none of their existing equipment is IPTV capable.
> 
> The bitrates wouldn't choke an iPad per se, as it would likely be something like 6-8mbps MPEG-4, however, it wouldn't be practical for use on consumer devices, as the bandwidth isn't consistent enough, so unicast streams that are bandwidth-adaptive would still need to be used...


Except that the bandwidth would be consistent since it would be delivered over the private side of the IP network, not via your generic commodity internet connection. And, there's no reason that lower bitrate streams could not be sent to smaller devices. Consolidation of streams is only part of it. Consolidation of the backend infrastructure is a *major* part of it. They're already duplicating streams, so if even if they still duplicate streams to TVs and iPhones, at least if they're coming out of the same encoders and servers, they've still saved a ton of money and complexity in the network


----------



## jwbelcher (Nov 13, 2007)

Bigg said:


> MoCA. They're already using MoCA for WHDVR functions. AT&T uses HPNA to transmit their IP data to their STBs, DirecTV uses DECA for streaming from the HR34/HR44 to the C31s. AT&T will let you use Ethernet, but it's certainly not recommended or required.
> 
> They would likely have a gateway that received IPTV and then transmitted that via MoCA to the boxes. However, the whole IPTV thing makes no sense, as almost none of their existing equipment is IPTV capable.
> 
> The bitrates wouldn't choke an iPad per se, as it would likely be something like 6-8mbps MPEG-4, however, it wouldn't be practical for use on consumer devices, as the bandwidth isn't consistent enough, so unicast streams that are bandwidth-adaptive would still need to be used...


I can understand using MoCA. It just how does it get deployed. It seems strange to think they'll issue a MoCA set-top + gateway device. It seems cleaner in the WHDVR model where the modem is coupled with the STB. Maybe we'll see something more like a Roamio + Mini construct (or Genie or Hopper); with the main unit providing the gateway.

WRT MPEG4, I just haven't seen bit rates yet. With MPEG2 they're pushing out 40,000Kbps VBR; I expected something equally ludicrous when moving to MPEG4. If you look at the iPad spec sheet they're only listing support up to 2.5 Mbps.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

jwbelcher said:


> I can understand using MoCA. It just how does it get deployed. It seems strange to think they'll issue a MoCA set-top + gateway device. It seems cleaner in the WHDVR model where the modem is coupled with the STB. Maybe we'll see something more like a Roamio + Mini construct (or Genie or Hopper); with the main unit providing the gateway.
> 
> WRT MPEG4, I just haven't seen bit rates yet. With MPEG2 they're pushing out 40,000Kbps VBR; I expected something equally ludicrous when moving to MPEG4. If you look at the iPad spec sheet they're only listing support up to 2.5 Mbps.


Uh, no cable system is pushing 40mbps on any channel at all. ATSC delivered digital video is only ~19mbps, and the channels you get from the cable company are compressed beyond that. When I was fooling around with my HDHomeRun, I didn't see very many above 10mbps, and those were ESPN and HBO.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Yeah most cable MPEG-2 is between 12-15Mbps. The ones that use H.264 go down to 8-10Mbps


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

Bigg said:


> Migration debacle? More like a non-event except for some secondary TVs that people didn't use much anyways. It was easy when Comcast switched over, we got two DTAs, later migrated one TV to a box with WHDVR access, and later returned both DTAs when they started charging $2.50/mo for the DTAs. Now, everything is just digital. No need to even think about analog.


Even though your household was not greatly affected didn't mean a significant number of persons were not affected.

There was a significant amount of consumer equipment that depended on Clear QAM which basic cable always had. Boxee's, Simple.TV's, SiliconDust, HDTV's with built in tuners. This isn't old stuff but were >$100 devices still being sold as brand new, that became paper weights overnight and unilaterally.

The DTA's that were given out for compensation were SD and Analog output. These are not a proper substitute except for 4:3 SD TV's, and nor even compatible with most these things.

Comcast promised to have the mitigation devices (I don't mean the SD DTA's here) ready before starting encryption but a) didn't actually give them out b) stopped promising to give them out when the FCC relaxed the rules after the encryption already started c) what they were offering did not actually interoperate because it added a new to the scene, DTCP-IP requirement.

Those may sound like uncommon devices but this is exactly what the integration ban was for, to encourage a market for CE consumer electronics. And the cable company did and got exactly what they wanted, customers who wanted HD on secondary TV's better start paying for a box.


----------



## jwbelcher (Nov 13, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> Yeah most cable MPEG-2 is between 12-15Mbps. The ones that use H.264 go down to 8-10Mbps


Thanks for the clarification. I was simply going off the bitrate as displayed by GSpot on the MPEG2 header. After some simple division, yea, the files I was looking at are actually around 14. Anyway, the bit rate being what it is for H.264, still would seem too high for most mobile devices to handle.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Well there is a difference between broadcast and streaming services like Netflix or download services like iTunes. With broadcast they have to encode in real time, which means they use a much simpler set of features of the H.264 codec which means they have to use higher bitrates to maintain quality. Streaming and download services pre-encode the streams, which means they can use much more complex settings, multipass encoding, etc... which allows them to use lower bitrates. For example Netflix's "super HD" is only about 6Mbps. And VUDU's HDX is between 6-8Mbps. And those are both 1080p compared to either 1080i or 720p used for broadcast.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

U-Verse HD caps out around 6Mbps and they're using h.264. Most people think they have inferior PQ compared to the other h.264 implementations.


----------



## jwbelcher (Nov 13, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> Well there is a difference between broadcast and streaming services like Netflix or download services like iTunes. With broadcast they have to encode in real time, which means they use a much simpler set of features of the H.264 codec which means they have to use higher bitrates to maintain quality. Streaming and download services pre-encode the streams, which means they can use much more complex settings, multipass encoding, etc... which allows them to use lower bitrates. For example Netflix's "super HD" is only about 6Mbps. And VUDU's HDX is between 6-8Mbps. And those are both 1080p compared to either 1080i or 720p used for broadcast.


How's netflix and others handling adaptive bitrates? Is it that much cheaper to down sample (Transrating?) from a high quality encode (at realtime) or do they have multiple pre-encoded copies they're toggling between?


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

jwbelcher said:


> How's netflix and others handling adaptive bitrates? Is it that much cheaper to down sample (Transrating?) from a high quality encode (at realtime) or do they have multiple pre-encoded copies they're toggling between?


They have multiple encodes available and switch between them. They are not encoding on the fly.


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

Today is the last day to submit reply comments on the FCC's annual video marketplace assessment. See Dave's article about another recent issue below.

http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2014-04/bad-cablecard-support/#comment-171585


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

slowbiscuit said:


> U-Verse HD caps out around 6Mbps and they're using h.264. Most people think they have inferior PQ compared to the other h.264 implementations.


6Mbps is low for a real time encode but it really depends on the encoder. There are some really nice hardware encoders out there that might be able to do a decent job even at that bitrate.


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

A set-top waiver being sought by a relatively small cable operator is
raising a sizable stink at the Federal Communications Commission. While
TiVo claims to be supportive of a waiver request from Buckeye CableSystem
so long as its paired with multiple conditions, the MSOs pursuit is also
facing some outright opposition. Still, Buckeyes pursuit does have the
backing of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association.

See more at:
http://www.multichannel.com/news/technology/tivo-seeks-conditions-buckeye-s-waiver-request/373983

All the comments on the proceeding can be found here -->
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=14-42


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

JosephB said:


> multicast isn't inherently more data. yes, a mobile device like an iPhone would likely get a lower bandwidth stream, but it could still be multicast. and the more likely scenario of a roku or an xbox in the home would get the same bandwidth stream that the set tops get.


The problem is, if you have one multicast stream, if the wireless gets too slow, the stream just bombs out. If you're doing unicast, you're now bandwidth adaptive, which is how pretty much every stream out there today works...



> Moving to MPEG-4 requires all new boxes, too. We're rapidly approaching the point that the old, antiquated networks need to be replaced. Why would they replace them with the same thing instead of the newest technology? And many, many cable companies including Comcast and TWC have publicly stated that IP distribution of video is the end goal. It's not a debate, it will happen. The only question is how long it's going to take. And, germane to us TiVo customers, how open the system will be.


TiVo Premiere and newer supports MPEG-4. Windows MCE supports MPEG-4. DCX-3400 and newer supports MPEG-4. The X1 supports MPEG-4. There are some old tanks left out there that don't support MPEG-4, but they are way beyond when they should have been EOL'ed anyways. The equipment switchover isn't that significant.

How long? A long, long time. QAM will be here for decades to come.



> My claim of bandwidth savings had nothing to do with the modulation of the RF carrier on the wire. It had to do with the fact that you'd be effectively 100% "SDV" (although not using any of the current SDV infrastructure) as well as the fact that, since you'd have to replace all set tops and all encoders and all modulators, you would move to MPEG-4/h.264 or even HEVC/h.265. From a purely like for like situation where the same bitrate, same codecs, and same number of streams were sent you'd actually increase bandwidth ever so slightly since every packet would be encapsulated in an IP frame.


So you get almost identical savings to what you would moving to SDV over QAM with MPEG-4, which a large majority of cable boxes today already support in full. You'd save a little with IP, as DOCSIS can channel bond and allocate bandwidth dynamically over 24 QAMs, as opposed to getting fixed size streams, but that or the IP encapsulation are both pretty minuscule in the whole scheme of things.



> Except that the bandwidth would be consistent since it would be delivered over the private side of the IP network, not via your generic commodity internet connection. And, there's no reason that lower bitrate streams could not be sent to smaller devices. Consolidation of streams is only part of it. Consolidation of the backend infrastructure is a *major* part of it. They're already duplicating streams, so if even if they still duplicate streams to TVs and iPhones, at least if they're coming out of the same encoders and servers, they've still saved a ton of money and complexity in the network


There's really no consolidation. The point about consistent bandwidth is that Joe Average's crappy wifi network may not be up to the task, and no matter how good the bandwidth that is delivered by Comcast, whether it's through the internet connection or through private IP, his wifi might screw it all up, so you are back to needing two separate systems.

Also, look at the equipment cost. Everything except the newest DVR/ whole home platforms would have to be entirely replaced. Every DTA, every HD box, most DVRs. It's completely insane. If they go MPEG-4 AVC for HDs, maybe even SDV on 860mhz systems, they can continue to use most of their existing equipment, and the few ancient HD boxes that are left that can't do MPEG-4 can be downcycled to support SD equipment if they even want to keep supporting a bunch of oddball equipment. SD channels, at least for expanded basic, would still be in MPEG-2 to support DTAs and SD boxes. Then the few 4K channels that will come in will use HEVC, and likely require most of a QAM per channel.



jwbelcher said:


> I can understand using MoCA. It just how does it get deployed. It seems strange to think they'll issue a MoCA set-top + gateway device. It seems cleaner in the WHDVR model where the modem is coupled with the STB. Maybe we'll see something more like a Roamio + Mini construct (or Genie or Hopper); with the main unit providing the gateway.
> 
> WRT MPEG4, I just haven't seen bit rates yet. With MPEG2 they're pushing out 40,000Kbps VBR; I expected something equally ludicrous when moving to MPEG4. If you look at the iPad spec sheet they're only listing support up to 2.5 Mbps.


Not 40mbps. 11-19mbps for HD.

Yes, they would use a gateway model. They already are for the WHDVR they already offer, plus the X1 system.



JosephB said:


> Uh, no cable system is pushing 40mbps on any channel at all. ATSC delivered digital video is only ~19mbps, and the channels you get from the cable company are compressed beyond that. When I was fooling around with my HDHomeRun, I didn't see very many above 10mbps, and those were ESPN and HBO.


Correct. And most ATSC channels are really delivering way less than that, as the subchannels are robbing the main feed of a ton of bandwidth. And for cable channels, Comcast tri-muxes most channels, getting about 12mbps per channel. A few like ESPN and HBO are not tri-muxed. FIOS does not tri-mux, so many of their channels are upwards of 19mbps.



telemark said:


> Even though your household was not greatly affected didn't mean a significant number of persons were not affected.
> 
> There was a significant amount of consumer equipment that depended on Clear QAM which basic cable always had. Boxee's, Simple.TV's, SiliconDust, HDTV's with built in tuners. This isn't old stuff but were >$100 devices still being sold as brand new, that became paper weights overnight and unilaterally.


The all-digital switch and moving broadcast channels from ClearQAM to encrypted QAM are two different things. They happened at different times on my system. Boxee had a solution with Comcast, but I think they disappeared before that materialized. SiliconDust is a CableCard-based product, so no issues there, and Simple.TV is an OTA product, so again, no effect. The effects were with old analog TV sets in the kitchen, basement, etc, etc, that didn't have boxes and now have to have DTAs. It was a pretty painless transition.



> The DTA's that were given out for compensation were SD and Analog output. These are not a proper substitute except for 4:3 SD TV's, and nor even compatible with most these things.


I used one with a little-used 19" HDTV for a while so I could have the news on while I was doing some hobby work. It worked fine. All TVs have NTSC tuners. The DTAs were made to replace analog channels with a TV's built-in analog tuner. 4:3 analog replacing 4:3 analog. The only big loss was HD locals on those TVs, but that was never really officially supported in the first place, and who cares if you're using it on a tertiary TV anyways?



> Comcast promised to have the mitigation devices (I don't mean the SD DTA's here) ready before starting encryption but a) didn't actually give them out b) stopped promising to give them out when the FCC relaxed the rules after the encryption already started c) what they were offering did not actually interoperate because it added a new to the scene, DTCP-IP requirement.


HUH? They had DTAs that replaced 4:3 analog with 4:3 analog.



> Those may sound like uncommon devices but this is exactly what the integration ban was for, to encourage a market for CE consumer electronics. And the cable company did and got exactly what they wanted, customers who wanted HD on secondary TV's better start paying for a box.


This argument makes no sense. The integration ban was based on CableCard. CableCard today is basically only supported by Windows MCE and TiVo, and both devices benefitted significantly by eliminating the analog channels, by getting double or triple the number of HD channels that they previously got.

If they wanted HD on a secondary set, they could use OTA and get the same channels that they could through Clear QAM. Clear QAM was locals only. In order to get cable channels in HD, they needed a box from day 1 and still needed a box after the transition...



slowbiscuit said:


> U-Verse HD caps out around 6Mbps and they're using h.264. Most people think they have inferior PQ compared to the other h.264 implementations.


It's gotten better, but it's still not great. Definitely not as good as DirecTV's H.264...



sbiller said:


> A set-top waiver being sought by a relatively small cable operator is
> raising a sizable stink at the Federal Communications Commission. While
> TiVo claims to be supportive of a waiver request from Buckeye CableSystem
> so long as its paired with multiple conditions, the MSOs pursuit is also
> ...


It's interesting that they want SDV gone. If the cable provider wanted to, they could implement SDV for TiVo in software, like Comcast did for VOD.

Also, they want to go 85% IPTV AND support CableCard? HUH?


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

TiVo knows that SDV is another area of friction that hurts retail adoption and another reason that Comcast is one of the most "TiVo-Friendly" companies with no SDV, no lockdown of channels via copy flags, and support for premium and standard VOD.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

Bigg said:


> The problem is, if you have one multicast stream, if the wireless gets too slow, the stream just bombs out. If you're doing unicast, you're now bandwidth adaptive, which is how pretty much every stream out there today works...
> 
> TiVo Premiere and newer supports MPEG-4. Windows MCE supports MPEG-4. DCX-3400 and newer supports MPEG-4. The X1 supports MPEG-4. There are some old tanks left out there that don't support MPEG-4, but they are way beyond when they should have been EOL'ed anyways. The equipment switchover isn't that significant.
> 
> ...


Multiple cable companies as well as the NCTA have been quoted regarding their eventual switch to IP distribution of their video. QAM modulated packets of MPEG-2/4 will be around for a while longer, maybe up to 10 years, but not much longer than that. By that time, whatever is left of traditional linear video channels will be IP distributed.


----------



## truman861 (Jul 14, 2012)

ftg said:


> Regarding cable companies and CableCards.
> 
> I recently came across a Comcast cable box for sale in a thrift store. (I know. Not supposed to see that.)
> 
> ...


I have also seen quite a few Brighthouse boxes with cable cards in them, even took the security metal piece off and removed the card, standard M card just like the tivo, nothing special. Makes me sick that their own equipment works just fine but you cripple us Tivo customers. Wish I had the ability to but directly from the networks for the individual channels I want verses buying a package full of crap I dont want.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

truman861 said:


> I have also seen quite a few Brighthouse boxes with cable cards in them, even took the security metal piece off and removed the card, standard M card just like the tivo, nothing special. Makes me sick that their own equipment works just fine but you cripple us Tivo customers. Wish I had the ability to but directly from the networks for the individual channels I want verses buying a package full of crap I dont want.


Actually, cable boxes from the cable company have cablecards because they're required to by law. Part of the laws and regulations requiring cable companies to offer cablecards for TiVo is a requirement that cable companies must also use the same technology. The thought was that this would put cable company equipment on a level playing field with retail equipment like TiVos.

Unfortunately, cable companies simply pre-activate and pre-pair the cards to the boxes before you get them, more or less defeating the entire purpose.


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

JosephB said:


> Actually, cable boxes from the cable company have cablecards because they're required to by law. Part of the laws and regulations requiring cable companies to offer cablecards for TiVo is a requirement that cable companies must also use the same technology. The thought was that this would put cable company equipment on a level playing field with retail equipment like TiVos.
> 
> Unfortunately, cable companies simply pre-activate and pre-pair the cards to the boxes before you get them, more or less defeating the entire purpose.


While I agree that the common reliance principle may not be perfect, it could be and was much worse before the integration ban was mandated by the FCC.

As TiVo puts it,



> Until common reliance became the rule and cable operators began relying on CableCARDs themselves, the technology defied Moore's Law - it remained generationally frozen and needlessly expensive, while similar technologies became cheaper, faster, and more reliable. Only common reliance has brought the cost down and brought a moderate level of support for retail devices. An end to common reliance would freeze this progress on cableCARDs, allow cable operators to exclude CableCARDs from future product plans, and eliminate any incentive for the industry to help develop a successor solution for retail devices.


And,



> The first CableCARD-reliant products - televisions with CableCARD slots - came to market in 2003 - 2004 but in the absence of common reliance received poor or nonexistent support from cable operators as documented in FCC and court decisions. That lack of support finally led the FCC to implement common reliance on the same security technology (also known as the "integration ban") as of July 1, 2007. By this time, CableCARD televisions were disappearing from the market due to lack of cable operator support. But the emergence of High Definition Television and the impending digital transition encouraged TiVo and others to begin selling HD CableCARD DVRs.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

Wow!

I don't know how anybody even follows this thread.

I see so much "reading between the lines", "spirit of the law versus the letter of the law", and "This will be the future, because I say so", along with so much bickering, I'm to the point of just skimming past most of it...

I think this speaks volumes for the FCC wording things in ways that even MSOs don't know what it means.

For example: Right after the integration ban, Cox ONLY deploying non-integrated STBs, plus replacing integrated ones, now switching to only re-issuing refurbished integrated ones, and scrapping the non-integrated ones, cablecards and all.

I think Cox thought they had to do the former, then their legal department realized they didn't have to. So, now they do the latter.

In my post about this, I referenced how if I wanted HDMI, I could only get it on the STBs with cablecards. I wasn't saying that cablecard had any link to HDMI, only that Cox didn't have HDMI-out on their HD STBs until the cablecard models were rolling. Now, they seem to want to wash their hands of cablecard STBs, to the point of taking away HDMI-supporting STBs...

There's another thread that is titled with a TiVo subject I'm interested in, and it has been hijacked by gun-control arguments. Maybe I should embrace guns for all, and lots of them, so some people can start slinging lead at each other... Problem solved (as long as some of us duck and cover in time)...

IPTV is a possibility, in the future. So were a whole boatload of standards that have already died-out, some never even deployed.

How far in the future will people argue over what is going to be what, while pushing-out the conversation that has to do with keeping our TiVos working for long enough to get our money's-worth out of?

TiVo has only been around for just over 10 years, cablecard for less than that.

If everybody in the firefight to be right about everything, used the same effort to do something to support TiVo in their fight to not become obsolete faster, I'd feel a lot more secure about things.

It just seems like some have lost-sight of the things going on right now, that undermine the future, for TiVo. Some of us just recently bought one.

I like the idea of some universal gateway, so long as we can hitch our TiVos to said gateway.

Last I checked, the latest argument is about how multicast will degrade legacy wireless networks... No freaking comment...


----------



## jwbelcher (Nov 13, 2007)

sbiller said:


> A set-top waiver being sought by a relatively small cable operator is
> raising a sizable stink at the Federal Communications Commission. While
> TiVo claims to be supportive of a waiver request from Buckeye CableSystem
> so long as its paired with multiple conditions, the MSOs pursuit is also
> ...


From http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521097250

_Buckeye distributes programming under limited licenses from programmers, many of which place heavy restrictions on the types of devices to which Buckeye can deliver programming. *Buckeyes support for third-party devices will be limited by these constraints.* 
_​
For me that says it all.

_TiVo seems to argue that the waiver should be denied unless the functionality is limited to that of an exempt DTA. Here, TiVos position would deprive customers of the benefits of an IP video output. ...... As third-party devices and services become available to offer Buckeye customers more options on how they view programming from the IP portion of the Hybrid Box, those customers should be able to access those options. _​
B.s they're talking from both sides their mouths. The before mentioned programming agreements appear to be more damaging to Buckeye providing third-party access than TiVo's conditions. Its clear without the FCC rules content will only live within the operators ecosystem.


----------



## jwbelcher (Nov 13, 2007)

nooneuknow said:


> If everybody in the firefight to be right about everything, used the same effort to do something to support TiVo in their fight to not become obsolete faster, I'd feel a lot more secure about things.
> 
> It just seems like some have lost-sight of the things going on right now, that undermine the future, for TiVo. Some of us just recently bought one.
> 
> ...


Amen, I (we) should be posting some FCC comments tonight instead of to this thread. Good point noone.


----------



## jwbelcher (Nov 13, 2007)

And mine is submitted.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

JosephB said:


> Multiple cable companies as well as the NCTA have been quoted regarding their eventual switch to IP distribution of their video. QAM modulated packets of MPEG-2/4 will be around for a while longer, maybe up to 10 years, but not much longer than that. By that time, whatever is left of traditional linear video channels will be IP distributed.


It's wishful thinking at this point. Considering they can't even manage the basic upgrades like all-860mhz plants and MPEG-4 HD, I don't forsee IP for a long, long time. Linear TV also isn't going anywhere.



nooneuknow said:


> For example: Right after the integration ban, Cox ONLY deploying non-integrated STBs, plus replacing integrated ones, now switching to only re-issuing refurbished integrated ones, and scrapping the non-integrated ones, cablecards and all.
> 
> I think Cox thought they had to do the former, then their legal department realized they didn't have to. So, now they do the latter.


Wow, you're pretty far down the conspiracy theory crazy slope. They deploy whatever they have laying around. They may have gotten a big shipment right after the ban, and have since gotten plenty of boxes back, so they just keep re-issuing whatever they have. They may also take newer boxes to certain markets or give them to triple play customers, etc. They're not on some vendetta against CableCard, they are just using whatever old crappy pieces of junk they have sitting around.



> In my post about this, I referenced how if I wanted HDMI, I could only get it on the STBs with cablecards. I wasn't saying that cablecard had any link to HDMI, only that Cox didn't have HDMI-out on their HD STBs until the cablecard models were rolling. Now, they seem to want to wash their hands of cablecard STBs, to the point of taking away HDMI-supporting STBs...


It's whatever they have in your area.



> There's another thread that is titled with a TiVo subject I'm interested in, and it has been hijacked by gun-control arguments. Maybe I should embrace guns for all, and lots of them, so some people can start slinging lead at each other... Problem solved (as long as some of us duck and cover in time)...


Probably the reason it went off-topic and hasn't returned is because the premise of the thread made no sense. TiVo and Chromecast have nothing to do with each other.



> IPTV is a possibility, in the future. So were a whole boatload of standards that have already died-out, some never even deployed.
> 
> How far in the future will people argue over what is going to be what, while pushing-out the conversation that has to do with keeping our TiVos working for long enough to get our money's-worth out of?
> 
> ...


IPTV is already in use. Just not for linear channels on an HFC system. A universal gateway is a good idea for all providers. But CableCard is going to be around for years and probably decades to come.



> Last I checked, the latest argument is about how multicast will degrade legacy wireless networks... No freaking comment...


What? Degrade? Huh?


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

Bigg said:


> <...>


No freaking comment... ...again...


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

Bigg said:


> It's wishful thinking at this point. Considering they can't even manage the basic upgrades like all-860mhz plants and MPEG-4 HD, I don't forsee IP for a long, long time. Linear TV also isn't going anywhere.
> 
> IPTV is already in use. Just not for linear channels on an HFC system. A universal gateway is a good idea for all providers. But CableCard is going to be around for years and probably decades to come.


If you think CableCard will be around for decade*s*, with an emphasis on more than one decade, you are simply delusional. Multiple, large cable companies have said that they are going to IP. Not that they want to or wish they could or it would be nice, they are doing it. Even TiVo agrees CableCard needs to die. The problem is what do you replace it with that doesn't completely screw customers with retail devices.

I know it's easy to think that cable companies are incompetent and just morons who fell into their jobs and you know more than they do, but things like upgrades to 860mhz (which why you picked that arbitrary number and keep harping on it I have no idea) or MPEG-4 cost money. It's not like the folks who run these things are morons. They often, very often, make decisions that are hostile to their customers but it's not because they don't know what they *should* be doing.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

nooneuknow said:


> No freaking comment... ...again...


What?



JosephB said:


> If you think CableCard will be around for decade*s*, with an emphasis on more than one decade, you are simply delusional. Multiple, large cable companies have said that they are going to IP. Not that they want to or wish they could or it would be nice, they are doing it. Even TiVo agrees CableCard needs to die. The problem is what do you replace it with that doesn't completely screw customers with retail devices.


Maybe a cable company somewhere will go IPTV in the next 30 years, but Comcast/TWC isn't. They are going to be running Sci Atlanta and Moto systems for decades. The install base is too big to do anything beyond 860mhz/MPEG-4 and _maybe_ SDV. They have a lot of upgrades yet to do before they even think about IPTV. They need to standardize their whole system on 860mhz, switch HD to MPEG-4, and regionalize/centralize their modulation/distribution a la Verizon with SHEs and VHOs, which are currently a disorganized system of miniature feudal domains that someone shoestringed and bubble-gummed into a national "network". If Comcast wasn't gobbling up TWC, I would add a full Moto conversion to the list, since Comcast is almost all Moto, but TWC is Sci Atlanta, so Comcast's oddball Sci Atlanta systems will fit in nicely with TWC's Sci Atlanta infrastructure.



> I know it's easy to think that cable companies are incompetent and just morons who fell into their jobs and you know more than they do, but things like upgrades to 860mhz (which why you picked that arbitrary number and keep harping on it I have no idea) or MPEG-4 cost money. It's not like the folks who run these things are morons. They often, very often, make decisions that are hostile to their customers but it's not because they don't know what they *should* be doing.


MPEG-4 is relatively cheap. Most boxes already support it, and the few that don't are already way beyond EOL anyways. 860mhz is big bucks, but it needs to be done. They announced that all systems were getting upgraded, and then halfway through the upgrades, they just gave up. They [Comcast] are a disorganized mess. They are homogenizing their offerings from market to market through sheer brute force, by making the same virtual channel numbers that line up (except for some markets not having enough room for all the channels), instead of actually generating the signal for an entire region at one location like Verizon does. Admittedly, Verizon built their entire QAM plant from scratch in the 2000's, and didn't inherit a bunch of hodge-podge systems from predecessors, but still, Comcast should get their **** together and rebuild what needs to be rebuilt. And instead of actually finishing the upgrades, they have made their website impossible to navigate, so it's really hard to see what channels you or another system actually gets.

860mhz an arbitrary number? Do you have any clue where it came from? It's a 135-channel system. Most analog TV tuners only went to 125 channels, or 800mhz, but with digital systems, most tuned to 860mhz, and later 1ghz. D2 modems can handle up to 860mhz, and a ton of gear was made that specifically handles 860mhz. It's the common upper limit of digital cable systems nationwide, and what Comcast set out to rebuild their entire system to. A number of systems did get rebuilt to 860mhz, then they got lazy and stopped rebuilding. 1ghz is tough to implement, although all D3 modems and every MPEG-4 capable cable box I've ever seen, including TiVo Premiere and Roamio, can handle signals up to 1ghz. Few systems nationwide use 1ghz. Even FIOS's QAM side is spec'ed to either 860mhz or 870mhz.

The bottom line is that Comcast is a lazy incumbent that doesn't follow through, doesn't care, and is willing to just coast along and lose customers because they know that at the end of the day, they are still basically a monopoly, and they can use anti-competitive de-bundling surcharges where they are an ironclad HSI monopoly to make money one way or another. They've gotten a lot better since the 2008-2011 period, when all the systems around here were stuck with an HD channel selection that looked like DirecTV's in 2005, but they've still got quite a way to go. I find it ironic that my local system, one of the systems that Comcast chose not to rebuild, is overbuilt by a local provider that used to be city-owned. When the local overbuilder wakes up from being asleep at the wheel for 10 years and nukes analog, all of the sudden, they will actually have the full capacity of their 860mhz system and can blow Comcast right out of the water. It also makes it basically impossible for Comcast to use anti-competitive de-bundling surcharges to keep market share, as the overbuilder will sell unbundled internet at a far more reasonable price, making DirecTV a more attractive option as well.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Comcast is pathetic. I would switch to DirecTV in a heartbeat if they had a legitimate TiVo option.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

Bigg said:


> What?
> Maybe a cable company somewhere will go IPTV in the next 30 years, but Comcast/TWC isn't. They are going to be running Sci Atlanta and Moto systems for decades. The install base is too big to do anything beyond 860mhz/MPEG-4 and _maybe_ SDV. They have a lot of upgrades yet to do before they even think about IPTV. They need to standardize their whole system on 860mhz, switch HD to MPEG-4, and regionalize/centralize their modulation/distribution a la Verizon with SHEs and VHOs, which are currently a disorganized system of miniature feudal domains that someone shoestringed and bubble-gummed into a national "network". If Comcast wasn't gobbling up TWC, I would add a full Moto conversion to the list, since Comcast is almost all Moto, but TWC is Sci Atlanta, so Comcast's oddball Sci Atlanta systems will fit in nicely with TWC's Sci Atlanta infrastructure.


If they have so much work to do and so many upgrades to make and so much infrastructure to rip out and replace, why on EARTH would they ever replace it with the same stuff they just got rid of? Do you not think it would be economical to do the switch to IP now (and by now, I mean, over the next 10 years or so) instead of doing all the crap you just said and then immediately be behind everyone else in the industry and need to rip it out again?

They're in the situation they are now because of 30-50 years of piecemealing systems together and a hodgepodge mess. If they need to go national, with a new platform, why wouldn't they do it with the newest technology, that they have said they are going to do?

Either you're a retired cable exec who is 80 years old or you just have no grasp on the state of technology today.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> MPEG-4 is relatively cheap. Most boxes already support it, and the few that don't are already way beyond EOL anyways.


Don't forget that they also need the encoders. MSOs don't just pass along the signal as-is from the satellite. They have encoders that convert them, both audio and video, to a consumer friendly format. These encoders cost thousands of dollars each. There is also a bunch of other head end equipment for doing overlays, local ad insertion, etc... that would likely also need to be upgraded. It's much more expensive to make the switch then you might think.

SDV by contrast is basically free. It uses the same technology as VOD, so very little equipment needs to be replaced to get it working.


----------



## truman861 (Jul 14, 2012)

JosephB said:


> If they have so much work to do and so many upgrades to make and so much infrastructure to rip out and replace, why on EARTH would they ever replace it with the same stuff they just got rid of? Do you not think it would be economical to do the switch to IP now (and by now, I mean, over the next 10 years or so) instead of doing all the crap you just said and then immediately be behind everyone else in the industry and need to rip it out again?
> 
> They're in the situation they are now because of 30-50 years of piecemealing systems together and a hodgepodge mess. If they need to go national, with a new platform, why wouldn't they do it with the newest technology, that they have said they are going to do?
> 
> Either you're a retired cable exec who is 80 years old or you just have no grasp on the state of technology today.


This is basically what the verizon fios installer explained to me as to why they are no longer expanding the fios market. Basically the ceo doesnt want to dump more money into fios when they will be launching DLNA IP boxes. Makes perfect sense honestly spend the money upgrading customers who dont have fios once to DLNA not twice - fios and then DLNA


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

truman861 said:


> This is basically what the verizon fios installer explained to me as to why they are no longer expanding the fios market. Basically the ceo doesnt want to dump more money into fios when they will be launching DLNA IP boxes. Makes perfect sense honestly spend the money upgrading customers who dont have fios once to DLNA not twice - fios and then DLNA


Well, that doesn't make sense because only half of FiOS is video. The other half is high speed fiber internet, which is exactly what you need for a Video over IP service.

Verizon has stopped rolling out FiOS because they've gotten cheap and burying fiber costs money.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

JosephB said:


> If they have so much work to do and so many upgrades to make and so much infrastructure to rip out and replace, why on EARTH would they ever replace it with the same stuff they just got rid of? Do you not think it would be economical to do the switch to IP now (and by now, I mean, over the next 10 years or so) instead of doing all the crap you just said and then immediately be behind everyone else in the industry and need to rip it out again?


Once you rebuild a system to 860mhz, you can run whatever over it. Once you centralize the distribution, future switches in technology, whether it's HEVC or IPTV or anything else related to distributing TV becomes a lot easier. Switching Comcast's whole system to IPTV would be a completely nightmare. You'd need almost entirely new STBs for almost all the customers, including all those DTAs they just pushed out. Going MPEG-2 for SDs, MPEG-4 for HDs, and adding D3 channels just makes sense, as the equipment impact for most customers is absolutely nothing. For the few people that still have DCHs and DCTs, they need to be swapped out, but that's orders of magnitude smaller than swapping everyone's equipment out for something that has QAM and IP capabilities. And they still would have to have QAM tuners and CableCards to work during the transition, since there's no way that there's enough bandwidth to run two different systems over one physical cable plant at once.

You seem to have this fantasy that their plan is to switch to IPTV. Guess what? That's not their plan. Their plan is to do NOTHING for the foreseeable future. They think that what they have now is "good enough" and they can continue to coast along, and unfortunately, most of their idiot customers have poorly configured, cheap TVs and don't notice the heavy MPEG-2 macroblocking, or realize how many channels they are missing.



> They're in the situation they are now because of 30-50 years of piecemealing systems together and a hodgepodge mess. If they need to go national, with a new platform, why wouldn't they do it with the newest technology, that they have said they are going to do?
> 
> Either you're a retired cable exec who is 80 years old or you just have no grasp on the state of technology today.


If they were to rebuild today, they'd pretty much build an MPEG-4 version of what Verizon has. QAM is here to stay. No one has yet articulated any benefit to IPTV over QAM for an HFC system, and yet IPTV has massive switching costs that in some markets quite literally amounts to replacing everything except the physical wire in people's houses. Now we'll see if Verizon can make the switch to MPEG-4, they started to, and then they sort of gave up.



Dan203 said:


> Don't forget that they also need the encoders. MSOs don't just pass along the signal as-is from the satellite. They have encoders that convert them, both audio and video, to a consumer friendly format. These encoders cost thousands of dollars each. There is also a bunch of other head end equipment for doing overlays, local ad insertion, etc... that would likely also need to be upgraded. It's much more expensive to make the switch then you might think.
> 
> SDV by contrast is basically free. It uses the same technology as VOD, so very little equipment needs to be replaced to get it working.


They compress nationally, so it's relatively easy to do from Comcast's side of things. Maybe if they centralized their equipment, they would have an easier time with some of the ancillary stuff like ad insertion.

In terms of the end user equipment, they could send out a letter, which no one will read, telling people that they need to swap their boxes out, and then to make the transition smooth, go a few QAMs at a time, starting with the least watched channels so that people slowly notice old boxes not getting certain HD channels and get most people who still have the old boxes upgraded over a period of time before doing the major channels. And every time they swap out a QAM, they would have 5 channels of capacity gained for 3 channels lost, netting 2 new channels per QAM.



JosephB said:


> Verizon has stopped rolling out FiOS because they've gotten cheap and burying fiber costs money.


Exactly. To expand on that further, they are not expanding FIOS because they and their idiotic investors have the attention span of a 2-year-old who is saying "I WANT IT NOW" and they have lost the ability to see an ROI that might be 20 or 30 years long, even though fiber puts them in the dominant position to compete. It's incredible that they have a service that people will check for before moving somewhere, and yet they are refusing to expand it to new markets.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

Bigg said:


> No one has yet articulated any benefit to IPTV over QAM for an HFC system


Are you arguing there's no advantage to IPTV? IPTV is the end-game. I can agree there's a lot of argument around how, when, what intermediate tech should be adopted to get there, etc. but not adopting IPTV ever, I don't think is defensible.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

Actually, I've articulated the benefit over and over, but I think Bigg thinks it's still 1996. 

The bottom line is there are obvious benefits, and the cable companies have said publicly that is the direction they're going. As for us TiVo fans it's important to know how open these systems will be and how they are standardized.


----------



## jwbelcher (Nov 13, 2007)

telemark said:


> Are you arguing there's no advantage to IPTV? IPTV is the end-game. I can agree there's a lot of argument around how, when, what intermediate tech should be adopted to get there, etc. but not adopting IPTV ever, I don't think is defensible.


I've read they're able to actually cram more in with channel bonding. Instead of putting 10 digital SD channels or 2 digital HD on a single frequency, they're able to bond across multiple channels and amortize (span) streams across the bonded group. Apparently they're able get greater efficiency that way and can pack more data into the larger virtual pipe.

This is a pretty good presentation (pg 19) that does a better job explaining it.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

JosephB said:


> ...Verizon has stopped rolling out FiOS because they've gotten cheap and burying fiber costs money.


They never buried it around here, they strung it between poles (as they did everyplace else I have seen it). Verizon has stopped expanding FiOS because Verizon has decided that Verizon Wirelesss is the future (particularly since they bought out Deutsche Telecom). They may roll out IP based video distribution, but it will be over 4g-LTE (or something even faster) not over fiber.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

JosephB said:


> As for us TiVo fans it's important to know how open these systems will be and *how they are standardized.*


This is key. The regulation requires that they use an "open" technology, but if they don't standardize on a single technology then TiVo would be required to support multiple technologies in a single box to maintain national portability.

That's the point of the AllVid/gateway system. It pushes all the MSO specific technology into a single gateway device and then uses a single standard for other devices to be able to talk to the gateway.

At this point it appears that cable companies are leaning toward DLNA CVP-2, which would be great for users unless they figure out a way to force the RUI on all devices, then we're going to have a problem.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

telemark said:


> Are you arguing there's no advantage to IPTV? IPTV is the end-game. I can agree there's a lot of argument around how, when, what intermediate tech should be adopted to get there, etc. but not adopting IPTV ever, I don't think is defensible.


So if I'm Comcast, what's my upside to IP? I'm looking at QAM, and QAM works, and it would be billion of dollars more to upgrade to IP than even to build out QAM more with MPEG-4 and 860mhz everywhere, and SDV and all that...



jwbelcher said:


> I've read they're able to actually cram more in with channel bonding. Instead of putting 10 digital SD channels or 2 digital HD on a single frequency, they're able to bond across multiple channels and amortize (span) streams across the bonded group. Apparently they're able get greater efficiency that way and can pack more data into the larger virtual pipe.
> 
> This is a pretty good presentation (pg 19) that does a better job explaining it.


It would help you with SDV, as you'd no longer be limited to a CBR situation per channel, but if you want to run straight linear on QAM, IPTV offers you no advantage. They could easily provide better PQ than today with 5 channels per QAM in MPEG-4.



Diana Collins said:


> They never buried it around here, they strung it between poles (as they did everyplace else I have seen it). Verizon has stopped expanding FiOS because Verizon has decided that Verizon Wirelesss is the future (particularly since they bought out Deutsche Telecom). They may roll out IP based video distribution, but it will be over 4g-LTE (or something even faster) not over fiber.


Verizon is the one wildcard, as they could already switch some or all content to IPTV with limited disruption to their equipment. The CEO, like many of their childish investors, has the attention span of a gnat, and can't look forward to a 20- or 30-year ROI for fiber, and thus is putting all the eggs in wireless. However, wireless cannot provide TV services, so it's not really relevant to say that it is instead of FIOS technologically. It's two different things. Even home internet access would be nearly impossible to scale over LTE.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Bigg said:


> ...Verizon is the one wildcard, as they could already switch some or all content to IPTV with limited disruption to their equipment. The CEO, like many of their childish investors, has the attention span of a gnat, and can't look forward to a 20- or 30-year ROI for fiber, and thus is putting all the eggs in wireless. However, wireless cannot provide TV services, so it's not really relevant to say that it is instead of FIOS technologically. It's two different things. Even home internet access would be nearly impossible to scale over LTE.


Tell that to Dish Network, who has been running around buying wireless licenses and partnering with a company that can deliver hundred megabit speeds over wireless and negotiating distribution agreements that include wireless IP based delivery rights. Verizon sees FiOS as not much different from traditional wireline technology. They want to be a wireless company.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Diana Collins said:


> They never buried it around here, they strung it between poles (as they did everyplace else I have seen it). Verizon has stopped expanding FiOS because Verizon has decided that Verizon Wirelesss is the future (particularly since they bought out Deutsche Telecom).


Yep, the future where everyone pays out the ass for broadband usage over wireless.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Diana Collins said:


> Tell that to Dish Network, who has been running around buying wireless licenses and partnering with a company that can deliver hundred megabit speeds over wireless and negotiating distribution agreements that include wireless IP based delivery rights. Verizon sees FiOS as not much different from traditional wireline technology. They want to be a wireless company.


That's for low-density rural internet delivery. It won't scale in urban areas, and it certainly won't deliver video.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Bigg said:


> That's for low-density rural internet delivery. It won't scale in urban areas, and it certainly won't deliver video.


Why not? LTE can deliver multi-megabit speeds and we are far from maxing out the potential. WiMAX can deliver gigabit speeds.

The future of video entertainment is a much more varied place than what we have today. Viewing is not restricted to big screens but includes portable devices - not just as accessories or add on devices but has primary deliver platforms. There will be fewer and fewer linear broadcasts as well, as more and more content moves to on-demand. If there is one thing the last 10 years have taught us it is that the size of the data pipe is a very temporary obstacle.


----------



## jwbelcher (Nov 13, 2007)

Diana Collins said:


> Why not? LTE can deliver multi-megabit speeds and we are far from maxing out the potential. WiMAX can deliver gigabit speeds.
> 
> The future of video entertainment is a much more varied place than what we have today. Viewing is not restricted to big screens but includes portable devices - not just as accessories or add on devices but has primary deliver platforms. There will be fewer and fewer linear broadcasts as well, as more and more content moves to on-demand. If there is one thing the last 10 years have taught us it is that the size of the data pipe is a very temporary obstacle.


No your right, its called LTE Multicast. Its specifically designed to scale for high density areas. Instead of sending multiple copies, it shares one copy of the data over LTE.

http://www.verizonwireless.com/news/article/2014/01/lte-multicast-verizon-power-house.html

Btw, this is not for on-demand, this would be more akin to linear broadcast, like FiOS, but over LTE.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

As long as mobile wireless has draconian usage caps, it will NEVER be a substitute for wireline broadband or current MVPDs.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Exactly, and is a point that should always be remembered when folks throw out the 'wireless will solve the HSI competition issue' line (not singling out anyone here). And of course there's the latency issue that makes life crappy for gamers and VOIP users.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Well, I suspect that once Verizon is offering subscription video services via wireless, those transmissions will not apply to your mobile data cap. Nor will wireless replace wired internet for some applications, at least in the near to mid term. But ultimately things like latency will be addressed (granted, it will require something new to replace the current GSM & CDMA technologies).


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Diana Collins said:


> Why not? LTE can deliver multi-megabit speeds and we are far from maxing out the potential. WiMAX can deliver gigabit speeds.
> 
> The future of video entertainment is a much more varied place than what we have today. Viewing is not restricted to big screens but includes portable devices - not just as accessories or add on devices but has primary deliver platforms. There will be fewer and fewer linear broadcasts as well, as more and more content moves to on-demand. If there is one thing the last 10 years have taught us it is that the size of the data pipe is a very temporary obstacle.


That doesn't make any sense. You could make deliver a couple of video streams before you're maxed out. The spectrum just isn't there for that type of use. WiMAX is not delivering gigabit anything. LTE-A probably will in the 2.5 band with enough channels aggregated through CA, but even then, it won't be able to handle high levels of demand.

Linear isn't going anywhere. On Demand is growing and will continue to grow, but it's not going to completely replace linear. Also, those devices are supplementary. They can't replace having a 70" TV or a 100" screen with 7.1 channel surround and the like.



jwbelcher said:


> No your right, its called LTE Multicast. Its specifically designed to scale for high density areas. Instead of sending multiple copies, it shares one copy of the data over LTE.


That's great for a pair or quartet of video streams at a football game. That doesn't help you to deliver TV to a home.



Diana Collins said:


> Well, I suspect that once Verizon is offering subscription video services via wireless, those transmissions will not apply to your mobile data cap. Nor will wireless replace wired internet for some applications, at least in the near to mid term. But ultimately things like latency will be addressed (granted, it will require something new to replace the current GSM & CDMA technologies).


The issue is bandwidth. You need wired. I could see LTE providing rural internet access where there's relatively few users, but in any sort of suburban or urban area, forget about it. Wireless networks have been struggling just with smartphone demand for a number of years, and that's with half the data already offloaded to wifi.

If Verizon does a video service over LTE, it will be a mobile-oriented service, and not something that in any way competes with cable TV. However, I still don't see the use case for mobile video more than short clips like through Vine or YouTube. It's just a poor user experience.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Bigg said:


> ... However, I still don't see the use case for mobile video more than short clips like through Vine or YouTube. It's just a poor user experience.


Let's make a date to come back here in 3 to 5 years and we'll see where mobile video is then.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

Diana Collins said:


> Let's make a date to come back here in 3 to 5 years and we'll see where mobile video is then.


I think it depends on how you define mobile video.

Do you count tablets or just phones?

Do you count computers? How do you differentiate between laptops and desktops?

And, most importantly, do you include watching at home or just when you're away from home?

A lot of people are probably watching a lot of video on tablets and phones, but probably at home. It's not a clear delineation, and the delivery of the video differs where you are when you watch it.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

JosephB said:


> I think it depends on how you define mobile video.
> 
> Do you count tablets or just phones?
> 
> ...


I define "mobile video" not by the type of device being used but rather the network being used. If you are receiving the video content over a "mobile network" (i.e. cellular network, though I suppose satellite might also qualify) then that is "mobile video". If you are receiving the content over a fixed-line network (even if the last few feet is over wifi) then that is not "mobile video".


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

tarheelblue32 said:


> I define "mobile video" not by the type of device being used but rather the network being used. If you are receiving the video content over a "mobile network" (i.e. cellular network, though I suppose satellite might also qualify) then that is "mobile video". If you are receiving the content over a fixed-line network (even if the last few feet is over wifi) then that is not "mobile video".


If I watch a video on the wifi at the airport on my phone while waiting for my plane, that's not mobile video?

There's a sliding scale, and eventually there won't be any difference. When the cable companies go all-IP, it will all come from the same place and be delivered by the same devices and applications (which, unfortunately, I doubt will include TiVo in its current form)


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Personally, I would classify anything that doesn't pass through another, user owned, gateway device before going wireless as "mobile" for the purposes of this discussion. Or, put another way, if the wireless signal is coming from a 3rd party provider (whether that's LTE, public WiFi or something else) that qualifies as mobile in my book.

When you start to combine the speed increases in wireless technologies, the improved robustness of MIMO and deployment in a cell-based topology, it is quite easy to envision delivering 50 to 60 distinct video channels per cell. That is pretty close to what you'd need for TV service, since each cell would only need to carry the content currently being viewed within that cell.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

Diana Collins said:


> Personally, I would classify anything that doesn't pass through another, user owned, gateway device before going wireless as "mobile" for the purposes of this discussion. Or, put another way, if the wireless signal is coming from a 3rd party provider (whether that's LTE, public WiFi or something else) that qualifies as mobile in my book.
> 
> When you start to combine the speed increases in wireless technologies, the improved robustness of MIMO and deployment in a cell-based topology, it is quite easy to envision delivering 50 to 60 distinct video channels per cell. That is pretty close to what you'd need for TV service, since each cell would only need to carry the content currently being viewed within that cell.


I largely agree with your definition, which would effectively mean if you're viewing video on a mobile device at home, that's not really "mobile" (I would extend this to say even if you're at home but using your cell data connection, that's not truly mobile).

The line will continue to blur, though, as cable companies roll out wifi hotspots along their wireline network and as cell providers work on LTE Multicast. With an app on your phone or your Xbox or TV, there will be no difference.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Diana Collins said:


> Let's make a date to come back here in 3 to 5 years and we'll see where mobile video is then.


I have a 60" TV now, I'm hoping to have a 120" or larger 4K projection screen with a more powerful 7.1 channel surround sound system by then. Even if I have a Galaxy S 10, it's still going to look like crap compared to the 120" 4K screen...



Diana Collins said:


> When you start to combine the speed increases in wireless technologies, the improved robustness of MIMO and deployment in a cell-based topology, it is quite easy to envision delivering 50 to 60 distinct video channels per cell. That is pretty close to what you'd need for TV service, since each cell would only need to carry the content currently being viewed within that cell.


A tower would need to support thousands to replace cable tv with some sort of wireless TV, and that's not going to be possible in the forseeable future.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

Bigg said:


> A tower would need to support thousands to replace cable tv with some sort of wireless TV, and that's not going to be possible in the forseeable future.


Not with multicast. Using multicast, each video program would only have to be sent once from any given tower, and for lack of a better analogy, devices connected to that tower could "tune" that video program just like a TV. Plus, only programs being actively viewed would have to be sent, not every single channel.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Diana Collins said:


> Let's make a date to come back here in 3 to 5 years and we'll see where mobile video is then.


If data becomes unlimited on mobile across all the majors I'll buy it, but not until then. Given that text/talk has gone that way with competition it could happen. And by that I mean truly unlimited, not soft capped or throttled once you hit a given point.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

slowbiscuit said:


> If data becomes unlimited on mobile across all the majors I'll buy it, but not until then. Given that text/talk has gone that way with competition it could happen. And by that I mean truly unlimited, not soft capped or throttled once you hit a given point.


Talk/text went unlimited partly due to competition, but also due to falling demand. Talk minutes used and texts sent has actually been going down the past few years, so cell companies have all the capacity they will ever need for talk and text. Data demand, on the other hand, has been skyrocketing, and wireless network operators have been scrambling to keep up.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

slowbiscuit said:


> If data becomes unlimited on mobile across all the majors I'll buy it, but not until then. Given that text/talk has gone that way with competition it could happen. And by that I mean truly unlimited, not soft capped or throttled once you hit a given point.


That's the opposite of where data is going. As time goes on fewer and fewer people have unlimited data. FOrtunately for me I'm grandfathered into unlimited with Verizon Wireless. If I had to switch to their current plans, it would cost me over $850 more a year.
I just hope it doesn't end anytime soon. Because no matter what carrier I could go to, my bill would go up alot from what I'm currently paying with Verizon for unlimited data.


----------



## jwbelcher (Nov 13, 2007)

I will cancel out of principle if (probably when) they kill my grandfathered unlimited


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

JosephB said:


> Not with multicast. Using multicast, each video program would only have to be sent once from any given tower, and for lack of a better analogy, devices connected to that tower could "tune" that video program just like a TV. Plus, only programs being actively viewed would have to be sent, not every single channel.


There's not nearly enough spectrum for that. It just makes no logical sense outside of a couple of streams that are location-specific (i.e. football game type of thing).



aaronwt said:


> That's the opposite of where data is going. As time goes on fewer and fewer people have unlimited data. FOrtunately for me I'm grandfathered into unlimited with Verizon Wireless. If I had to switch to their current plans, it would cost me over $850 more a year.
> I just hope it doesn't end anytime soon. Because no matter what carrier I could go to, my bill would go up alot from what I'm currently paying with Verizon for unlimited data.


I hope they do kill Unlimited plans. It's not sustainable to have oinkers lining up at the trough consuming insane quantities of a finite resource.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

What's considered an insane quantity? This year I've been averaging close to 5 GB a month. So if I had to switch to the new plans I would need the 6GB plan which would more than double what I pay a month right now. But certainly would not call that an insane amount of data. Most of it comes from streaming music from Pandora and Amazon.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Bigg said:


> I have a 60" TV now, I'm hoping to have a 120" or larger 4K projection screen with a more powerful 7.1 channel surround sound system by then. Even if I have a Galaxy S 10, it's still going to look like crap compared to the 120" 4K screen...
> 
> A tower would need to support thousands to replace cable tv with some sort of wireless TV, and that's not going to be possible in the forseeable future.


You may choose to not use wireless, but that doesn't mean there won't be millions that do.

There are not thousands of distinct channels so, with multicast, you don't need to support thousands of sessions. New wireless frequencies, more sophisticated encoding systems, better compression algorithms and more are all converging to make wireless viable as a primary data link. It WILL happen, it is just a matter of when and which technologies emerge as the standards.


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

Diana Collins said:


> There are not thousands of distinct channels so, with multicast, you don't need to support thousands of sessions. New wireless frequencies, more sophisticated encoding systems, better compression algorithms and more are all converging to make wireless viable as a primary data link. It WILL happen, it is just a matter of when and which technologies emerge as the standards.


Should smaller neighborhood sized mini-cells, and thus higher frequency re-use rates, be included in that list? That gets you all the bandwidth you need without the wait. The build out is also substantially cheaper than fiber to the home is.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

CuriousMark said:


> Should smaller neighborhood sized mini-cells, and thus higher frequency re-use rates, be included in that list? That gets you all the bandwidth you need without the wait. The build out is also substantially cheaper than fiber to the home is.


Precisely.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

Bigg said:


> There's not nearly enough spectrum for that. It just makes no logical sense outside of a couple of streams that are location-specific (i.e. football game type of thing).


You really have no idea how much spectrum is out there or what would fit in it.

Again, with multicast, only ONE copy of any given stream is required to be in the air at any given time. It's basically SDV over IP. With LTE and h.264 or even AVC, there is enough room for dozens of streams per tower, which is more than enough to support the number of users who would likely be watching in a given cell.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

JosephB said:


> You really have no idea how much spectrum is out there or what would fit in it.
> 
> Again, with multicast, only ONE copy of any given stream is required to be in the air at any given time. It's basically SDV over IP. With LTE and h.264 or even AVC, there is enough room for dozens of streams per tower, which is more than enough to support the number of users who would likely be watching in a given cell.


Assuming everybody is watching it live. Otherwise, there is no sharing of the stream. I don't see people giving up the ability to get instant gratification from their streams; they'll want their own copy.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

CrispyCritter said:


> Assuming everybody is watching it live. Otherwise, there is no sharing of the stream. I don't see people giving up the ability to get instant gratification from their streams; they'll want their own copy.


Just an example of the things coming down the road: As of early March Dish Network controls wireless spectrum from 1.9 to 2.2 GHz. Some of this was originally earmarked for satellite telephone use, but Dish has already won approval from the FCC to use this spectrum to deploy a wireless broadband network for both home and mobile connectivity. They have spent over $5 billion to acquire wireless spectrum over the past 6 or 7 years.

Meanwhile, a company called Artemis is deploying a new broadcasting system called pCell, which will deliver the full bandwith of each cell to EVERY user (pCell stands for 'personal Cell'). Artemis is patnering with Dish Network to deploy pCell on their spectrum, but there is no technical reason pCell technology could not also be used on current cellular frequencies.

Bottom line, totally wireless broadband that can compete with current wired connections in terms of bandwidth and reliability is coming. Dish Network, Verizon, Comcast and AT&T are all trying to position themselves for that reality.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

An article on the deployment of the first pCell test in San Francisco: http://www.businessinsider.com/dish...ernet-1000-times-faster-than-4g-2014-4#!Ky6JU


----------



## jwbelcher (Nov 13, 2007)

CrispyCritter said:


> Assuming everybody is watching it live. Otherwise, there is no sharing of the stream. I don't see people giving up the ability to get instant gratification from their streams; they'll want their own copy.


Agreed, multicast is only a short-term solution that will be obsoleted by the overwhelming demand for instant gratification.

This is why I feel like linear satellite is also at a disadvantage. While I can't say they'll die-out, and definitely not anytime soon, but as things become more on-demand, they'll have issues that land-line and cellular networks don't worry about. Perhaps AT&T is looking to re-purpose DTV's spectrum in the long run...


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Diana Collins said:


> You may choose to not use wireless, but that doesn't mean there won't be millions that do.
> 
> There are not thousands of distinct channels so, with multicast, you don't need to support thousands of sessions. New wireless frequencies, more sophisticated encoding systems, better compression algorithms and more are all converging to make wireless viable as a primary data link. It WILL happen, it is just a matter of when and which technologies emerge as the standards.


It is not going to *even be possible* for the forseeable future to deliver video over wireless at any scale. Maybe Netflix and other supplemental streaming via WiSPs in very rural areas that have a low user density, but in suburbs or cities, *forget about it.*



JosephB said:


> You really have no idea how much spectrum is out there or what would fit in it.
> 
> Again, with multicast, only ONE copy of any given stream is required to be in the air at any given time. It's basically SDV over IP. With LTE and h.264 or even AVC, there is enough room for dozens of streams per tower, which is more than enough to support the number of users who would likely be watching in a given cell.


Sprint has by far the most spectrum of any of the wireless providers, and even if they load all of their spectrum full of LTE, you're looking at a few hundred mbps per sector. Cable carries 5.1gbps, and can re-use the VOD and DOCSIS bandwidth on a node basis.

I understand how multicast works. The only multicast system working at scale today is U-Verse, which is doing the multicast over fiber, with 4 or fewer HD streams going over copper to the individual user. U-Verse only has 20-100mbps per user, but that's dedicated to that user, and it's not shared until it's on a much faster fiber line.

Discounting the fact that the spectrum currently deployed with LTE is being used for mobile applications, and even looking at Sprint's massive amount of spectrum, you'd be lucky to get a couple of dozen multicast streams in reliably. So we're going to have a few dozen TV channels? Maybe for a mobile service for $5-$10/mo there could be a few channels. Definitely not for home use.



Diana Collins said:


> Just an example of the things coming down the road: As of early March Dish Network controls wireless spectrum from 1.9 to 2.2 GHz. Some of this was originally earmarked for satellite telephone use, but Dish has already won approval from the FCC to use this spectrum to deploy a wireless broadband network for both home and mobile connectivity. They have spent over $5 billion to acquire wireless spectrum over the past 6 or 7 years.
> 
> Meanwhile, a company called Artemis is deploying a new broadcasting system called pCell, which will deliver the full bandwith of each cell to EVERY user (pCell stands for 'personal Cell'). Artemis is patnering with Dish Network to deploy pCell on their spectrum, but there is no technical reason pCell technology could not also be used on current cellular frequencies.
> 
> Bottom line, totally wireless broadband that can compete with current wired connections in terms of bandwidth and reliability is coming. Dish Network, Verizon, Comcast and AT&T are all trying to position themselves for that reality.


That's for wireless internet, not TV. Look at Comcast's system. On an 8x4 DOCSIS 3 system, for downstream, they have 48mhz for data, and close to 800mhz for video. Sure, DISH *might* be able to compete for home internet, but they are not going to be delivering video over LTE. Plus, they are a satellite company, so they are going to deliver video over a regular DBS dish. That's kind of the point, they are getting squeezed by Comcast and other monopoly broadband providers, so if they can come in and have a halfway decent internet service, they can do triple play to compete with the AT&Ts, Verizons, and Comcasts.

I say *might* here, because it's at least a few years off for DISH to be able to use wireless to be able to compete with a DOCSIS 3 or GPON network for internet access. I think they are trying to price compete for lighter internet users more than truly match the capabilities that Verizon and Comcast have, as well as serve underserved markets where they can some in and grab a huge market share quickly, and become an internet provider to offer bundles and squeeze DirecTV. I see it being successful for people who have no good terrestrial options now, but I don't see it competing with Comcast or Verizon.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Bigg said:


> ...That's for wireless internet, not TV. Look at Comcast's system. On an 8x4 DOCSIS 3 system, for downstream, they have 48mhz for data, and close to 800mhz for video. Sure, DISH *might* be able to compete for home internet, but they are not going to be delivering video over LTE. Plus, they are a satellite company, so they are going to deliver video over a regular DBS dish. That's kind of the point, they are getting squeezed by Comcast and other monopoly broadband providers, so if they can come in and have a halfway decent internet service, they can do triple play to compete with the AT&Ts, Verizons, and Comcasts.
> 
> I say *might* here, because it's at least a few years off for DISH to be able to use wireless to be able to compete with a DOCSIS 3 or GPON network for internet access. I think they are trying to price compete for lighter internet users more than truly match the capabilities that Verizon and Comcast have, as well as serve underserved markets where they can some in and grab a huge market share quickly, and become an internet provider to offer bundles and squeeze DirecTV. I see it being successful for people who have no good terrestrial options now, but I don't see it competing with Comcast or Verizon.


Did you even bother to look at the Artemis website? Did you read about or watch the video of the demo they did at Columbia (where they delivered 5 different 1080p streams to 5 different devices in the same room over a single channel)? When you can deliver 40MHz of private radio spectrum to every device in a cell, which could EASILY translate into 100 Mbits per second of data throughput, I think you can push anything you want over the connection. While you could have a single pCell client per household, the technology would support *each and every device* to be a client, delivering 100 Mbits/second to each of them. This being deployed in San Francisco right now...so I guess your idea of "forseeable future" might need some revision. LTE is hardly the last word in wireless.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

Satellite actually has an advantage, at least when it comes to non-mobile use. It has extremely high bandwidth. Tens to hundreds of megabits of capacity across the spectrum of satellites and bands in use and about to come into use. They are not very useful for internet service due to latency and poor solutions for return path, but imagine being able to download an entire TV show in seconds. When the day comes that basically all TV is VOD, all DirecTV or Dish have to do is push down shows you've previously "subscribed" to down to your box the instant they're made available. If there's something you want to watch, request it, and it'll be pushed down in seconds. 

If "live" TV goes away to any major extent, satellite is uniquely in a position to fill in high bandwidth, latency doesn't matter niches.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Diana Collins said:


> Just an example of the things coming down the road: As of early March Dish Network controls wireless spectrum from 1.9 to 2.2 GHz. Some of this was originally earmarked for satellite telephone use, but Dish has already won approval from the FCC to use this spectrum to deploy a wireless broadband network for both home and mobile connectivity. They have spent over $5 billion to acquire wireless spectrum over the past 6 or 7 years.
> 
> Meanwhile, a company called Artemis is deploying a new broadcasting system called pCell, which will deliver the full bandwith of each cell to EVERY user (pCell stands for 'personal Cell'). Artemis is patnering with Dish Network to deploy pCell on their spectrum, but there is no technical reason pCell technology could not also be used on current cellular frequencies.
> 
> Bottom line, totally wireless broadband that can compete with current wired connections in terms of bandwidth and reliability is coming. Dish Network, Verizon, Comcast and AT&T are all trying to position themselves for that reality.


That's a pretty high frequency. It won't penetrate buildings very well. That is what I like about the 700Mhz(or is it 800Mhz?) that Verizon uses for their LTE. I can get a signal just about everywhere. Even when several levels below ground in a building without cellular reinforcement. But with their voice at 1700Mhz or 1900Mhz, I can't get squat in many of those places.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> That's a pretty high frequency. It won't penetrate buildings very well. That is what I like about the 700Mhz(or is it 800Mhz?) that Verizon uses for their LTE. I can get a signal just about everywhere. Even when several levels below ground in a building without cellular reinforcement. But with their voice at 1700Mhz or 1900Mhz, I can't get squat in many of those places.


One of design goals is to place the (very small) transmitters close together. That will improve improve indoor reception.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Oh...and there's also LTE-Advanced, which is backwards compatible with regular LTE and has been delivering 200 to 300 Mbits/second where it has been deployed.


----------



## jwbelcher (Nov 13, 2007)

JosephB said:


> Satellite actually has an advantage, at least when it comes to non-mobile use. It has extremely high bandwidth. Tens to hundreds of megabits of capacity across the spectrum of satellites and bands in use and about to come into use. They are not very useful for internet service due to latency and poor solutions for return path, but imagine being able to download an entire TV show in seconds. When the day comes that basically all TV is VOD, all DirecTV or Dish have to do is push down shows you've previously "subscribed" to down to your box the instant they're made available. If there's something you want to watch, request it, and it'll be pushed down in seconds.
> 
> If "live" TV goes away to any major extent, satellite is uniquely in a position to fill in high bandwidth, latency doesn't matter niches.


 From a bandwidth perspective, absolutely, but the interactive aspects of on-demand seem to be the issue; things like FF and REW, even Netflix could do better here. Maybe if they can give you the full program locally, like you stated, and not pace delivery, they'll overcome the interactive latency issues with the uplink.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

jwbelcher said:


> From a bandwidth perspective, absolutely, but the interactive aspects of on-demand seem to be the issue; things like FF and REW, even Netflix could do better here. Maybe if they can give you the full program locally, like you stated, and not pace delivery, they'll overcome the interactive latency issues with the uplink.


Right, that's what I'm getting at. Hard drives are cheap. It's easy to push down a file that is a gigabyte or so in just a few seconds. In the time it takes a normal VOD to "load" and buffer from the cable company, satellite could push the entire thing and buffer it on the hard drive of your set top box.

Combine that kind of download bandwidth with LTE modems in every box for guaranteed return path lower latency interactivity and you can see why AT&T might be interested in DirecTV.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

DirecTV already pushes PPV titles to their DVRs (an average of 10 or so at any given time). The problem with satellite delivery is that it works fine for linear content, but that bandwidth has to serve the entire country, versus a cable system whose bandwidth only has to serve the local community. There isn't enough bandwidth available to provide every satellite customer with even 1 Mbit/second of dedicated bandwidth. Spot beams help (and the Hughes Spaceway system was designed to use spotbeams to deliver satellite broadband), but the cost of launching satellites to deliver dozens of transponder channels in enough spots to cover the country would be prohibitive. This is what ultimately lead to Spaceway being abandoned and the Spaceway satellites being repurposed for linear video delivery by DirecTV.

What is very likely is that Dish Network will use their satellite network as a "backhaul" to deliver linear video content to the pCell transmitters.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

Diana Collins said:


> DirecTV already pushes PPV titles to their DVRs (an average of 10 or so at any given time). The problem with satellite delivery is that it works fine for linear content, but that bandwidth has to serve the entire country, versus a cable system whose bandwidth only has to serve the local community. There isn't enough bandwidth available to provide every satellite customer with even 1 Mbit/second of dedicated bandwidth. Spot beams help (and the Hughes Spaceway system was designed to use spotbeams to deliver satellite broadband), but the cost of launching satellites to deliver dozens of transponder channels in enough spots to cover the country would be prohibitive. This is what ultimately lead to Spaceway being abandoned and the Spaceway satellites being repurposed for linear video delivery by DirecTV.
> 
> What is very likely is that Dish Network will use their satellite network as a "backhaul" to deliver linear video content to the pCell transmitters.


One day there will be very little "linear" television. This will also be coupled with vast areas of the country still lacking decent broadband connections.

Shows will still be released on a schedule, and some will still be released over a period of time instead of an entire season at once. So, popular shows could be pre-loaded to everyone's DVR like they do with PPV now. Or, you could basically subscribe, like a season pass works now, but instead of recording it's just downloaded when it becomes available. Finally, since you're not broadcasting it for viewing, and the width of the pipe is massive, then you could send an entire 1 hour show in a few minutes/seconds. Then you can couple that with spotbeams and other techniques and I think you could build a very useable VOD-style video service using satellite infrastructure.

Sure, PCells and other mobile technologies will play a role, but not everyone will get covered by that. Literally everyone in the country (yes, I know trees and other line of sight issues) are covered by satellite technology.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Diana Collins said:


> Did you even bother to look at the Artemis website? Did you read about or watch the video of the demo they did at Columbia (where they delivered 5 different 1080p streams to 5 different devices in the same room over a single channel)? When you can deliver 40MHz of private radio spectrum to every device in a cell, which could EASILY translate into 100 Mbits per second of data throughput, I think you can push anything you want over the connection. While you could have a single pCell client per household, the technology would support *each and every device* to be a client, delivering 100 Mbits/second to each of them. This being deployed in San Francisco right now...so I guess your idea of "forseeable future" might need some revision. LTE is hardly the last word in wireless.


WOW. 5 channels! That's an entire 4% of the way to Comcast's HD lineup, which isn't even that good.

You're in la-la land. The concept of putting wireless transmitters on every corner of everywhere is ridiculous. It might work in a few very dense urban areas, but outside of that, forget about it. Even AT&T and Verizon are nowhere near that point for mobile data. And TV takes orders of magnitude more bandwidth than mobile data.

Wireless is already serving low-density rural areas with internet that's better than DSL in many cases, but it just can't scale up to where cable and FIOS are for now. Even an intensive effort to provide better wireless internet service might equal some of the slower cable packages, with video coming in through traditional DBS. Delivering linear video over a wireless data connection to the home is absurd.



JosephB said:


> When the day comes that basically all TV is VOD, all DirecTV or Dish have to do is push down shows you've previously "subscribed" to down to your box the instant they're made available. If there's something you want to watch, request it, and it'll be pushed down in seconds.
> 
> If "live" TV goes away to any major extent, satellite is uniquely in a position to fill in high bandwidth, latency doesn't matter niches.


Linear TV is not going away anytime soon, even though some viewing is shifting towards VOD. Some VOD could be made available that way, but even with a lot of recording to the VOD library and several TB of VOD storage, well in excess of anything currently out there, you still wouldn't have more than a small fraction of the content that's available on a cable or IP-based VOD system.



JosephB said:


> Shows will still be released on a schedule, and some will still be released over a period of time instead of an entire season at once. So, popular shows could be pre-loaded to everyone's DVR like they do with PPV now. Or, you could basically subscribe, like a season pass works now, but instead of recording it's just downloaded when it becomes available. Finally, since you're not broadcasting it for viewing, and the width of the pipe is massive, then you could send an entire 1 hour show in a few minutes/seconds. Then you can couple that with spotbeams and other techniques and I think you could build a very useable VOD-style video service using satellite infrastructure.


I think TiVo invented that. In 1999. It's called a season pass. I already use that model of "available at XYZ time" by "download" for most of my TV viewing with Comcast and TiVo.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Bigg said:


> ...You're in la-la land...


Again, let's agree to revisit this thread in 5 years and we'll see who is right about the growth of wireless broadband and video delivery over it.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

Bigg said:


> I think TiVo invented that. In 1999. It's called a season pass. I already use that model of "available at XYZ time" by "download" for most of my TV viewing with Comcast and TiVo.


Except you're not downloading, you're recording. What I'm talking about is suppose FX made the next episode of "The Americans" available on VOD for instant viewing at 9pm every Wednesday instead of airing it on a linear broadcast for an hour at 9pm on Wednesday. So, instead of sitting there for an hour capturing 10mbps of MPEG-4, your DVR would download the entire episode at hundreds of megabits per second in just a few seconds. Functionally, to the customer, it would work the same, but the entire episode would be on your DVR before the first commercial break would normally have aired.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

JosephB said:


> Except you're not downloading, you're recording. What I'm talking about is suppose FX made the next episode of "The Americans" available on VOD for instant viewing at 9pm every Wednesday instead of airing it on a linear broadcast for an hour at 9pm on Wednesday. So, instead of sitting there for an hour capturing 10mbps of MPEG-4, your DVR would download the entire episode at hundreds of megabits per second in just a few seconds. Functionally, to the customer, it would work the same, but the entire episode would be on your DVR before the first commercial break would normally have aired.


I see what you are saying, but only about half of all DirecTV subscribers have DVRs. For the other subscribers you still need linear broadcasts or cloud based DVR/VOD service, which puts you back into a bandwidth crunch.

The problem with satellite internet is that it is really hard to make a profit doing it. Hughes saw that with the earliest incarnation of their service, which is why when DirecTV was sold, the internet business didn't go along, and why the Spaceway satellites ended up getting used for DirecTV's HD service. HughesNet seems to be doing okay now, but it is the broadband service of last resort. The customers are all widely separated and in rather remote locations. This makes installation and service more expensive, the earth station equipment is expensive (since it must transmit as well as receive) to provide and installation is more complicated.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

Diana Collins said:


> I see what you are saying, but only about half of all DirecTV subscribers have DVRs. For the other subscribers you still need linear broadcasts or cloud based DVR/VOD service, which puts you back into a bandwidth crunch.


In such a system, everyone would have a DVR. You have to completely ignore how anything in the existing system works, because this would be a completely new service.

It will probably never come down to doing it that way, especially if AT&T buys them. But, it would make sense in 20 years to see a stand alone satellite service like that.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Diana Collins said:


> Again, let's agree to revisit this thread in 5 years and we'll see who is right about the growth of wireless broadband and video delivery over it.


Yeah. And LTE won't have replaced Comcast and DirecTV and gang, that's for sure.



JosephB said:


> Except you're not downloading, you're recording. What I'm talking about is suppose FX made the next episode of "The Americans" available on VOD for instant viewing at 9pm every Wednesday instead of airing it on a linear broadcast for an hour at 9pm on Wednesday. So, instead of sitting there for an hour capturing 10mbps of MPEG-4, your DVR would download the entire episode at hundreds of megabits per second in just a few seconds. Functionally, to the customer, it would work the same, but the entire episode would be on your DVR before the first commercial break would normally have aired.


Why? That makes no sense. Faster delivery just makes everything more expensive and difficult to do over linear delivery based on regular channels that are just hidden to the normal user (or could be just recorded off of PPV type of thing for movies). The hardware would have to be a lot beefier for no gain to the provider or the user. And you can bet that the content provider isn't going to let you skip ahead of where the live broadcast is, as they want you to watch commercials. Hence why, on the very rare occasion that I watch something that's not on HBO when it's actually on, I start 10 or 15 minutes late and catch up.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

Bigg said:


> Yeah. And LTE won't have replaced Comcast and DirecTV and gang, that's for sure.
> 
> Why? That makes no sense. Faster delivery just makes everything more expensive and difficult to do over linear delivery based on regular channels that are just hidden to the normal user (or could be just recorded off of PPV type of thing for movies). The hardware would have to be a lot beefier for no gain to the provider or the user. And you can bet that the content provider isn't going to let you skip ahead of where the live broadcast is, as they want you to watch commercials. Hence why, on the very rare occasion that I watch something that's not on HBO when it's actually on, I start 10 or 15 minutes late and catch up.


It's very clear from every one of your posts that you are stuck in the old way of thinking. Literally everything you say isn't going to happen and "doesn't make sense" is EXACTLY what the TV industry is moving towards. They've said it publicly and in filings. IP distribution is coming. The VOD-ization of all non-live events is coming. Network DVR is coming. It may be a long time, but all of those things WILL happen. In 5 years the TV industry will look a lot different than it does today. In 10-15 years it'll look NOTHING like it looks today.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

JosephB said:


> It's very clear from every one of your posts that you are stuck in the old way of thinking. Literally everything you say isn't going to happen and "doesn't make sense" is EXACTLY what the TV industry is moving towards. They've said it publicly and in filings. IP distribution is coming. The VOD-ization of all non-live events is coming. Network DVR is coming. It may be a long time, but all of those things WILL happen. In 5 years the TV industry will look a lot different than it does today. In 10-15 years it'll look NOTHING like it looks today.


For wireless, there are physical bandwidth limitations. You can't pull bandwidth out of your @$$ and just make things happen. It doesn't work that way. And while IP distribution over cable is perfectly technically possible today, seeing that Comcast is still using MPEG-2, and not MPEG-4, which has been the standard for 6+ years now, I don't foresee them getting to IP-based distribution anytime soon.

You think channels are just going to give up their "slots" and DirecTV and DISH are just going to go away so that everything can "VOD-ize". You are crazy. Those channels are not going to give up their linear slots when 85% of the TV viewing today is linear, 15 years after the DVR was invented, and 38 years after VHS was invented. What will happen is more and more content will be available both way, but that's been happening for 5+ years, so that's nothing new.

Network DVR exists today, but a lot of cable systems don't have the bandwidth to support it. Unfortunately, a lot of systems will waste the bandwidth on it, but to the user, it doesn't really do anything that's much different than what a DVR does today. And if the content providers move to block certain fast forwarding with a network DVR like they do with ON Demand today, than that's the end of the network DVR.

In 10-15 years, the industry will look a bit different, and the pricing structure may be totally different than what we have today, but the technology distributing the video won't be much different from what's out there today.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

Bigg said:


> For wireless, there are physical bandwidth limitations. You can't pull bandwidth out of your @$$ and just make things happen. It doesn't work that way. And while IP distribution over cable is perfectly technically possible today, seeing that Comcast is still using MPEG-2, and not MPEG-4, which has been the standard for 6+ years now, I don't foresee them getting to IP-based distribution anytime soon.
> 
> You think channels are just going to give up their "slots" and DirecTV and DISH are just going to go away so that everything can "VOD-ize". You are crazy. Those channels are not going to give up their linear slots when 85% of the TV viewing today is linear, 15 years after the DVR was invented, and 38 years after VHS was invented. What will happen is more and more content will be available both way, but that's been happening for 5+ years, so that's nothing new.
> 
> ...


TV is going where the people are. If no one is watching linear TV, then they will move to what customers want, which is a netflix style interface and experience.

And Comcast has said many, many times that they are moving to IP distribution. Just because you don't think they aren't doesn't mean that all the words coming out of Brian Roberts' mouth are just made up. Come find me in 5 years and let's see where things are.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

It will all go video on demand. No reason why it won't. I mean who doesn't want to turn on the tv and watch what they want when they want. 

The problem for us Tivo/DVR lovers is you won't be able to skip commercials. 

But maybe the nature of commercials on tv will change too. Maybe they will do something like YouTube does and allow you to manually skip commercials after 5 seconds.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

trip1eX said:


> It will all go video on demand. No reason why it won't. I mean who doesn't want to turn on the tv and watch what they want when they want.


Apparently there are quite a few people who still like to watch whatever is on. In fact there are a couple of new devices out there designed to create "channels" of content from VOD providers like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc... where it just randomly plays shows/movies it thinks you might like back to back like a live TV channel.

While I agree that everything will eventually be available on demand, I'm not so sure that will be the only way to watch. I think the broadcasting model will persist for quite some time.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> Apparently there are quite a few people who still like to watch whatever is on. In fact there are a couple of new devices out there designed to create "channels" of content from VOD providers like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc... where it just randomly plays shows/movies it thinks you might like back to back like a live TV channel.
> 
> While I agree that everything will eventually be available on demand, I'm not so sure that will be the only way to watch. I think the broadcasting model will persist for quite some time.


Well if you can watch what you want when you want then that also covers those who just want to watch random content.

But interesting concept to imagine a market of un-time-shifting devices sorta speak. It's a Bizzaro world of what we have today.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Dan203 said:


> Apparently there are quite a few people who still like to watch whatever is on.


There is basically a generational divide. My parents are in their 60s, and even though they have the ability to watch on-demand or time-shifted content, they choose not to. They just watch whatever is on the linear channels. Whereas I have some younger cousins in their teens who almost never watch linear channels. They only watch on-demand, recorded, or internet video content. I'm in my 30s and sort of in-between. I watch probably 70% on-demand or time shifted, and the other 30% linear channels.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

trip1eX said:


> Well if you can watch what you want when you want then that also covers those who just want to watch random content.


Not necessarily. I watch Netflix, sure, but actually not as much as a lot of people my age or younger (I'm 31).

Most of my "on demand" viewing is watching things I've recorded with my TiVo. If the industry moves towards all VOD, then I'll be mostly OK. Right now Netflix rarely ever has anything I search for, I end up having to settle for some suggestion.

However, my "just want to watch random content" sessions are usually out of frustration of trying to decide. Sure, people will just randomly choose something on demand, but I actually prefer to just sit down and have to select something that is on right now. It's just a psychological thing, maybe I'm weird. I get analysis paralysis and it's nice to just turn on the TV and select a channel and there's something on, that I didn't have to decide on out of a million choices.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Netflix's organization of content is pretty bad. If you know exactly what you want to watch it's fine, since you can search, but for finding stuff you might like you pretty much have to take what they suggest. There really aren't any filter options in the app, and on the website they're still not all that easy to use


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

Dan203 said:


> Netflix's organization of content is pretty bad. If you know exactly what you want to watch it's fine, since you can search, but for finding stuff you might like you pretty much have to take what they suggest. There really aren't any filter options in the app, and on the website they're still not all that easy to use


The problem isn't finding it, they have a search feature. The problem is they don't have the rights to about 90% of the things that I search for when I decide "hey, I want to watch X, let's see if it's on Netflix"


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Bigg said:


> For wireless, there are physical bandwidth limitations. You can't pull bandwidth out of your @$$ and just make things happen. It doesn't work that way. And while IP distribution over cable is perfectly technically possible today, seeing that Comcast is still using MPEG-2, and not MPEG-4, which has been the standard for 6+ years now, I don't foresee them getting to IP-based distribution anytime soon...


Over the last 10 or 15 years wireless data has gone from a theoretical maximum of 11 Mbits/sec over WiFi (802.11b) and around 100 Kbits/sec (that's *kilo*bits) over 2G (EDGE) networks to 600 Mbit/s sec over WiFi (802.11n MIMO) and around 100 Mbits/sec over 4G networks (LTE). LTE advanced will up that to 100 Mbits/sec symmetrical when moving and 1 Gbit/sec when stationary.

Throughput will continue to advance. You are the only fixated on LTE. There are newer, more robust, systems coming, not the least of which is LTE-Advanced. Technologies like Artemis' that allow frequency reuse WITHIN a cell are going to vastly increase the number of distinct streams that can be delivered over a wireless network.



Bigg said:


> ...You think channels are just going to give up their "slots" and DirecTV and DISH are just going to go away so that everything can "VOD-ize". You are crazy. Those channels are not going to give up their linear slots when 85% of the TV viewing today is linear, 15 years after the DVR was invented, and 38 years after VHS was invented. What will happen is more and more content will be available both way, but that's been happening for 5+ years, so that's nothing new...


Will the cable companies go wireless? Maybe, maybe not. The fact is that it doesn't matter - the VIEWERS will be going wireless, with or without them. Sooner or later that financial equation will become such that HBO, Showtime, AMC, TNT, and every other creator of original content, including the broadcast networks, will be able make more money selling their content directly to viewers than they make from cable companies. Long before that happens, I wouldn't be surprised to see them go to a two tier approach: free access if you have a cable sourced subscription, and a monthly fee paid direct if you don't.

The cable companies are very aware of thsi fact. Comcast is one of my customers and they make no secret of the fact that they consider linear video a legacy, and declining, business. They are morphing into broadband companies. Verizon and AT&T are morphing into WIRELESS broadband companies.

The bandwidth and technology to do IP-based distribution is coming, and in many cases is already here. The advantages to IP distribution, even of linear video content, are just too overwhelming for the cable companies to NOT pursue it.

Perhaps the most ludicrous comment you have made so far:



Bigg said:


> ...Faster delivery just makes everything more expensive and difficult to do...


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

JosephB said:


> TV is going where the people are. If no one is watching linear TV, then they will move to what customers want, which is a netflix style interface and experience.
> 
> And Comcast has said many, many times that they are moving to IP distribution. Just because you don't think they aren't doesn't mean that all the words coming out of Brian Roberts' mouth are just made up. Come find me in 5 years and let's see where things are.


85% of TV viewing today is linear. I don't forsee linear dying anytime soon. What will happen is that most content will be available on multiple platforms (much of it already is). There's also sports, news, sports news, and a few others types of programming that don't fit into a VOD model. There are a lot of old movie channels that could use to go to an on-demand only model, but the way they are force-bundled, they won't do that anytime soon.



tarheelblue32 said:


> There is basically a generational divide. My parents are in their 60s, and even though they have the ability to watch on-demand or time-shifted content, they choose not to. They just watch whatever is on the linear channels. Whereas I have some younger cousins in their teens who almost never watch linear channels. They only watch on-demand, recorded, or internet video content. I'm in my 30s and sort of in-between. I watch probably 70% on-demand or time shifted, and the other 30% linear channels.


To a certain extent, but I know a lot of people my age (24) who watch mostly or all linear TV. Even one of my roommates barely DVRs anything, and he's using one of my TiVo Minis running off of my XL4, so it's certainly not for lack of ability to do so.



Diana Collins said:


> Over the last 10 or 15 years wireless data has gone from a theoretical maximum of 11 Mbits/sec over WiFi (802.11b) and around 100 Kbits/sec (that's *kilo*bits) over 2G (EDGE) networks to 600 Mbit/s sec over WiFi (802.11n MIMO) and around 100 Mbits/sec over 4G networks (LTE). LTE advanced will up that to 100 Mbits/sec symmetrical when moving and 1 Gbit/sec when stationary.


The problem with that argument is that a lot of that has come through wide channels, and a lot of the future gains will come through carrier aggregation, which doesn't increase the overall bandwidth, although it does tend to make bandwidth more available, just like DOCSIS 3. If you look at the last 10 years or so, there have been significant, but not huge gains in the spectral efficiency of wireless services. Going from EVDO and HSPA+ to LTE gained some spectral efficiency, but it wasn't ground-breaking. Much of the additional bandwidth came from wider channels (especially for Verizon moving from 1.25mhz EVDO to 10mhz LTE). OFDMA is somewhat more efficient and better in many ways than CDMA, which is used by both EVDO and HSPA+, but it's not an order of magnitude. OFDMA is more robust under heavy load, but there's not actually that much more spectral efficiency, it just doesn't bomb out nearly as quickly. Much of the additional bandwidth added to the wireless systems has been through the deployment of more towers and more spectrum, not huge gains in efficiency.



> Throughput will continue to advance. You are the only fixated on LTE. There are newer, more robust, systems coming, not the least of which is LTE-Advanced. Technologies like Artemis' that allow frequency reuse WITHIN a cell are going to vastly increase the number of distinct streams that can be delivered over a wireless network.


We'll see. There will be some forward progress, but for the foreseeable future, it's not going to increase the bandwidth available by two orders of magnitude, which is what would be needed to do widespread wireless video distribution. Some sort of competitive wireless home internet in suburban, exurban and rural areas will come halfway in-between now and video, probably a lot closer to now than video, since the amount of bandwidth required is far lower, although still quite a bit larger than that capacity available today in even moderately developed areas.



> Will the cable companies go wireless? Maybe, maybe not. The fact is that it doesn't matter - the VIEWERS will be going wireless, with or without them. Sooner or later that financial equation will become such that HBO, Showtime, AMC, TNT, and every other creator of original content, including the broadcast networks, will be able make more money selling their content directly to viewers than they make from cable companies. Long before that happens, I wouldn't be surprised to see them go to a two tier approach: free access if you have a cable sourced subscription, and a monthly fee paid direct if you don't.


They may go direct to consumer, but that has nothing to do with wireless distribution. That would come in through a land-based internet connection, which of course brings in the issue of net neutrality. But that really has nothing to do with wireless delivery of video. You can watch HBO Go on your phone today, and have a really crappy user experience, just as you would if you could buy HBO directly from HBO over the internet.



> The cable companies are very aware of thsi fact. Comcast is one of my customers and they make no secret of the fact that they consider linear video a legacy, and declining, business. They are morphing into broadband companies. Verizon and AT&T are morphing into WIRELESS broadband companies.


Not because of lack of demand for it, but because they are getting killed on the carriage fees, while it takes more and more bandwidth, versus HSI that takes relatively little bandwidth and costs relatively little to provide. HSI is their biggest cash cow now, even if it looks cheaper to the consumer.



> The bandwidth and technology to do IP-based distribution is coming, and in many cases is already here. The advantages to IP distribution, even of linear video content, are just too overwhelming for the cable companies to NOT pursue it.


AT&T has been doing IPTV deliver for 5 years with 802.11q VLANs and QoS, but their system was built for it from the ground up, they didn't convert an existing system with legacy equipment in the field to replace. Their system could actually have been good if they had done FTTH, which would have allowed them to open the bandwidth on TV channels way up, and offer gigabit internet.

That being said, there's no reason for the cable companies to go to IP, and they don't want to spend the money. You're saying that they are somehow going to replace almost EVERY box out there (with the exception of some of the new X1 boxes, which *might* be able to handle IP video), when they haven't even been able to convert to linear MPEG-4 over QAM, which a majority of the HD equipment out there already supports, and which wouldn't affect their SD channels or equipment? You're nuts.



> Perhaps the most ludicrous comment you have made so far:


You took it out of context. I was referring to the ludicrous idea of a multicast satellite delivery of content, like is done today in real-time, but in faster than real-time. It would be an immensely costly endeavor for zero benefit to anyone.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

What happen when (no longer if) AT&T buy DirecTV?


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

JosephB said:


> Not necessarily. I watch Netflix, sure, but actually not as much as a lot of people my age or younger (I'm 31).
> 
> Most of my "on demand" viewing is watching things I've recorded with my TiVo. If the industry moves towards all VOD, then I'll be mostly OK. Right now Netflix rarely ever has anything I search for, I end up having to settle for some suggestion.
> 
> However, my "just want to watch random content" sessions are usually out of frustration of trying to decide. Sure, people will just randomly choose something on demand, but I actually prefer to just sit down and have to select something that is on right now. It's just a psychological thing, maybe I'm weird. I get analysis paralysis and it's nice to just turn on the TV and select a channel and there's something on, that I didn't have to decide on out of a million choices.


YOu're splitting hairs. There really isn't a difference between selecting something "on" now in a Tv Guide vs just selecting something randomly on a VoD service like Netflix.

My cabletv tuners are pretty slow. They are probably marginally faster than how fast Netflix can load a new show. They aren't so much faster that I can drop the probably without actually timing the two.

Netflix has many "channels" in the form of categories like "you might like this because you watched this" or "dirty foreign thrillers" or ....

I'm not really seeing the difference. And since something like Netflix is all software based then they could create new ways to show off content fairly easily. And could even duplicate cable tv channels (if they had the rights to the same content.)

They could even solve your needs one better by having a big red panic button for those that can't decide what to watch. Hit it and a show starts playing. They could program the button to load random shows from random starting points. They could have options to load content at the beginning of popular scenes. etc.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

tarheelblue32 said:


> There is basically a generational divide. My parents are in their 60s, and even though they have the ability to watch on-demand or time-shifted content, they choose not to. They just watch whatever is on the linear channels. Whereas I have some younger cousins in their teens who almost never watch linear channels. They only watch on-demand, recorded, or internet video content. I'm in my 30s and sort of in-between. I watch probably 70% on-demand or time shifted, and the other 30% linear channels.


I don't think it is as big of a generational divide as you think. My parents took to a Tivo like a fish to water. My Dad turned 70 a few days ago. Anecdotal, but remember the VCR has been mainstream since ...the early 80s maybe earlier. ...so time-shifting tv has been around for awhile. 35 years or so.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Bigg said:


> Not because of lack of demand for it, but because they are getting killed on the carriage fees, while it takes more and more bandwidth, versus HSI that takes relatively little bandwidth and costs relatively little to provide. HSI is their biggest cash cow now, even if it looks cheaper to the consumer.


I beg to differ. According to the Consumer Electronics Associations (CEA) latest (mid 2013) U.S. Household Television Usage report, the number of U.S. households that receive cable TV programming through cable, satellite, and fiber connections have fallen to 83%  down from 88% in 2010. The CEA cited non-TV devices such as computers, tablets, and smartphones, as well as streaming services as a major factor in the drop in cable subscribed households. The same report found that 28% of U.S. households now watch some TV content via the internet, with 4% using the internet to exclusively access TV content.

The demand for cable TV is declining, and the decline is accelerating.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Johncv said:


> What happen when (no longer if) AT&T buy DirecTV?


Has no effect on CableCARD. Both DirecTV and AT&T Uverse have special exemptions from CableCARD mandate.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Diana Collins said:


> I beg to differ. According to the Consumer Electronics Associations (CEA) latest (mid 2013) U.S. Household Television Usage report, the number of U.S. households that receive cable TV programming through cable, satellite, and fiber connections have fallen to 83%  down from 88% in 2010. The CEA cited non-TV devices such as computers, tablets, and smartphones, as well as streaming services as a major factor in the drop in cable subscribed households. The same report found that 28% of U.S. households now watch some TV content via the internet, with 4% using the internet to exclusively access TV content.
> 
> The demand for cable TV is declining, and the decline is accelerating.


There is some movement because of people who don't really watch much TV leaving now that the prices are much higher. However, that's not that big of a trend. Comcast shouldn't worry about cord cutters, they should worry about AT&T, Verizon, DirecTV, DISH, local fiber, overbuilders (ok fine, that's my town, and a few cities).

The biggest streamers of them all are the ones using HBO Go, WatchESPN, and other services that are tied to a cable or satellite subscription. I don't think Comcast has anything to worry about there. Heck, much of the streaming I have done is through those services, with some streaming through VUDU, Amazon, and Netflix. The only thing streaming is killing is Comcast's awful VOD rentals.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

tarheelblue32 said:


> There is basically a generational divide. My parents are in their 60s, and even though they have the ability to watch on-demand or time-shifted content, they choose not to. They just watch whatever is on the linear channels. Whereas I have some younger cousins in their teens who almost never watch linear channels. They only watch on-demand, recorded, or internet video content. I'm in my 30s and sort of in-between. I watch probably 70% on-demand or time shifted, and the other 30% linear channels.


My mom is old enough to have been your parents' mother, and I can't remember the last time she watched anything that wasn't time shifted, and I pretty much only might look at CNN or CNBC live.

My father, however, wasn't much for watching anything on VCR, and were he still with us would probably still be switching channels on the TV's tuner every few minutes.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Bigg said:


> There is some movement because of people who don't really watch much TV leaving now that the prices are much higher. However, that's not that big of a trend. Comcast shouldn't worry about cord cutters, they should worry about AT&T, Verizon, DirecTV, DISH, local fiber, overbuilders (ok fine, that's my town, and a few cities).
> 
> The biggest streamers of them all are the ones using HBO Go, WatchESPN, and other services that are tied to a cable or satellite subscription. I don't think Comcast has anything to worry about there. Heck, much of the streaming I have done is through those services, with some streaming through VUDU, Amazon, and Netflix. The only thing streaming is killing is Comcast's awful VOD rentals.


On what do you base these comments?? Point to a survey that shows the decline in cable/satellite/fiber tv households is due to "people who don't really watch much TV." In fact, all surveys and research point to streaming as being a viable alternative for many viewers. If it was not so, we would not be discussing Aereo in another thread!!


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

Diana Collins said:


> On what do you base these comments?? Point to a survey that shows the decline in cable/satellite/fiber tv households is due to "people who don't really watch much TV." In fact, all surveys and research point to streaming as being a viable alternative for many viewers. If it was not so, we would not be discussing Aereo in another thread!!


If you're talking about streaming as an alternative to cable, I don't think Aereo should be lumped in with NetFlix or whatever, as Aereo isn't really an alternative to cable TV, it's an alternative way to get just broadcast TV instead of a direct antenna connection.

Which is not to say that a _combination_ of streaming and Aereo aren't being used as an alternative to cable, but Aereo by itself is just a way to put your antenna in a better location.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

unitron said:


> If you're talking about streaming as an alternative to cable, I don't think Aereo should be lumped in with NetFlix or whatever, as Aereo isn't really an alternative to cable TV, it's an alternative way to get just broadcast TV instead of a direct antenna connection.
> 
> Which is not to say that a _combination_ of streaming and Aereo aren't being used as an alternative to cable, but Aereo by itself is just a way to put your antenna in a better location.


I was referring to Aereo in combination with other streaming solutions as being an alternative to cable or satellite. If streaming were not an increasing popular way to get TV entertainment (at the expense of a cable subscription) I doubt many people would pay any attention to Aereo. Without that driver, Aereo would just be a way to get broadcast TV on you tablet or other mobile device. Interesting, but not earth shattering. Aereo eliminates one of the big barriers to people going to an all streaming option.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Diana Collins said:


> On what do you base these comments?? Point to a survey that shows the decline in cable/satellite/fiber tv households is due to "people who don't really watch much TV." In fact, all surveys and research point to streaming as being a viable alternative for many viewers. If it was not so, we would not be discussing Aereo in another thread!!


Much of the content on cable isn't available online without a cable subscription, so the people who have "cut the cord" a) didn't watch much TV in the first place, b) stopped watching much of the content they were watching, or c) just started pirating it instead. Yes, by the torrent numbers coming off of GoT, there are some people who are just pirating, but most of the "cord cutters" just didn't watch much TV in the first place.

Streaming is huge BECAUSE of movies and cable. Movies are better quality, cheaper, etc, streaming, and then WatchESPN and HBO Go are part of a cable subscription...



Diana Collins said:


> I was referring to Aereo in combination with other streaming solutions as being an alternative to cable or satellite. If streaming were not an increasing popular way to get TV entertainment (at the expense of a cable subscription) I doubt many people would pay any attention to Aereo. Without that driver, Aereo would just be a way to get broadcast TV on you tablet or other mobile device. Interesting, but not earth shattering. Aereo eliminates one of the big barriers to people going to an all streaming option.


Aereo is way over-hyped. It's targeting a narrow market that doesn't want cable and can't get OTA the traditional way. That's not to say that it's not bad, or it can't be successful (if the Supreme Court doesn't legislate from the bench against them), but they are fundamentally serving a small niche market.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Diana Collins said:


> I beg to differ. According to the Consumer Electronics Association's (CEA) latest (mid 2013) "U.S. Household Television Usage" report, the number of U.S. households that receive cable TV programming through cable, satellite, and fiber connections have fallen to 83% - down from 88% in 2010. The CEA cited non-TV devices such as computers, tablets, and smartphones, as well as streaming services as a major factor in the drop in cable subscribed households. The same report found that 28% of U.S. households now watch some TV content via the internet, with 4% using the internet to exclusively access TV content.
> 
> The demand for cable TV is declining, and the decline is accelerating.


Hhhhmm 4% of households use internet exclusively to access tv content. Yet the number of households having cable tv dropped by 5 percentage points since 2010?

IT seems 1 of those 5 percentage points stopped watching tv then. And it would also mean that in 2010 0% used internet exclusively for tv content.

Eh cable is a great deal for the right households and thus this "move" towards internet tv will only go so far as it is right now.

I've run the math many times for "cutting the cord" and it has never made sense.

It only makes sense if you don't watch sports, live alone and don't watch much tv. OR just want to stick to the man.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

trip1eX said:


> Hhhhmm 4% of households use internet exclusively to access tv content. Yet the number of households having cable tv dropped by 5 percentage points since 2010?
> 
> IT seems 1 of those 5 percentage points stopped watching tv then. And it would also mean that in 2010 0% used internet exclusively for tv content.
> 
> ...


Two different measures. Of all US households, 88% had some form of multichannel video service in 2010. By 2013 that had dropped to 83% (each 1% represents about 1.2 million households). As a separate measure, 28% of all US households get at least some video via the internet (whether they have cable or not), and 4% of all US households say they ONLY use streaming services. That 4% is not neccessarily derived from the 5% that dropped cable, but comes from the 17% that didn't have any cable or satellite subscriptions in 2013.

And the 17% aren't neccessarily not watching TV, they could just be watching OTA only.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Historically, the split was about 20/60/20 OTA/cable/satellite. Not sure where the trend is going, other than that telcoTV is eating up a little bit of cable marketshare. Which is also a weird measure, since it's based on what company is behind it, as FIOS is cable, and Verizon is more like Comcast than RCN or WOW, but I digress.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Yeah currently they count FIOS as a teleco which isn't really fare. It's basically identical to cable in it's current form. AT&T uverse is different but they only have 2.1M subscribers, so they don't even account for 2%


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> Yeah currently they count FIOS as a teleco which isn't really fare. It's basically identical to cable in it's current form. AT&T uverse is different but they only have 2.1M subscribers, so they don't even account for 2%


At the end of 1Q2014, Uverse had 5.7 million TV customers and 11 million internet customers. And 4.1 million voice customers.

"....SERVICE GROWTH: U-verse hits 11.3 million total subscribers ? 5.7 million U-verse TV customers. ? 4.1 million U-verse Voice connections. ? 11.0 million U-verse High Speed Internet customers. ? AT&T U-verse bundles available in 142 markets (MSAs) across 22 states. ? About 90 percent of U-verse TV sales in the first quarter also included High Speed Internet. ? About two-thirds of U-verse TV customers have a triple- or quad-play bundle. ? AT&T U-verse now has annualized total revenues of nearly $14 billion. ? About 60 percent of U-verse broadband subscribers have a plan delivering speeds up to 12 Mbps or higher (as of 1Q14). SERVICE EVOLUTION: Continued innovation in apps and speed ? Introduced the U-verse KIDS! app, a smartphone and tablet application that displays kid-friendly channels and remote controls for the TV**. ? Added even more live TV channels to the U-verse App for smartphones and tablets. ? Brought customers closer to Sochi with the U-verse Olympic TV App, an on-screen interactive app with NBCUniversal's real-time medal counts, athlete bios, Team USA reports, Olympic news and more. ? Announced plans to expand AT&T's ultra-fast fiber network to up to 100 candidate cities and municipalities nationwide, including 21 new major metropolitan areas. ? Launched open APIs for the Android platform that will help developers create more unique apps for U-verse TV. U-verse Update: 1Q14 AT&T U-verse Reports Record Wireline Consumer Revenue Growth U-verse TV Subscribers in Service (in millions) U....."


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> Yeah currently they count FIOS as a teleco which isn't really fare. It's basically identical to cable in it's current form. AT&T uverse is different but they only have 2.1M subscribers, so they don't even account for 2%


I'm not so sure that I would go that far, as Verizon is still a telco. My point is just that it's a really weird way to count. I would almost say the most valuable way to count would be cable incumbent, cable overbuilders, and telcoTV. Although that's still a flawed measure, since it doesn't tell you anything about the market share of telcos or overbuilders in the areas that they actually serve, since cable is everywhere telcos are, but telcos definitely aren't everywhere cable is, sometimes by town or region, and sometimes by street or building.

U-Verse is a weird case too, as there are still a ton of crossboxes that don't have VRADs but are in towns that have U-Verse, so they would be really easy expansion targets, as the rest of the infrastructure is already there. FIOS isn't as easy to expand, and is only seeing meaningful expansion in NYC.



aaronwt said:


> At the end of 1Q2014, Uverse had 5.7 million TV customers and 11 million internet customers. And 4.1 million voice customers.
> 
> "....SERVICE GROWTH: U-verse hits 11.3 million total subscribers ? 5.7 million U-verse TV customers. ? 4.1 million U-verse Voice connections. ? 11.0 million U-verse High Speed Internet customers. ? AT&T U-verse bundles available in 142 markets (MSAs) across 22 states. ? About 90 percent of U-verse TV sales in the first quarter also included High Speed Internet. ? About two-thirds of U-verse TV customers have a triple- or quad-play bundle. ? AT&T U-verse now has annualized total revenues of nearly $14 billion. ? About 60 percent of U-verse broadband subscribers have a plan delivering speeds up to 12 Mbps or higher (as of 1Q14). SERVICE EVOLUTION: Continued innovation in apps and speed ? Introduced the U-verse KIDS! app, a smartphone and tablet application that displays kid-friendly channels and remote controls for the TV**. ? Added even more live TV channels to the U-verse App for smartphones and tablets. ? Brought customers closer to Sochi with the U-verse Olympic TV App, an on-screen interactive app with NBCUniversal's real-time medal counts, athlete bios, Team USA reports, Olympic news and more. ? Announced plans to expand AT&T's ultra-fast fiber network to up to 100 candidate cities and municipalities nationwide, including 21 new major metropolitan areas. ? Launched open APIs for the Android platform that will help developers create more unique apps for U-verse TV. U-verse Update: 1Q14 AT&T U-verse Reports Record Wireline Consumer Revenue Growth U-verse TV Subscribers in Service (in millions) U....."


That's very interesting. I'm not sure how I feel about U-Verse doing so well. On the one hand, I wish it was a complete flop because they implemented such inferior infrastructure. On the other hand, it's good to see the cable companies get some fires lit under the asses to get them moving on upgrades, even if I myself would never consider U-Verse, even aside from their lack of support for TiVo.

I'd like U-Verse a lot more if AT&T would step up to the plate and push the fiber farther out. Many places in CT are all overhead and are really low-hanging fruit for full GPON rollouts, and many neighborhoods that are underground could have VRADs installed close to where the copper goes under, which, combined with pair bonding, would push the speeds way up. The same goes for MDUs, where they could push FTTB out, basically a pair-bonded VRAD in the building, which should get some pretty impressive pair bonded speeds. Any of those solutions would also allow them to have a second, higher bitrate set of HDs that didn't look like total crap.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

aaronwt said:


> At the end of 1Q2014, Uverse had 5.7 million TV customers and 11 million internet customers. And 4.1 million voice customers.
> 
> "....SERVICE GROWTH: U-verse hits 11.3 million total subscribers ? 5.7 million U-verse TV customers. ? 4.1 million U-verse Voice connections. ? 11.0 million U-verse High Speed Internet customers. ? AT&T U-verse bundles available in 142 markets (MSAs) across 22 states. ? About 90 percent of U-verse TV sales in the first quarter also included High Speed Internet. ? About two-thirds of U-verse TV customers have a triple- or quad-play bundle. ? AT&T U-verse now has annualized total revenues of nearly $14 billion. ? About 60 percent of U-verse broadband subscribers have a plan delivering speeds up to 12 Mbps or higher (as of 1Q14). SERVICE EVOLUTION: Continued innovation in apps and speed ? Introduced the U-verse KIDS! app, a smartphone and tablet application that displays kid-friendly channels and remote controls for the TV**. ? Added even more live TV channels to the U-verse App for smartphones and tablets. ? Brought customers closer to Sochi with the U-verse Olympic TV App, an on-screen interactive app with NBCUniversal's real-time medal counts, athlete bios, Team USA reports, Olympic news and more. ? Announced plans to expand AT&T's ultra-fast fiber network to up to 100 candidate cities and municipalities nationwide, including 21 new major metropolitan areas. ? Launched open APIs for the Android platform that will help developers create more unique apps for U-verse TV. U-verse Update: 1Q14 AT&T U-verse Reports Record Wireline Consumer Revenue Growth U-verse TV Subscribers in Service (in millions) U....."


I must have been looking at older numbers. But 5.7M is still only about 4-5%.



Bigg said:


> I'm not so sure that I would go that far, as Verizon is still a telco. My point is just that it's a really weird way to count. I would almost say the most valuable way to count would be cable incumbent, cable overbuilders, and telcoTV. Although that's still a flawed measure, since it doesn't tell you anything about the market share of telcos or overbuilders in the areas that they actually serve, since cable is everywhere telcos are, but telcos definitely aren't everywhere cable is, sometimes by town or region, and sometimes by street or building.


Verizon the company may be a telco, but FIOS is basically just cable over fiber instead of coax. The linear TV channels are still multi-cast over fiber using standard QAM, so really the only difference is electrons vs photons delivering the signal.

And, with most cable companies offering phones now, should we really be distinguishing between them? They're all just MSOs now.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Isn't Comcast the third largest home phone provider now?


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

JosephB said:


> It's very clear from every one of your posts that you are stuck in the old way of thinking. Literally everything you say isn't going to happen and "doesn't make sense" is EXACTLY what the TV industry is moving towards. They've said it publicly and in filings. IP distribution is coming. The VOD-ization of all non-live events is coming. Network DVR is coming. It may be a long time, but all of those things WILL happen. In 5 years the TV industry will look a lot different than it does today. In 10-15 years it'll look NOTHING like it looks today.


I'm mostly fine with that *if* there's a way (that costs MUCH MUCH less than the single show price on e.g. Amazon) to do it without commercials.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Diana Collins said:


> Two different measures. Of all US households, 88% had some form of multichannel video service in 2010. By 2013 that had dropped to 83% (each 1% represents about 1.2 million households). As a separate measure, 28% of all US households get at least some video via the internet (whether they have cable or not), and 4% of all US households say they ONLY use streaming services. That 4% is not neccessarily derived from the 5% that dropped cable, but comes from the 17% that didn't have any cable or satellite subscriptions in 2013.
> 
> And the 17% aren't neccessarily not watching TV, they could just be watching OTA only.


Ok that makes sense. Have cable and satellite companies as a whole had a 5% percentage point drop in subscribers since 2010? The numbers should match right?

Anyway what bugged about the stats is I would expect just what you reported. IT seems natural that given other options to watch tv content that it wouldn't help cable companies. And that more people would stream tv content and more would do only streaming. And less would subscribe to cable. Would we really expect anything else?

The big assumption would be assuming this is a larger trend that applies to every household.

Because it seems natural to me that the people most likely not subscribing to cable or satellite are the consumers who weren't a good fit for the cable/satellite business model.

And naturally these consumers would the people that didn't watch a ton of tv in the first place. or live alone. or really can't afford cable and so are fine with paying less for less content or older content. Or maybe they would rather not split up a cable bill with roomates as roomates and bills don't always mix well.

The question is how many of those households are there in the marketplace?


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

trip1eX said:


> Ok that makes sense. Have cable and satellite companies as a whole had a 5% percentage point drop in subscribers since 2010? The numbers should match right?
> 
> Anyway what bugged about the stats is I would expect just what you reported. IT seems natural that given other options to watch tv content that it wouldn't help cable companies. And that more people would stream tv content and more would do only streaming. And less would subscribe to cable. Would we really expect anything else?
> 
> ...


Cable companies as a whole have seen more than a 5% decline in subsciber numbers, while satellite as a whole has seen a modest increase. Combined, there numbers are down 5% from 2010 to 2013.

You have hit upon the big question: is the increase in households without any traditional multi-channel service subscription a statistical blip or the tip of the iceberg? Nobody knows for sure, but everyone has a theory. The majority opinion seems to be that it is just the start of a trend away from linear broadcasting. The majority opinion, however, is not always correct.

Both of my children fall into this category. They have subscriptions to Hulu and Netflix. They both pay their local cable provider for internet service but do not subscribe to cable or phone service. They get their TV entertainment from streaming, OTA broadcasting and video games. However, both are still single and spend a lot of their time out with friends. They can afford cable, but both have decided that what they would gain is not worth the cost.

The real question is what they, and people like them, will do when they get married and have kids. The cable companies' fear that they may lose these customers forever. As a result, they are investing in the broadband parts of their business and not so much in the video distribution parts.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Diana Collins said:


> Cable companies as a whole have seen more than a 5% decline in subsciber numbers, while satellite as a whole has seen a modest increase. Combined, there numbers are down 5% from 2010 to 2013.
> 
> You have hit upon the big question: is the increase in households without any traditional multi-channel service subscription a statistical blip or the tip of the iceberg? Nobody knows for sure, but everyone has a theory. The majority opinion seems to be that it is just the start of a trend away from linear broadcasting. The majority opinion, however, is not always correct.
> 
> ...


I think there is a trend away from linear programming. That to me is obvious because it is very natural to want to watch what you want when you want. And if you don't want that then it is extremely easy to fake/simulate linear programming if you already have on-demand.

But I don't think this data indicates a trend away from cable/satellite companies. For one thing cable has had on-demand tech in their labs for over 15 years at least. And we've had dvrs about as long as well. so the cable/satellite vs alternatives isn't so much about linear vs on-demand. It's about the buffet vs ordering just what you want. It's about paying less to satisfy your tv viewing habit.

And so all that these numbers indicate to me is the various alternative viewing options make financial sense for some small portion of households out there. Right now some customers have figured out the math for cable/satellite doesn't work for them compared to those alternative options.

IF your kids get married and you become a grandma then the cable/satellite math will change for them. And their decision might change with it.

Of course the cable/satellite tv business also won't sit still. Who knows how they adapt. Offer a larger range of packages. Or show how you can by with a cheaper internet package if you're getting most of your video through a cable package.

On the other hand, it does seem pretty easy to see, given today's tech, how cable could easily become a dumb pipe in the distant future.

I mean look at a company like HBO. HBOGo could be viewed as a trojan horse.

AS they work on that and refine it and as internet speeds grow and grow then what is stopping them from eventually just going to directly to the consumer? And not requiring a cable subscription?

Eventually that math will probably work out for HBO.

At the same time it is easy to see how people will probably get annoyed eventually at having 20 different apps for watching their tv shows. And that someone will come up with this great idea of aggregating the content and selling it as a package to the consumer at one low price.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> Verizon the company may be a telco, but FIOS is basically just cable over fiber instead of coax. The linear TV channels are still multi-cast over fiber using standard QAM, so really the only difference is electrons vs photons delivering the signal.
> 
> And, with most cable companies offering phones now, should we really be distinguishing between them? They're all just MSOs now.


Yeah, I know, that's why I said it's a weird classification, given how radically different U-Verse and FIOS are. FIOS could easily adopt U-Verse's IPTV model, but obviously U-Verse can't deliver cableTV.

They come from a different background, and as a result have very different capabilities today. Telcos are also given a free pass on requirements to build out a whole municipality or zip code with TV and internet, whereas the cable companies often have to build out for TV. The telcos also have their legacy copper weighing them down. Even AT&T could get rid of the core of their copper plants and just keep the copper downstream of the VRADs if regulators let them. IMHO, it's time for regulators to take a hard stance on wireline abandonment, but allow a 1 for 1 swap of copper for fiber to encourage further development of U-Verse and FIOS.



Diana Collins said:


> Cable companies as a whole have seen more than a 5% decline in subsciber numbers, while satellite as a whole has seen a modest increase. Combined, there numbers are down 5% from 2010 to 2013.
> 
> You have hit upon the big question: is the increase in households without any traditional multi-channel service subscription a statistical blip or the tip of the iceberg? Nobody knows for sure, but everyone has a theory. The majority opinion seems to be that it is just the start of a trend away from linear broadcasting. The majority opinion, however, is not always correct.
> 
> ...


When they get married and settle down, as long as the content is locked up on cable, they will subscribe to cable.

As long as the content stays locked up, then what we're seeing is people who didn't really watch much TV in the first place cancel their TV subscriptions, and the market will more truly reflect how large it really is.

The cable losses are mostly to telcoTV and satellite, not to cord cutting. TelcoTV is particularly troublesome for them, since the telcos can do triple play bundles. However, there are so many areas where cable is an ironclad monopoly that they don't have much to worry about.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Bigg said:


> ...When they get married and settle down, as long as the content is locked up on cable, they will subscribe to cable.
> 
> As long as the content stays locked up, then what we're seeing is people who didn't really watch much TV in the first place cancel their TV subscriptions, and the market will more truly reflect how large it really is.
> 
> The cable losses are mostly to telcoTV and satellite, not to cord cutting. TelcoTV is particularly troublesome for them, since the telcos can do triple play bundles. However, there are so many areas where cable is an ironclad monopoly that they don't have much to worry about.


The cable companies (and most of us) would love to have your level of certainty about the future.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> IMHO, it's time for regulators to take a hard stance on wireline abandonment, but allow a 1 for 1 swap of copper for fiber to encourage further development of U-Verse and FIOS.


I agree with this. In fact I would go as far as governments giving grants or 0% loans to fund the expansion of fiber.



Bigg said:


> However, there are so many areas where cable is an ironclad monopoly that they don't have much to worry about.


That is true here. At least where high speed internet is concerned. The only other option is 6Mbps DSL from AT&T, and that's not even really 6Mbps unless you have a pristine connection. So cable is the only option if you want streaming video.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Diana Collins said:


> The cable companies (and most of us) would love to have your level of certainty about the future.


Well, that assumes that the good content stays locked up on cable. If HBO and ESPN both break free and offer their own OTT offering, then all hell breaks loose. But so long as the content is locked up, the subscribers don't have any option, and cable will still have subs. Of course, cable owns the only pipe in many places, so they can just jack up their internet prices if people start dropping cable TV in droves. The margins on cable TV are far lower than on internet, so even a modest price hike on the internet would make up for the lost profit (which is all that matters, losing a bunch of revenue that just goes out to carriage fees is a net-zero), and put them right back where they are today.


----------

