# Comcast Sets Switched-Video Rollout



## ewilts (Feb 26, 2002)

> Comcast is conducting trials of switched digital video in two markets and expects to deploy services based on the technology in the second half of 2007, vice president of production-platform engineering Rick Rioboli said.


http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6410009.html?display=Breaking+News

If I understood some of the concerns that TWC users have, this means that these channels will be unavailable to Series 3 does it not? Can somebody please clarify whether or not the S3 can handle switched video?

.../Ed


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

Switched Video is NOT supported by Tivo Series 3 being a unidirectional device. There have been many discussions on this and that is the bottom line.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

ewilts said:


> Can somebody please clarify whether or not the S3 can handle switched video?


Not by itself, no. There is (currently) no (realistic / available / reliable / certain) way to access SDV channels from an S3.

Although, one could certainly come up with (theoretical, technically possible but not availalble) ways to do it.

Note: There's alot of news releases and whatnot coming out now about SDV from the 2007 SCTE (Society of Cable Telecommunications Engineers ) Conference of Emerging Technologies ... however, keep in mind that _details_ of these SDV deployments are still rather sparse ...


----------



## blips (Oct 20, 1999)

Will Comcast's Motorola boxes with Tivo software be able to handle SDV?


----------



## davecramer74 (Mar 17, 2006)

i read that earlier today. So is this going to leave the tivo s3 owners out in the cold for area's they roll this out?


----------



## davecramer74 (Mar 17, 2006)

> Will Comcast's Motorola boxes with Tivo software be able to handle SDV?


well, my question is will any current hardware handle this? Or will they have to go with new hardware? I would think if its just a software patch for current motorola's, why wouldnt the s3's be able to do the same?


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

davecramer74 said:


> i read that earlier today. So is this going to leave the tivo s3 owners out in the cold for area's they roll this out?


 Only for channels they choose to implement SDV for which in general should be a small subset of the total and for less popular ones. It is pointless to implement popular channels in SDV since the bandwidth saving goal is not there (assuming bandwidth savings is the prime driver). So if you are a S3 owner and happen to watch some of the less popular channels and those channels go SDV then you could be SOL.


----------



## davecramer74 (Mar 17, 2006)

ahh ok, so they'd be running this sdv on top of their current getup.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

davecramer74 said:


> well, my question is will any current hardware handle this? Or will they have to go with new hardware? I would think if its just a software patch for current motorola's, why wouldnt the s3's be able to do the same?


 The Moto boxes already have bi-directional capabilities which is why you can use them for Video On Demand and order PPV via the box and other 2-way applications. The S3 hardware as it is right now is unidirectional, so it's more of a hardware limitation than a software limitation.


----------



## davecramer74 (Mar 17, 2006)

got ya.


----------



## scorley22 (Aug 15, 2003)

moyekj said:


> Only for channels they choose to implement SDV for which in general should be a small subset of the total and for less popular ones. It is pointless to implement popular channels in SDV since the bandwidth saving goal is not there (assuming bandwidth savings is the prime driver). So if you are a S3 owner and happen to watch some of the less popular channels and those channels go SDV then you could be SOL.


I just bought a S3... just hooked it up last night. I will be royally pi$$ed if TWC does this to my area. I had been going back and forth on whether to switch to DISH or keep my cable... the S3 made the decision for me and is the ONLY reason why I am staying with cable.


----------



## CharlesH (Aug 29, 2002)

moyekj said:


> The Moto boxes already have bi-directional capabilities which is why you can use them for Video On Demand and order PPV via the box and other 2-way applications. The S3 hardware as it is right now is unidirectional, so it's more of a hardware limitation than a software limitation.


As I understand it, the way the licensing rules currently read, the only way to get the two-way functionality is to run software, including the user interface, provided by the cable company. Needless to say, the CE companies (including TiVo) are working to get an alternative approved. Obviously, this is not an problem for cablecard set-top boxes provided by the cable company.


----------



## CharlesH (Aug 29, 2002)

moyekj said:


> Only for channels they choose to implement SDV for which in general should be a small subset of the total and for less popular ones. It is pointless to implement popular channels in SDV since the bandwidth saving goal is not there (assuming bandwidth savings is the prime driver).


On the other hand, if the goal is to destroy the set-top competition, then you would put popular channels on SDV. "You want this popular station? Then you have to use *our* set-top box."


----------



## Maeglin (Sep 27, 2006)

CharlesH said:


> On the other hand, if the goal is to destroy the set-top competition, then you would put popular channels on SDV. "You want this popular station? Then you have to use *our* set-top box."


It would seem like a call to the FCC would be in order if that were the case, because that would be breaking the spirit of the integration ban that cable companies are supposed to be subject to starting this summer (to allow competition in handling digital cable channels).


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

CharlesH said:


> On the other hand, if the goal is to destroy the set-top competition, then you would put popular channels on SDV. "You want this popular station? Then you have to use *our* set-top box."


 Exactly, which is why I added *(assuming bandwidth savings is the prime driver)* since there could be other motivations for SDV such as you stated, though that is a lot of hassle and more importantly expense to go through for a dubious purpose, so hopefully it's unlikely to happen.


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

How far 'upstream' does the switching take place? If the fiber backbone just carries everything to the local distribution switches that handle, for example, 100 outlets/coax, then only 250 Mhz would need to be dedicated to switched video with 500 Mhz for common channels.


----------



## Austin_Martin (Sep 13, 2006)

I suggest anyone who is worried about sdv should send an email to the fcc about this problem. If enough people speak out, there could be a chance of something being done about it. Otherwise, the cable companies will be able to say since no-one's complaining, there isn't a problem...


----------



## yunlin12 (Mar 15, 2003)

I vote for waiting to see which channels Comcast put on SDV before switching to Dish or DTV. Plus there's still the possibility of switching to FiOS and keep using the S3 for some.

If on the other hand we suspect Comcast to be using SDV unfairly to elbow out consumer electronics cable card devices, by putting high demand channels on SDV, then writing a letter to FCC is well justified.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Don't send an email, send a physical letter.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

HD channels are a popular choice for SDV. Percentage wise not that many people watch the HD channels yet. Assuming that only seldom watched channels would be put on SDV was the thought process many months ago, it is no longer the case. 

Sending a letter to the FCC about SDV is a complete waste of your time. It has been around and coming for years. Tivo just chose to ignore it because they had no other choice. It is the cheapest way cable can compete with the coming national HD channels from DirecTV.


----------



## RFEngineer (Oct 30, 2006)

HiDefGator said:


> HD channels are a popular choice for SDV.


Which explains why the Comcast execs claim they are going to roll-out their next 50 HD channels using SDV.

http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=113263


----------



## msu2k (Jan 4, 2001)

If there's no workaround for S3's...this may make my S3 one of my worst purchases ever.  I love the thing but if it's going to mean a crippled cable lineup, I'm not sure what my alternative is. The Comcast Tivos have far too little storage space for what we're used to. It may be a pipedream but I guess it's always possible that someday the S3 may be able to talk to the Comcast Tivo so we could use their box to record SDV content on its dinky hard drive while still recording most of our shows on the S3. Not an inexpensive route, but I simply don't know how to 1) keep Tivo 2) be able to record all HD channels and 3) have 100+ hours of HD storage. This bums me out bigtime.


----------



## pl1 (Jan 18, 2007)

msu2k said:


> If there's no workaround for S3's...this may make my S3 one of my worst purchases ever.  I love the thing but if it's going to mean a crippled cable lineup, I'm not sure what my alternative is.


If I'm not mistaken, one issue is that the current cableCARD is only one way and that two way cableCARDS (addressable cards) are right around the corner. The lady at Comcast told me that when I was returning my box. So, there might be some fix soon, maybe giving us the same features as the STB, including PPV, VOD, and SVR. I'll bet the hold up is that copyright crap.


----------



## matthewwhite (Dec 27, 2003)

i wonder how the integration ban will affect SDV as well.

it will be interesting when the cable company can not deploy an integrated box and will have to use a box that has cable card for their own system.

the tivo does not have the hardware to do 2 communication and it's the unidirectional device. (all cable cards by their nature are bi-directional that's how they work, its the tivo that is one way) I'd be surprised if there is a software only fix.


----------



## robm15 (Feb 23, 2004)

This sucks, I just ordered my S3 from Costco, and it should be here next week. I wonder if I should just return it and make do with the comcast box.


----------



## pl1 (Jan 18, 2007)

matthewwhite said:


> i wonder how the integration ban will affect SDV as well.
> 
> it will be interesting when the cable company can not deploy an integrated box and will have to use a box that has cable card for their own system.
> 
> the tivo does not have the hardware to do 2 communication and it's the unidirectional device. (all cable cards by their nature are bi-directional that's how they work, its the tivo that is one way) I'd be surprised if there is a software only fix.


Is that true with the televisions too? Because they have the same limitations as the TiVo.

http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2005-10/multistream-cablecard-status-report/


```
However, the more interesting 
news is the status of CableCARD 2.0 
on track for 2006 deployment. The 
current CableCARD tecnology provides 
the ability to decrypt and display digital 
cable without the need of a cable box, 
whereas the CableCARD 2.0 spec allows 
for both multistream (for dual tuning DVRs) 
and bidirectional communication (interactive 
program guide, Pay Per View, and Video 
On Demand). Initially, only multistream 
2.0 CableCARDs will be released with 
bidirectional functionality following 
in only? another year or so if were lucky.
```
And look at this letter from TiVo:

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518400258


```
TiVo then discussed the need to 
ensure that competitive entrant unidirectional
digital cable products (UDCPs)  
such as TiVos S3 device  continue to work
with cable systems utilizing switched 
digital video technology. Specifically, TiVo
expressed concern that if a cable operator 
distributes linear cable channels (apart
from PPV and VOD) [B]via switched digital 
technology, [/B] subscribers with a
competitive entrant UDCP will not have 
access to the same channels as those
subscribers leasing set-top boxes from 
the cable operator. Consequently, consumers
will be hesitant to invest in UDCPs
```


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

You can make a bidirectional box that works with cable cards and SDV. But the problem is that each SDV system can be slightly different in how it works\is configured. So while the cable company can order equipment that works with their SDV system and uses cable cards, the S3 cannot. New cable cards will not fix the S3. It was not designed to support SDV at all. Keep in mind that they started designing in the S3 years ago before SDV was even being field tested.

Another common misunderstanding is that all your existing HD channels will not be moved to SDV, only new ones will be put there. That is not true. The cable company "can" move any channel they want to SDV, including existing ones. It is not a problem for their equipment.


----------



## pl1 (Jan 18, 2007)

HiDefGator said:


> You can make a bidirectional box that works with cable cards and SDV. But the problem is that each SDV system can be slightly different in how it works\is configured. So while the cable company can order equipment that works with their SDV system and uses cable cards, the S3 cannot. New cable cards will not fix the S3.


Well, thanks for the insight. Not what many of us want to hear, especially after dishing out some pretty serious dough for these things. But, better to know what we are up against.


----------



## [NG]Owner (Dec 19, 2006)

First Post!

There is one other option for SDV that I have yet to see discussed in this or the other recent SDV thread. And that is a "switching device" is placed at the cable demarc of the residence. This "switching device" acts as a translator between exising cable boxes/regular TVs and the SDV node router. This translator is crucial for all those subscribers that are still on basic/expanded basic cable. Remember that SDV _requires_ the use of a cable box to get more than the ~ 25 or so channels that will remain analog.

The benefit of that style of architecture (SDV box at the demarc) are as follows:

1) The Cableco satisfies those with basic/expanded basic cable services, e.g., no cable box required for programming
2) Existing cable boxes can continue to be used (No cable company wants to replace all of their boxes at once)
3) CC 1.0 devices can continue to be used

It's too early to say how SDV has been designed, but I don't believe that the FCC/PUCs will permit forced obsolesence of consumer electronics and the foisting of cable boxes on every television in a household.

Time will tell.

[NG]Owner


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

What you are describing falls into the "it will work but it ain't gonna happen" category. 

Before the S3 there were only a handful of cable cards that had ever been distributed. While they may have sold a lot of TV's that support them, almost no one ever actually put a cable card in one. Frankly there aren't enough S3's out there yet for the FCC to care if they stopped getting the digital channels cable companies put on SDV. They won't all stop at once. It will be one small area at a time. And even then they will still work for most channels and OTA. Not much of an impact to expect the FCC to stop SDV.

Cable companies can put only digital channels on SDV and that prevents there from being a problem for the analog customers without a box. They still won't need a box with SDV either.

The benefit of SDV to the cable company is it works out to less than $5 per customer to install. The box you are talking about would make that price orders of magnitude higher.


----------



## [NG]Owner (Dec 19, 2006)

HiDefGator said:


> Cable companies can put only digital channels on SDV and that prevents there from being a problem for the analog customers without a box. They still won't need a box with SDV either.


Not quite. TWC Kansas City has ~80 analog cable channels today. Articles I've read have surmised that SDV will reduce that number to 25 - 30. As I understand it, those customer who do not have a cable box will therefore only have access to those 25 - 30 channels.

SDV will definately take current analog channels and move them into the SDV realm, effectively halving the number of channels available to the analog cable subscriber. SDV will also capture many of the digital channels as well, but the spectrum savings on moving a digital channel to SDV is nowhere near the spectrum savings of moving an analog SD channel to SDV (6 MHz vs ~0.75 MHz).

The real question is which of the 200+ channels will be on all the time (analog) and which will be moved to the SDV realm.

Lastly, I wasn't suggesting that the cable company pay for all the demarc box on all houses. I was suggesting that would be an option the cable companies could use to keep their basic/basic expanded customers happy. One SDV box fires up the whole house.

[NG]Owner


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

A translator that always provides 80 channels analog out the back end would permanently subscribe those channels so they might as well be at fixed assigments (which CC 1.0 can deal with) rather than switched. The only advantage is that you can get multiple analog devices (e.g. 6 TiVos) with one translator.


----------



## RFEngineer (Oct 30, 2006)

HiDefGator said:


> Frankly there aren't enough S3's out there yet for the FCC to care if they stopped getting the digital channels cable companies put on SDV.


From what I've read in the instance of TWC implementing SDV in San Diego with regard to subsequent customer complaints to the FCC that their one-way devices would no longer tune all channels, the FCC didn't take an interest in the issue because they are aware that 2-way devices are in the pipe awaiting certification right now, and know that this technology is the future for cable-operators in their quest to provide competitive channel-selection options compared to alternative delivery methods like MPEG-4 sat and fiber-to-the-premises.

TWC's response in this matter was to give disgruntled customers one-year's free use of their set-top box.

TWC's CTO has committed publicly to SDV, saying "If you're not switching, you're going to run out of spectrum." He further states they will continue to deploy SDV upgrades in the rest of their markets.

Same for Comcast. Look for 25% of their footprint to be SDV during 2007, including the next 50 HD channels -- if you can believe their executive comments to the investment community.


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

[NG]Owner said:


> First Post!
> 
> There is one other option for SDV that I have yet to see discussed in this or the other recent SDV thread. And that is a "switching device" is placed at the cable demarc of the residence. This "switching device" acts as a translator between exising cable boxes/regular TVs and the SDV node router. This translator is crucial for all those subscribers that are still on basic/expanded basic cable. Remember that SDV _requires_ the use of a cable box to get more than the ~ 25 or so channels that will remain analog.


This won't work.

The whole point of SDV is that the user (TV, TiVo, STB, etc) *asks* for the channel to be transmitted.

While you could put the two-way electronics in the 'translator' you are describing, you still need a way for the TV, TiVo, or STB to ask the 'translator' to request it for you. This communication to the 'translator' is also something that wasn't planned for in any TV or TiVo, and so wouldn't be possible.

SDV actually doesn't require the cable companies to replace all their STB's. They may have to replace some, but the majority of the boxes they've been using over the past 5 years can have new software loaded on them over the cable network. The SDV software exists for most of these models, all the Cable company ahs t do is download it to your STB.

This unfortunately is a way that CableCo's can force us to keep leasing STB's.

As for how many channels will move, it will only be the least popular channels really. There will be a 'critical mass' of popularity of a achannel where it will be easier to just send it out all the time.

That is why one CableVision's recent SDV announcement is all about international channels. Since they're likely to have less viewers, having them share bandwidth is a plus. SOmehow I think someone will always be watching things lilke Discovery, Fox, CBS etc. I don't think those will transition. I could be wrong though.

-Kyle


----------



## davecramer74 (Mar 17, 2006)

sounds like its time for the S4 from tivo.


----------



## [NG]Owner (Dec 19, 2006)

vman41 said:


> A translator that always provides 80 channels analog out the back end would permanently subscribe those channels so they might as well be at fixed assigments (which CC 1.0 can deal with) rather than switched. The only advantage is that you can get multiple analog devices (e.g. 6 TiVos) with one translator.


I hadn't thought of that. Bummer.

Is there some way that a device at the demarc of a home can "feel" or "sense" that an analog device is looking for a signal on a particular analog channel? Like a dip or a peak in the background noise on a particular spectrum slice? A backwards propogation wave of some kind? That might be the signal the demarc device needs to ship content down that analog channel.

The other advantage would be that CC1.0 could communicate with the demarc box to ship streams.

Frankly, I'm one of those guys that loathes set top boxes. I hate them and never want one. I won't get satellite for that reason. It's CC or analog for me.

[NG]Owner


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

HiDefGator said:


> Keep in mind that they started designing in the S3 years ago before SDV was even being field tested.


SDV was first field tested back in November 2002 - January 2003. BigBand and Time Warner were presenting the results of these trials at SCTE's 2003 events.


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

[NG]Owner said:


> The real question is which of the 200+ channels will be on all the time (analog) and which will be moved to the SDV realm.


Channels that are left 'on all the time' don't have to be analog. You can still have digital channels on all the time. If a cable comapny moved all it's programming to SDV only, I imagine several of the channels would still be on all the time because there would always be at least one household watching it.

That's why unless there is no cost penalty, or revenue opportunity, I don't think you'll see the most popular 'watched all the time' channels move to SDV.

Actually now that I think of it there may actually be a revenue opportunity, and although they may not be willing to admit it, that may be an even bigger reason to switch for them than 'spectrum savings'.

-Kyle


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

I'm not convinced the TiVo will be able to handle even channels that are switched but currently on. I'd have to research the channel assignments more and how the TiVo handles the channel map changes. What if the channel is coming and going during the day, how will that impact the scheduling algorithm? I smell a bunch of core dumps in the future!


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

ah30k said:


> I'm not convinced the TiVo will be able to handle even channels that are switched but currently on. I'd have to research the channel assignments more and how the TiVo handles the channel map changes. What if the channel is coming and going during the day, how will that impact the scheduling algorithm? I smell a bunch of core dumps in the future!


Sorry. I never meant to imply that an S3 would be able to find the SDV channels even if they are on all the time.

I was talking more about the fact that 'probably' the cable companies will leave the channels alone that are most likely to be on all the time anyway.

If they leave them alone the S3 won't have any trouble with them.

(I agree... I like MRV, but the lack of that isn't what's keeping me from buying an S3... It's the threat of SDV.)

-Kyle


----------



## ewilts (Feb 26, 2002)

Is it not about time for TiVo to speak up on the issue? Heck,they're smarter than most of us and can definitively tell us how we're going to be impacted by SDV. They *know* - they just need to tell us what's going on.

Unfortunately calling Customer Service won't help since we're not dealing with an immediate service issue. We're simply trying to plan... I'll take bad news or good news but no news is not going to make anybody happy.

.../Ed


----------



## Forcelite (Mar 19, 2006)

Like so many other things in technology, there is a 80% chance this is what will happed.

SDV will be implemented in MANY markets, and on MANY channels, then Tivo will come out with a S3 Ver2, which will implement two way communication and upgraded card standards. Then the old customer will be stuck with a lifetime box that gets half the stations the new version will get. 

You can be as pro Tivo as you want but if you are crippled with half the stations as your comcast dvr brotheren, I think that is a bad deal.

Force


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

kjmcdonald said:


> (I agree... I like MRV, but the lack of that isn't what's keeping me from buying an S3... It's the threat of SDV.)


I don't think that this threat is understood by the public. Or even if it's known how soon it will happen. Most people would probably still buy the S3 if they knew it would work for at least 4 years - maybe we wouldn't but I think many would.

Still given that this is keeping some of us (probably more than just me) from taking the S3 plunge, I too would like to hear Tivo's take on the subject.

It's been theorized that Tivo could sell a module which plugs into the USB port of the S3 that contains the electronics (basically a cable modem,) necessary to perform the 2 way communications required to enable SDV.

The limitation here is probably that the SDV upstream signaling is not standardized enough to make one product that would work with all cable plants?

Only Tivo could possibly figure out if that's really possible. Only Tivo could figure out how much such a module would cost and could be sold for, and only Tivo could figure out if it would be worth it to bother.

-Kyle


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

Forcelite said:


> Then the old customer will be stuck with a lifetime box that gets half the stations the new version will get.


And 96% of the channels he currently watches.


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

Forcelite said:


> Like so many other things in technology, there is a 80% chance this is what will happed.
> 
> SDV will be implemented in MANY markets, and on MANY channels, then Tivo will come out with a S3 Ver2, which will implement two way communication and upgraded card standards. Then the old customer will be stuck with a lifetime box that gets half the stations the new version will get.
> 
> ...


Yep.

And that's what's keeping the rest of us on the fence.

The risk of waiting is not having the chance to move your lifetime subscription.

Will there be a transfer allowed to the S3v2? Who knows.

-Kyle


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

A bigger question is will there be a S3v2 or S4 at all? Frankly I think Tivo would love to get out of the hardware business completely. I suspect they see their future as a software only suppliment to the dvrs cable and sat companies distribute (and maybe home media center pc's one day too). 

How many S3's will they need to sell just to cover the development and testing costs for it? It's a really big number when the profit margin is so low.


----------



## AbMagFab (Feb 5, 2001)

And let's all wait to buy a new PC since I heard Microsoft's next OS is going to make the current one obsolete.

And let's all wait to buy a new HDTV since I heard the new Sony's will be 2160p and make all the current 1080p's obsolete.

And let's all wait to get an HD-DVD player since I heard the new ones will support triple-layers and make the current dual-layer ones obsolete.

Come on folks, if you can afford it, and you want it, you buy it. I've been enjoying my S3 for almost 6 months now, and that's 6 months more than you if you haven't purchased one already.

Technology always changes, and things become obsolete. There's no CE device you'll buy today that will work at 100% in say 5 years. Nothing. And SDV won't have a major impact for at least that long.

Buy it and move on, or don't buy it and move on. Justify it however you want.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

I don't think anyone is trying to talk anyone else out of buying one. I thought we were discussing can the S3 work with SDV or not. I'm not sure I agree with you that it will be five years before S3 owners are impacted by SDV. There are already SDV rollouts in progress today. And according to the Comcast annoucement that started this thread they intend to aggressively roll it out later this year. Comcast has a big chunk of the cable market.


----------



## davecramer74 (Mar 17, 2006)

> Come on folks, if you can afford it, and you want it, you buy it. I've been enjoying my S3 for almost 6 months now, and that's 6 months more than you if you haven't purchased one already.


exactly, for you early adopters, you'll get a couple year's use out of it. Thats worth the 700. Thats about how much use i get out of any toy i buy. And yes, i consider the s3 a toy. My xbox360 will be obsolete in a couple years and so on. Obviously im sure alot would have liked to have better informed about the cable companies plans. Even if you had known, alot of these guys would have still when out and got them i bet. The ones who wouldnt were guys like me who were already on the fence.


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

AbMagFab said:


> And let's all wait to buy a new PC since I heard Microsoft's next OS is going to make the current one obsolete.
> 
> And let's all wait to buy a new HDTV since I heard the new Sony's will be 2160p and make all the current 1080p's obsolete.
> 
> And let's all wait to get an HD-DVD player since I heard the new ones will support triple-layers and make the current dual-layer ones obsolete.


That's a different kind of obsolete.

All those items will continue to do what they did when they were purchased. You're right the new ones will be better and do more, but nothing will stop that computer, or TV, or DVD player from doing what it did when you got it.

The S3 though, could be installed with Cable cards today and work fine, and then tomorrow the cable copmany could move every channel to switched digital video and your S3, not only wouldn't be as good as the next greatest thing, it wouldn't even be as useful to you as it was the day before.

It'd be a paperweight.

Not quite the same.

-Kyle


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

AbMagFab said:


> Technology always changes, and things become obsolete. There's no CE device you'll buy today that will work at 100% in say 5 years. Nothing.


That's not true. With the exception of it breaking, any CE device will do in 5 years what it does today. The 386 I bought in '90 still functions like it did when it was purchased. That doesn't mean it's good enough anymore but it still does what it was bought to do.

ON the same note I have a 1ghz Pentium 3 that's more than 5 years old that not only still does what it did when I bought it but also is still usable today.

The Digital TV switchover is an exception, but even here reasonably priced converter boxes are supposed to be made available for existing TV's. So the 32" Toshiba I bought in '97 will still be able to work the way it has for the past 10 years without any trouble.

Will I want to replace most CE devices I buy within 5 years? Yes most likely because I'll want the newer features.

Will I accept something I buy being gradually disabled by a 3rd party during that 5 years? No. (would you like it if your ISP could disable features of your Windows XP PC without asking you?)



> And SDV won't have a major impact for at least that long.


Define Major?

It's going to be different for each consumer.

As soon as one channel I record from often moves to SDV, then the TiVo isn't doing for me what it used to do. Everyone will be different as to which channels matter the most, and how many of them need to disappear before they'll decide they need something else.

I hope you're right. I hope I'll get 5 years before any of the channels I watch disappear. I won't hold my breath.

-Kyle


----------



## Austin_Martin (Sep 13, 2006)

> And SDV won't have a major impact for at least that long.


Umm, I hate to tell you, but in my area I'm already missing out on:

digital simulcast(i.e. better quality) digital stations,
A&E HD, and MTV HD.

It appears as though every new hd station will be sdv. Therefore it already has an impact, and will continue to do more so in the future.

I might be moving, and hopefully I'll be in an area where there is a different cable company, so I can tell Time Warner to take a flying leap. Or what I might do is get them to install cable, and continually switch the cable cards so that they have to send out truck after truck to repair them. And then drop them......


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

Austin_Martin said:


> Umm, I hate to tell you, but in my area I'm already missing out on:
> 
> digital simulcast(i.e. better quality) digital stations,
> A&E HD, and MTV HD.
> ...


If they could find a technological way to implement SDV with out disabling all the CC ready equipment out there, then I wouldn't mind SDV. I don't know if that's possible though.

The well publicized motive for moving to SDV is conserving spectrum or bandwidth.
That alone would drive a probably somewhat slow migration mostly focused on the new channels being added.

-Kyle


----------



## jbjust (Jan 26, 2007)

Is it safe to say that we'll never see SDV from FIOS since bandwidth is apparently never going to be an issue with them? All the more reason to switch when Comcast rolls this crap out later this year.


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

jbjust said:


> Is it safe to say that we'll never see SDV from FIOS since bandwidth is apparently never going to be an issue with them? All the more reason to switch when Comcast rolls this crap out later this year.


No, actually I think it's safe to say that you will see it - maybe sooner since they are building up the plant and not replacing existing equipment.

While fiber theoretically has more bandwidth, I think FIOS runs their TV service over a part of the spectrum that is basically equivalent to what Cable does. (something like a 850Mhz wide band)

-Kyle


----------



## jbjust (Jan 26, 2007)

We already have Fios TV in our neighborhood, just getting ready to be switched on. I would be surprised that they would later add SDV if they're not doing it at the initial roll-out.


----------



## davecramer74 (Mar 17, 2006)

fios wont need to add it for years. If you have fiber to your house, i assure you, bandiwth is not an issue.


----------



## Austin_Martin (Sep 13, 2006)

fios also doesn't have the problem with 50-100 analog channels. Without those, sdv wouldn't be necessary for years and years by the cable companies.


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

Austin_Martin said:


> fios also doesn't have the problem with 50-100 analog channels. Without those, sdv wouldn't be necessary for years and years by the cable companies.


Actually FIOS does transmit analog channels. It's not that different than cable.

Cable uses a lot of fiber too. Just not to the home.

-Kyle


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

I think the problem is not with the fios bandwidth but with the standard cable equipment they install at the head end to run over the fios.


----------



## msu2k (Jan 4, 2001)

HiDefGator said:


> I don't think anyone is trying to talk anyone else out of buying one. I thought we were discussing can the S3 work with SDV or not. I'm not sure I agree with you that it will be five years before S3 owners are impacted by SDV. There are already SDV rollouts in progress today. And according to the Comcast annoucement that started this thread they intend to aggressively roll it out later this year. Comcast has a big chunk of the cable market.


Exactly. This is happening THIS YEAR. I never would have imagined I'd get less than a year out of my S3 before it was essentially crippled.


----------



## Sevenfeet (Jun 24, 2000)

All this talk is making me very unhappy. I've been a customer of both Comcast and DirecTV now for two years. I've been a Tivo customer for over 7 1/2 years. Neither Comcast or D* have made me completely happy with their offerings. D* had the channels and Tivo but decided to move away from Tivo and overcompress their channels. Comcast had better quality, better HD and HD locals, but no HD Tivo (just a crappy iGuide DVR). My wife wants to get back to one vendor so I decided to take the Series 3 plunge and go with cable.

Now on the verge of me buying two Series 3 Tivos to replace a couple of ancient lifetimed Series 1 boxes I still own (and two SD DirecTivo boxes), I find out about Switched-Video. WTF??? I don't mind not having OnDemand with Cablecard 1.0. But if I'm Tivo, I have to be royally pissed that this standard is going to end up screwing them and lots of consumer electronic companies that put them into televisions. As a consumer, I can't spend the money on a Series 3 knowing that my local Comcast may obsolete it in 9-18 months. I make good money but I'm not that liquid. If Tivo can make a statement saying S3 owners will have some kind of migration path that won't bankrupt us, that would mean something, but as it stands, I have to sit on my hands and wait again.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

People seem to talk like Switched Digital Video coming to their market means their Series 3 becomes completely useless. That's hardly the case.


----------



## Agent86 (Jan 18, 2002)

msu2k said:


> Exactly. This is happening THIS YEAR. I never would have imagined I'd get less than a year out of my S3 before it was essentially crippled.


That's the part that really sucks. 3-5 years, eh, ok. Its technology.

Less then a year? OUCH!

The thing that bothers me the most though is that at NO time when I got the CableCards for my TV or my TiVo did anyone at Comcast ever say anything about NOT getting all the channels at some point.

What I don't get is why they just don't turn off analog and force everyone to have a digital box. Satellite does it, so its not like the consumer can point to the other guy. Additionally, in my 2007 bill adjustment, they are charging $3.79 for a SD digital box. For that much you would think they could just roll one box into the basic package and be done with it. They'll more then make that up on folks that need to get another box or two for other TVs in the house.

The end result is the same business plan as your competitors - the consumer would be faced with the same options on the other side of the fence - so its unlikely to cause a large degree of churn.


----------



## Agent86 (Jan 18, 2002)

dswallow said:


> People seem to talk like Switched Digital Video coming to their market means their Series 3 becomes completely useless. That's hardly the case.


Its not COMPLETELY useless, but would you want a TV that only tuned 3 out of 10 channels and 2 of the 3 are ones you don't like?

I think that's the point.


----------



## jbjust (Jan 26, 2007)

If you have Fios as an alternative, I think that you would be safe for 3-5 years.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

jbjust said:


> Is it safe to say that we'll never see SDV from FIOS since bandwidth is apparently never going to be an issue with them? All the more reason to switch when Comcast rolls this crap out later this year.


The way Verizon is architecting their FiOS TV network ... it's highly doubtfull they'll be using cable-style SDV. The network just isn't designed for it ... wouldn't really be cost effective.

However, Verizon will likely start using IPTV for some channels at some point in the future. A little different from SDV ... but ... end result ... IPTV channels won't be available for UDCPs either.


----------



## jbjust (Jan 26, 2007)

But IPTV would presumably definitely require a completely new STB for Verizon, no?


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Agent86 said:


> Its not COMPLETELY useless, but would you want a TV that only tuned 3 out of 10 channels and 2 of the 3 are ones you don't like?
> 
> I think that's the point.


You're jumping the gun on the ratios a bit, don't you think?


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

pl1 said:


> And look at this letter from TiVo:
> 
> http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518400258
> 
> ...


That whole letter is very interesting.

What I found particularly of interest is the Email attached.

It appears that TiVo is hearing these discussions in this forum.
I think the private message quoted in the email may actually be from a member here at TCF. (Does TiVo have people reading and participating anywhere else?)

The email is from last spring. The letter to the FCC is from last summer.

I wish there were ways to find out what the FCC is thinking about this now.

-Kyle


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

jbjust said:


> But IPTV would presumably definitely require a completely new STB for Verizon, no?


No.

Verizon uses the QIP series of STBs from Motorola. QIP. QAM / IP ... cute eh?

Verizon currently uses IPTV for VOD. They don't use IPTV for linear channels ... just VOD ... but the network (including STBs) is pretty much set up for it. Just a matter of time ...


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

kjmcdonald said:


> I think the private message quoted in the email may actually be from a member here at TCF.


Yup:
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=4207872&&#post4207872


----------



## seattlewendell (Jan 11, 2006)

pl1 said:


> If I'm not mistaken, one issue is that the current cableCARD is only one way and that two way cableCARDS (addressable cards) are right around the corner. The lady at Comcast told me that when I was returning my box. So, there might be some fix soon, maybe giving us the same features as the STB, including PPV, VOD, and SVR. I'll bet the hold up is that copyright crap.


I am afraid that that is not correct. People often confuse Multistream cards with Cablecard 2.0. Multistream cards are "right around the corner". Cablecard 2.0 compatable Tivo's are not "right around the corner".
From wikipedia:
There are two kinds of physical CableCARDs:

"SCards" or "single stream" cards support watching a single channel at a time. All currently available cards are SCards and were specified in the CableCARD 1.0 set of specifications. 
"MCards", also known as "MS-CableCARD" or "multiple stream" cards refer to a CableCARD which supports devices that need to access up to six channels simultaneously. MCards were specified in 2003 but have been frequently delayed. They are slated for availability prior to July 2007 when the integration ban takes effect. 
*MCards are sometimes referred to as CableCARD 2.0 cards, although they do not themselves provide interactivity nor any of the other CableCARD 2.0 features. * MCards are backward compatible with current Cablecard devices. To older cablecard devices that do not support multiple streams, the card appears to be a single stream card. CE companies have long wanted MCards for their CableCARD 1.0 host devices in order to compete with Cable company devices that use multiple tuners. This is important for products such as Sony & Tivo CableCARD DVRs, Televisions with Picture-in-picture and CableCARD equipped Personal computers running Microsoft Vista which need to be able to record one show while the user is watching another. Without MCards, these products must rely on two SCards, and installation and support is more error prone. Simple availability of MCards is insufficient if MCards are not supported on Cable company servers by a specified date. No such date exists, and so CE companies are uncertain when they will be able to sell products that rely on MCards.

*A common misconception is that there is a CableCARD 2.0 physical card that will provide two way services and will not be compatible with CableCARD 1.0 certified devices. This is not the case. CableCARD 2.0 host devices will only use either SCards or MCards that also work with CableCARD 1.0.

Interactive CableCARD 2.0 features rely on additional circuitry in the CableCARD Host device, not what is on the physical card. There is no directionality about the cards. This makes the name CableCARD 2.0 extremely misleading, since it mostly has nothing to do with the physical CableCARDs.*


----------



## tomryan (Sep 9, 2006)

dswallow said:


> You're jumping the gun on the ratios a bit, don't you think?


depends on how you look at it.. figuring that most people who bought the S3 bought it for HDTV purposes AND believing the management speak, 50 new channels of HD in SDV compared to their current numbers does translate to most HD channels, remember the reason you bought the S3, not being watchable..

If you ask me, the simple fact that the TIVO people have been absent from the S3 forum AND the lack of 8.1 (I know, I know 2 weeks) concerns me much much more then SDV..

I realize that we're in a fight, its not something new, I've seen the same types of fights for years (anyone remember the days of no dvd player software for linux!), but what is disheartening to me is the lack of comment from TIVO.

TivoPony, can you hear me, TivoPony, where are you? (ok ok.. so its not as superman2 esque as I was hoping?)


----------



## ewilts (Feb 26, 2002)

dswallow said:


> People seem to talk like Switched Digital Video coming to their market means their Series 3 becomes completely useless. That's hardly the case.


Perhaps not completely useless but I believe that we won't have the same functionality with SDV as without. And as consumers, we don't have much of a say in whether or not our cable providers utilizes SDV or not.

I am perfectly willing to let TiVo have their say in this - I'm encouraging it in fact.

What functionality will we have? Will there be some new channels that we won't receive? Could those be the new HD stations?

Thanks,
.../Ed


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

To be fair, all it would take is ESPN being moved to SDV and the S3 would have to be replaced in my house. Sure I could live without MTV HD and maybe even CNN HD, but move one critical channel and its game over.


----------



## Jerry_K (Feb 7, 2002)

And my OTA recordings just keep ticking right along.


----------



## Monty2_2001 (Aug 6, 2005)

davecramer74 said:


> sounds like its time for the S4 from tivo.


And a massive turn-in program for the S3 and discounts for the S4 to near free.


----------



## TiVoMonkey (Jan 12, 2002)

There are cable boxes being tested now that use a one-way Multistream Card, but do all of the 2-way communication with a built in DOCSIS modem.

These cable boxes are the stop-gap between one-way CableCard/MCard, and 2-way MCard. DOCSIS Settop Gateway is the name being used for these boxes. These are the boxes that Cable companies will start deploying in 07/07, since the FCC is requiring that only boxes that use CableCards can be deployed after then.

Perhaps TiVo could come up with a way that an external DOCSIS modem could be used in conjunction with the Series 3 to communicate the same way the DSG boxes do. 

This would of course require the full cooperation of the cable companies, since you just couldn't take your home cable modem and make it work.

Or perhaps TiVo is working on a DSG capable Series 3 for MCard, which would frustrate Series 3 early adopters. Or perhaps an external DSG modem could be hooked up through USB to the Series 3, and achieve this. And cable companies may have no choice but to allow this solution to work, because of the FCC ruling. Since its intention is to let customers buy 2-way settop boxes of their own starting 07/07.


----------



## Derek Nickel (Oct 7, 2003)

TiVoMonkey said:


> There are cable boxes being tested now that use a one-way Multistream Card, but do all of the 2-way communication with a built in DOCSIS modem.
> [...]
> This would of course require the full cooperation of the cable companies, since you just couldn't take your home cable modem and make it work.


Aren't most/all home cable modems DOCSIS cable modems? Just using your internet connection should work.


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

Monty2_2001 said:


> And a massive turn-in program for the S3 and discounts for the S4 to near free.


As much as I'd like this, I don't think we should really want TiVo to lose any money over this.

They're not exactly making tons of cash now, and more importantly The thing that is causing this problem is not their fault.

If some trade up was possible at their cost (including tech support, and subscription transfer costs, not just HW) I think that might be nice gesture on their part to share the costs of fixing this.

Of course to really be fair The costs should really be split 3 ways with the cable copmanies picking up a share, but I don't see that happenning.

Still, this is pointless until there is a standardized way of signaling for SDV with out an implementation of the full blown CC 2.0 spec, which still isn't finished and wouldn't be a solution for TiVo even if it was.

-Kyle


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

TiVoMonkey said:


> There are cable boxes being tested now that use a one-way Multistream Card, but do all of the 2-way communication with a built in DOCSIS modem.
> 
> These cable boxes are the stop-gap between one-way CableCard/MCard, and 2-way MCard. DOCSIS Settop Gateway is the name being used for these boxes. These are the boxes that Cable companies will start deploying in 07/07, since the FCC is requiring that only boxes that use CableCards can be deployed after then.


First as has been explained better than i could  here The cards are all 2 way, it's the host that either has or doesn't have the electronics that are needed to send signals back up the line.

It's true that previous STB's by used cable companies used other signaling methods for upstreams than true DOCSIS modems, but I wouldn't call DSG a stop-gap. It's my understanding that this is actually the future (or at least one future) for STB's and other Digital Cable Ready devices.

Just like consumers would like to be able to buy a generic STB at a store to avoid renting one. The Cable Companies really would love to see a standardized STB that they could buy from any vendor they want (to get the vendors competing against each other - Ironic that they want competion but don't want to compete  ) instead of being locked into buying them from the vendor they bought the head-end equipment from.

I beleive DSG is this standard (someone correct me if I'm wrong.) That said, I'm still not sure that the SDV signaling (or protocol) that would be sent by the DOCSIS Modem is standardized yet, and the real problem is that the (still unfinished) standard for how to put a DOCSIS modem into a host to work with a CableCARD (the CC 2.0 Host standard) also has a bunch of other software requirements that would basically allow the cable company to load it's own software (the "Walled Garden") on any device meeting the standard - This won't work for TiVo (or most consumers.)



> Perhaps TiVo could come up with a way that an external DOCSIS modem could be used in conjunction with the Series 3 to communicate the same way the DSG boxes do.
> 
> This would of course require the full cooperation of the cable companies, since you just couldn't take your home cable modem and make it work.
> 
> Or perhaps TiVo is working on a DSG capable Series 3 for MCard, which would frustrate Series 3 early adopters. Or perhaps an external DSG modem could be hooked up through USB to the Series 3, and achieve this. And cable companies may have no choice but to allow this solution to work, because of the FCC ruling. Since its intention is to let customers buy 2-way settop boxes of their own starting 07/07.


If there was a standard without the "walled garden" for for a two-way CableCARD device, that still included a standard upstream signaling platform like DSG, then yes I suspect both an external DSG device, and a modified S3 (not really an S4) would be possible (though still not a sure thing) for Tivo.

What they can't do is build a different thing for each cable company network.

-Kyle


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

Derek Nickel said:


> Aren't most/all home cable modems DOCSIS cable modems? Just using your internet connection should work.


The Cable Companies I think, generally will provision(or assign) an Internet access DOCSIS modem to a different up and down streams, and different IP networks. A DSG DOCSIS modem in a Cable Device won't need internet access, nor will it most likely need high download speeds.

So while the existing CableModem could (*probably*) be made to work (assuming all the other standards were in place, etc.) for many TiVo's (most Tivo S3's are probably connected to Cable modems?) This would be a Tivo-only solution (most other Digital Cable Ready equipment wouldn't use the in-house CM) and would require special treatment from the Cable Company.

-Kyle


----------



## mdg (Jan 27, 2007)

I've been a D* SAT-T60 owner with a dual LNB dish for almost 5 years now. When I got it, I had no idea how long it would work. Now D* is going with 5 LNB dishes and MPEG4 and dropped TiVo in the process. Sound similar?

But you know what? The T60 still works. Despite D*'s effort to move on, they are still supporting the old stuff, even TiVo. The question is, does Comcast plan on doing the same thing?

I've been doing research for weeks to upgrade to an HD DVR and I can't find the perfect solution anywhere. I decided last night, with my wife's blessing, to get an S3. While I'd like Comcast to provide me with some HD channels, especially ESPN, I'm going into this trusting it being an OTA HD and free QAM content recorder and nothing more. I can't even trust Comcast to have working CableCARDs in my area, but the S3 sure beats their DVR that doesn't have enough storage space. And I had to do something, I want to watch all broadcast TV in HD and not having TiVo for it is really messing up my life.

If I can get a reliable CableCARD solution, or finally get FiOS, it's a bonus at this point. (I hope we can at least trust the digital OTA broadcasts not to change anything.) Hey, who knows what's in store for the Tivo software on a Comcast DVR. They keep talking about it, but it might be the end of the year before I get one in my area.

Did I make a bad decision, who knows? Given the current choices (including waiting for something in the future), there's a downside no matter what I do. I'll hold on to the T60 until my S3 can do everything it can and more. Or until it stops working, but let's not think about that.


----------



## Jerry_K (Feb 7, 2002)

MDG,

90% of our TV watching is Series 3 based now, and all of that is OTA only. I am on Kent Island and use two $25 Radio Shack Yagi antennae, to get all the Baltimore and Washington stations. More than happy to help. Just PM me here.

We use the DirecTV boxes for the remainder.


----------



## CharlesH (Aug 29, 2002)

kjmcdonald said:


> So while the existing CableModem could (*probably*) be made to work (assuming all the other standards were in place, etc.) for many TiVo's (most Tivo S3's are probably connected to Cable modems?)


Why would there be any correlation between being a Tivo S3 user and being a cable Internet user? I'm happy with my 6Mbs DSL from (Pacbell) (SBC) AT&T.


----------



## hookbill (Dec 14, 2001)

I just want to kind of clear up a misconception about SDV. One of the things I read is it's cable companies saying "if you want this popular station you have to use our box." Not true. SDV takes the least used stations and moves it over there. 

Now there is some area's that have SDV now and have added HD channels which are on the switch. However stations that are available at the time of SDV are still available on the normal stream.

Further since all boxes will have to carry cable card eventually they have to be a bit careful what they do with this as well.

My contact at TW tells me it's only being test marketed in a few areas at this time and she doesn't anticipate it comeing here any time in the near future. It's not like this is just going to blow up and happen everywhere all over the country. It will be a slow roll out.

So some of you guys getting upset, take a deep breath, don't sell your S3, and relax.


----------



## pl1 (Jan 18, 2007)

hookbill said:


> So some of you guys getting upset, take a deep breath, don't sell your S3, and relax.


The voice of reason. Sounds good to me. OTOH, maybe it isn't so bad having a little panic set in before someone decides to slide something like this in place without first looking at all of the ramifications of those actions. Maybe some of the feedback will convince those in authority to think twice and do some serious research on the issue first.


----------



## CharlesH (Aug 29, 2002)

hookbill said:


> I just want to kind of clear up a misconception about SDV. One of the things I read is it's cable companies saying "if you want this popular station you have to use our box." Not true. SDV takes the least used stations and moves it over there.


The (perhaps paranoid) conjecture was that the cablecos could use SDV specifically to stifle competition, even if it made no technical sense for those stations to be on SDV. Like the good old monopolies who would sell a product for less than cost in a particular area to kill off the competitors in that area.


----------



## hookbill (Dec 14, 2001)

pl1 said:


> The voice of reason. Sounds good to me. OTOH, maybe it isn't so bad having a little panic set in before someone decides to slide something like this in place without first looking at all of the ramifications of those actions. Maybe some of the feedback will convince those in authority to think twice and do some serious research on the issue first.


Don't forget if you want to voice your objections to SDV, you can go to the EFF Article sticky at the top of this page and you can customize your letter to include SDV. This will go to the FCC and your voice can be heard.

Still, I don't think there is any need to panic. Observant, always. You don't want to tuck your head under your wing; but I really don't believe we have all that much to worry about. People are purchasing S3's in areas where there are using SDV and they are getting by just fine. I think Dallas is one of the areas. Another is around upstate NY.


----------



## pl1 (Jan 18, 2007)

hookbill said:


> Don't forget if you want to voice your objections to SDV, you can go to the EFF Article sticky at the top of this page and you can customize your letter to include SDV. This will go to the FCC and your voice can be heard..


 Yup, good advise. I should do that.


----------



## FlippedBit (Dec 25, 2001)

hookbill said:


> People are purchasing S3's in areas where there are using SDV and they are getting by just fine. I think Dallas is one of the areas. Another is around upstate NY.


In these areas where SDV has been rolled out, what specific content did they put on SDV? If somebody that has SDV could post a list of SDV content, that would help.


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

CharlesH said:


> Why would there be any correlation between being a Tivo S3 user and being a cable Internet user? I'm happy with my 6Mbs DSL from (Pacbell) (SBC) AT&T.


I realize that any OTA users are liekyl to have other Internet access, but I figure anyone who subscribes to Cable for their S3 probably gets their internet from cable also. Seems logical to me. It's just a guess.

-Kyle


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

hookbill said:


> I just want to kind of clear up a misconception about SDV. One of the things I read is it's cable companies saying "if you want this popular station you have to use our box." Not true. SDV takes the least used stations and moves it over there.


I don't want to add to the panic. I'm going to order an S3 myself so I'm not panincing yet either.

That said there is (at least?) one use for the SDV technology that could make the CableCO's a decent amount of new revenue. And it could make even more money on the more watched channels.

So there is incentive for the Cable Companies to move even high traffic channesl to SDV.

-Kyle


----------



## manhole (Apr 15, 2005)

robm15 said:


> This sucks, I just ordered my S3 from Costco, and it should be here next week. I wonder if I should just return it and make do with the comcast box.


Look at it this way. Costco has the industries best return policy. If comcast starts using SDV and that makes your S3 useless, you can simply return it for a full refund.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

All this talk of the S3 becoming a boat anchor/door stop because of SDV just is plain wrong:
1. Not all channels will be SDV, so you can still use the S3 for non-SDV channels which should be a good chunk of them
2. Many people have OTA option in case HD locals go SDV via cable.
3. You have option to rent the cable company DVR to supplement the S3 if you really need some of the SDV channels you are missing.
Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be at all happy if/when SDV rolls out in my headend and affects channels I care about. But I knew the risk was there before my purchase and because of above reasons went ahead anyway - meanwhile I am fully enjoying my purchase. If my cable company really goes too far with the SDV thing I plan on canceling service altogether and just going OTA. Yes I will miss some of the cable only channels but I can learn to live without them. Whatever eventually happens my S3 will certainly be no boat anchor or door stop.


----------



## seattlewendell (Jan 11, 2006)

Has Tivo made any statements about SDV?


----------



## AbMagFab (Feb 5, 2001)

kjmcdonald said:


> Actually FIOS does transmit analog channels. It's not that different than cable.
> 
> Cable uses a lot of fiber too. Just not to the home.
> 
> -Kyle


Lots of misunderstandings here.

1) FIOS is just Fiber to the Home. Once in your house, the TV signal is over regular coax
2) However, since it's just coax in your home, they have something like 150Mhz more bandwidth to play with, and there's no cable-modem bandwidth either.
3) Additionally, while they have a few analog channels, it's basically just the locals, which is anywhere from 50-90 fewer analog channels than most cable companies, so they have even more bandwidth to play with

This will quickly become a competitive advantage for FIOS, along with everything else (i.e. all those CC TV's, S3's, etc., will continue to work with FIOS).

In any case, FIOS (or your local form of FTTH) is the wave of the future. At least until the next thing.


----------



## ewilts (Feb 26, 2002)

seattlewendell said:


> Has Tivo made any statements about SDV?


No.

.../Ed


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Comcast customers should sell their S3s and just get the Comcast Tivo if it ever gets deployed....

TWC customers can get FIOS, or just live with the fact that the only HD they'll record will be network TV and maybe ESPN. The only SD they'll record will be popular channels. For some people, this is all they want their S3 for anyway. (I don't understand it myself, but to each his own....)

Where I live, there are 345,000 subscribers and just 600 CableCards in use. That's 0.17% customers best-case. If there are S3s out there, it's lower than that as each S3 needs two CableCards for each box. So call TWC, and they'll probably let your lease their HD DVR for a year free of charge. But they are not going to stop SDV roll-out for just over 0.1% of their customers.

It could be worse. Where I am there is no Fox HD available unless you mount a roof-top antenna. Even then, you might not get it. And yet I'm still alive (mainly because I don't watch FOX, but others here do using just plain old analog and they're still alive as well).


----------



## AbMagFab (Feb 5, 2001)

BobCamp1 said:


> Comcast customers should sell their S3s and just get the Comcast Tivo if it ever gets deployed....
> 
> TWC customers can get FIOS, or just live with the fact that the only HD they'll record will be network TV and maybe ESPN. The only SD they'll record will be popular channels. For some people, this is all they want their S3 for anyway. (I don't understand it myself, but to each his own....)
> 
> ...


Okay, Chicken Little...


----------



## Jazhuis (Aug 30, 2006)

hookbill said:


> I just want to kind of clear up a misconception about SDV. One of the things I read is it's cable companies saying "if you want this popular station you have to use our box." Not true. SDV takes the least used stations and moves it over there.


I still have one question, though. SDV is purportedly being used for bandwidth savings, right? So does that mean that channel surfers will immediately negate that bandwidth savings as they repeatedly request each channel in turn? (I'm assuming that there's some amount of timeout before a stream request is released, in case someone is flipping between two channels)

And no, people won't learn to use their STB guides (aside from whether the guides currently stink or not). The people that use them now, will use them. The majority of people will still literally flip channels, stumbling through channels that they never actually watch, and wondering why they even have them.


----------



## ashu (Nov 8, 2002)

I trust TiVo will cross the SDV bridge when they come to it (I bet they're already working on it!) - with a software update, or, if needed, a USB bidirectional addon if a software fix can't take care of it. 

Don't forget the fact that it runs Linux, has USB ports, and ethernet, and is capable of up/down-stream net connectivity. I don't see SDV as an incurmountable problem, but I bet TiVo will be slow to roll out their solution, although I'm sure their solution will still be more robust than any crud Motorola dishes out


----------



## davecramer74 (Mar 17, 2006)

> I still have one question, though. SDV is purportedly being used for bandwidth savings, right? So does that mean that channel surfers will immediately negate that bandwidth savings as they repeatedly request each channel in turn?


no, as soon as you click to the next channel, u kill your connection to the previous channel. Your only streaming one channel at a time.


----------



## Aiken (Feb 17, 2003)

Want to make SDV less appealing?

Most of us get a free digital box with our Comcast package.

Hook it up. Install fresh batteries in the remote. Do something to force the channel-up button down. Walk away and watch the S3 instead.

Suddenly your area looks like it uses all channels.

You could also set up your favorite channels on your digital box and spin through those instead, insuring that at least those remain unswitched, since they'll appear to be in constant use in your area.

---

Personally, though, if I were an MSO, I'd switch every single damned digital channel to SDV, whether it saved me anything or not, so that no channel would be reliably in the same place, thus ruining every single CC1.0 device in my service area. And then I'd let my lawyers handle anyone who complained. I wouldn't worry about the FCC, since they're spineless twerps and won't do anything about it. Then I'd sit back and laugh at just how powerful and untouchable I really am.


----------



## ashu (Nov 8, 2002)

He h, I'd even happily NOT sell my Toshiba SDH400, leave it on (free TiVo service) Basic, and set up a cascading series of Manual, all-day 2-minute recordings, continuously, on successive channel numbers, and have it force channel changes over IR 

I doubt it would help too much, though ... because once they've already turned on SDV, I won't use any extra bandwidth, but I bet doing this would increase the chances that they'd assume this was a heavy-all-channel usage market and delay SDV!

Great idea, Aiken


----------



## msu2k (Jan 4, 2001)

BobCamp1 said:


> Comcast customers should sell their S3s and just get the Comcast Tivo if it ever gets deployed....


With it's 15 hours of HD recording time and a drive that can't be upgraded? :down: I'd need 7 or 8 of them. 

I can't imagine anyone who is used to owning a Tivo being able to get by with just 15 hours of recording time.


----------



## ewilts (Feb 26, 2002)

BobCamp1 said:


> Comcast customers should sell their S3s and just get the Comcast Tivo if it ever gets deployed....


Sure, I'd happily sell my TiVo at a loss, get a smaller hard drive, give up the ability to display my photographs on my big screen, play my MP3s, and do the rest of the fun stuff, and pay Comcast a ton of money monthly for the privilege.

You may want to sell yours, but I'd rather spend more effort and less money and beat the hell out of whoever is making these moronic decisions that piss off their customers.

.../Ed


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

ewilts said:


> ... whoever is making these moronic decisions that piss off their customers...


 We TiVo users are really only a very small population of the cable companies' customers. For the vast majority of their customers, SDV will be a huge positive event. It just sucks that we're in the very small group that will get hurt.


----------



## davecramer74 (Mar 17, 2006)

> but I'd rather spend more effort and less money and beat the hell out of whoever is making these moronic decisions that piss off their customers.


hmm, more HD channels now and not in 2 years. How is that a moronic decision? Sorry, for the vast majority of their customers, this a GREAT decision.


----------



## xdreamwalker (Jul 13, 2005)

msu2k said:


> With it's 15 hours of HD recording time and a drive that can't be upgraded? :down: I'd need 7 or 8 of them.
> 
> I can't imagine anyone who is used to owning a Tivo being able to get by with just 15 hours of recording time.


I am with you. I have an S3 with a 750GB drive in it. More then half of that drive is filled with HD content. With only 15GB of HD recording I would have to watch what I record the next day at the latest so I could record more.

Right now I am in the habit watching tv about twice a week. I'll watch recordings from days and days ago all at once. With only 15 hours I wouldn't be able to do that anymore.


----------



## alex_kac (Oct 23, 2004)

dswallow said:


> People seem to talk like Switched Digital Video coming to their market means their Series 3 becomes completely useless. That's hardly the case.


If I can't watch 100% of what I watch now with the TW DVR - then it is. I DO watch some of the channels that supposedly are switched here in Austin. Not often, but occasionally. So I haven't even bought one (was about to today) and its already useless.


----------



## seattlewendell (Jan 11, 2006)

ewilts said:


> No.
> 
> .../Ed


Well shouldn't we be emailing Tivo and not the FCC. since this is being rolled out now in some markets Tivo should make some sort of official statement don't you think?


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

ashu said:


> He h, I'd even happily NOT sell my Toshiba SDH400, leave it on (free TiVo service) Basic, and set up a cascading series of Manual, all-day 2-minute recordings, continuously, on successive channel numbers, and have it force channel changes over IR
> 
> I doubt it would help too much, though ... because once they've already turned on SDV, I won't use any extra bandwidth, but I bet doing this would increase the chances that they'd assume this was a heavy-all-channel usage market and delay SDV!
> 
> Great idea, Aiken


 Perhaps another suggestion is get a neighborhood party going and have each person tune to a different SDV channel on each TV in their house - would work especially well for those with dual tuner cable co DVRs that can occupy two channels at once... we'll see how SDV handles that situation... would it deny the least popular channels 1st?


----------



## Sevenfeet (Jun 24, 2000)

Well, I went ahead and bought two Series 3 Tivos from Costco.com knowing full well that the SDV issue is looming. At least 6 months from now I can return them if Comcast screws us....either that or sell it to someone who can get FIOS (that's not available in old BellSouth territory).


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

They won't move their existing HD channels to switched.. they'll just add new ones. Who cares. I get 8 channels that broadcast HD OTA. That will NEVER change. I can also record 50 hours of HD, and more once ESATA is enabled, plus have the broadband offerings. Analog cable won't go away for years. Even the current HD channels won't.

Now, if the switched content actually has something useful (which I doubt will happen), then MAYBE I'll add a Comcast TiVo to COMPLEMENT my superior S3...


----------



## gbelous (Jan 10, 2007)

I'm also debating on getting the S3 if it can be used for a couple years at least. Do you think comcast will make it so channels can't be viewed at all? I'm new to this situation and trying to understand it as best I can before I upgrade all my tv equipment.
Everyone talks about what will happen and what everything is, but what should someone do who's on the fence about it now? Invest hundreds into an s3 and hope it still gets all the channels in a few months or wait and suffer without hd till more decisions are made...whenever that will be.


----------



## robm15 (Feb 23, 2004)

After sending an email to TiVo last week on this question about Switched Video, they called me back last night and left this a message on my voicemail. My question concerning Comcast and Switched Video was sent up to a senior engineer at TiVo, and the response is that they are aware of the issue and are carefully monitoring the situation. Since by the nature of how switched video works, they anticipate that only new, or low use channels will become switched they do not believe that there will be much impact to S3 owners. They are also in contact with the FCC concerning switched video technology. But there was no comment on what that meant exactly.

That was the extent of it. It give me hope, and I am planning to keep the S3 I just purchased from Costco. I set it up last night, and it works terrific! The cable card install went smoothly, and I had no problems doing it myelf and coordinating with comcast on the phone.


----------



## FlippedBit (Dec 25, 2001)

gbelous said:


> ...what should someone do who's on the fence about it now? Invest hundreds into an s3 and hope it still gets all the channels in a few months or wait and suffer without hd till more decisions are made...whenever that will be.


Well I would seriously consider looking into waiting for the Comcast+TiVo DVR. I have an S3 I bought in September and have really enjoyed it. If I didn't have one today, I'd probably wait until I understood what content will be relligated to SDV and if the Comcast+TiVo DVR will be a satisfactory and timely alternative.


----------



## gbelous (Jan 10, 2007)

Do we have any idea when we will know what stations will be on SDV or when Comcast will release the +tivo dvr?

Once comcast implements this switch to sdv is there any hope that the current S3's can be upgraded/salvaged to be used or will they be junk to anyone who wants to stay with comcast?


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

gbelous said:


> Do we have any idea when we will know what stations will be on SDV or when Comcast will release the +tivo dvr?
> 
> Once comcast implements this switch to sdv is there any hope that the current S3's can be upgraded/salvaged to be used or will they be junk to anyone who wants to stay with comcast?


My speculation is that all current channels will remain as they are, some crappy new channels will be Switched. For example, if they wanted to offer Voom so they could claim 20 some new channels.


----------



## ewilts (Feb 26, 2002)

robm15 said:


> After sending an email to TiVo last week on this question about Switched Video, they called me back last night and left this a message on my voicemail. My question concerning Comcast and Switched Video was sent up to a senior engineer at TiVo, and the response is that they are aware of the issue and are carefully monitoring the situation. Since by the nature of how switched video works, they anticipate that only new, or low use channels will become switched they do not believe that there will be much impact to S3 owners.


There may not be any impact to any of my existing channels, but if Comcast rolls out 12 (pick a number) new HD channels later this year and I can't see them even though they're part of the package I'm paying for, then there will most definitely be impact to THIS S3 owner. Comcast *is* rumored to be adding new HD stations this year (FX, USA, TBS, CNN) and I currently watch programming on all of them in SD so it's a reasonable assumption that I'll want to watch it in HD.

.../Ed


----------



## gbelous (Jan 10, 2007)

So what will you do if they add those new HD channels in SDV and you can't access them at all?


----------



## drew00001 (Jan 13, 2007)

Are we OK if they put the analog on one switch and digital on the other? S3 users don't have access to VOD, so they can put that on the same switch as analog.


----------



## Maeglin (Sep 27, 2006)

drew00001 said:


> Are we OK if they put the analog on one switch and digital on the other? S3 users don't have access to VOD, so they can put that on the same switch as analog.


You're forgetting 1/3 of what the acronym stands for:

SDV = Switched *Digital* Video

Only the digital channels are switched. Analog is left as-is.

Granted, if most of the analog channels were eliminated and only the digital versions left, there would be more bandwidth to play with without switching anything (as has already been stated). Compared to SDV, though, that option likely wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell with Comcast and TWC.


----------



## gbelous (Jan 10, 2007)

And with analog we can't get HD channels, right?


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

davecramer74 said:


> ahh ok, so they'd be running this sdv on top of their current getup.


Huh. Well then that's not SO bad. I generally only watch the more popular channels like Bravo, TLC, DSC, SHO,HBO. Stuff like that. Hopefully it will be a couple of years before they put SDV on the Major Networks. By then there will be a TiVo based Comcast Box that will likely be pretty decent. My TiVo/DirecTV (SD) box was rock solid. I hate to say it but even a tad more solid than the current S3 I have. Not that I'm complaining. I'll take TiVo in any form I can get it.


----------



## slimoli (Jul 30, 2005)

SDV sucks. Did you guys realize that very few new TV models have a cablecard slot? Almost all 2005 models over 32" had a CC slot, many new 2006 models came without it and only the very high-end 2007 models support CC. Check the new Sony,Sharp and Panasonic models.


----------



## davecramer74 (Mar 17, 2006)

> Huh. Well then that's not SO bad. I generally only watch the more popular channels like Bravo, TLC, DSC, SHO,HBO. Stuff like that. Hopefully it will be a couple of years before they put SDV on the Major Networks. By then there will be a TiVo based Comcast Box that will likely be pretty decent. My TiVo/DirecTV (SD) box was rock solid. I hate to say it but even a tad more solid than the current S3 I have. Not that I'm complaining. I'll take TiVo in any form I can get it.


ya, thats kinda my opinion. Obviously, On demand will be using sdv. So, no impact to you s3 guys. The main thing i see you guys missing out on would be the new channels they add. USA, TBN, WGN, etc. With that said, i could be wrong. Its all speculation at this point. Its coming down the pipe, we all know it. Cable is not going to sit back and watch everyone bypass them in HDTV. S3 peeps will have to replace their units sooner or later. I think you guys have a great dvr and will be able to use it for another year or 2. By then, you move it to the secondary tv and go with the latest and greatest. I look at them s3's like a new PC, xbox or playstation. You replace them every 3 years. If you went out and spent 7 hundy on it, i find it hard to believe that next year rolls around and your going to be worried about buying the next latest and greatest. My opinion is tivo jumped the gun on releasing this one. cable card technology wasnt there yet. They put all their cookies in one jar and it didnt pay off. They werent the first and wont be the last.


----------



## kb7oeb (Jan 18, 2005)

slimoli said:


> SDV sucks. Did you guys realize that very few new TV models have a cablecard slot? Almost all 2005 models over 32" had a CC slot, many new 2006 models came without it and only the very high-end 2007 models support CC. Check the new Sony,Sharp and Panasonic models.


I read the reason is its an expensive thing to add and few customers use it. I think cable card is a better fit for secondary tvs.


----------



## ewilts (Feb 26, 2002)

gbelous said:


> And with analog we can't get HD channels, right?


Right. All HD is digital. Not all digital is HD.

.../Ed


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

An actual expenditure ($$$) number I hadn't seen before ...


> http://www.cedmagazine.com/article/CA6413107.html
> 
> Alchin (Comcast Treasurer) said the MSO is committing about $150 million for its switched digital initiative in 2007 - enough to place the technology in about 30 percent of Comcast's footprint.


----------



## kd_cooke (Jan 8, 2003)

I would not say that TWC folks in Upstate NY are doing "just fine." Just this past Friday, I lost 27 more channels to Switched Video, including CBS and ABC. That's right, I will not be watching the Super Bowl on HD. I'm more than a little pissed right now. And TWC cable could care less. They are doing NOTHING to even try to make me happy. In total, I have lost over 50 channels sinve moving from my Cable Co. box to a S3....



hookbill said:


> Don't forget if you want to voice your objections to SDV, you can go to the EFF Article sticky at the top of this page and you can customize your letter to include SDV. This will go to the FCC and your voice can be heard.
> 
> Still, I don't think there is any need to panic. Observant, always. You don't want to tuck your head under your wing; but I really don't believe we have all that much to worry about. People are purchasing S3's in areas where there are using SDV and they are getting by just fine. I think Dallas is one of the areas. Another is around upstate NY.


----------



## cableguy763 (Oct 29, 2006)

It is illegal for cable companies to put the local broadcasters in any type of encryption. In Austin we have a bunch of switched channels but are absolutely unable to put any form of ABC,CBS,NBC or Fox in SDV, and since we are TWC, Rochester has to follow the same rules.


----------



## kd_cooke (Jan 8, 2003)

Syracuse, BTW, not Rochester. Anyway, I may have jumped the gun on this. Regardless, I'm more than a little pissed. I've spent over $200 to host a HD Superbowl party; which I now must cancel. These channels magically disappeared off of two cards this past Friday. The best TWC could do is schedule someone to coe next Tuesday...



cableguy763 said:


> It is illegal for cable companies to put the local broadcasters in any type of encryption. In Austin we have a bunch of switched channels but are absolutely unable to put any form of ABC,CBS,NBC or Fox in SDV, and since we are TWC, Rochester has to follow the same rules.


----------



## PhillyGuy (Mar 12, 2006)

cableguy763 said:


> It is illegal for cable companies to put the local broadcasters in any type of encryption. In Austin we have a bunch of switched channels but are absolutely unable to put any form of ABC,CBS,NBC or Fox in SDV, and since we are TWC, Rochester has to follow the same rules.


That's not exactly true. All local broadcasts must be available in the lowest tier of service. However, it's unclear at this point how this rule applies to digital channels. As of now, there are no mandates that local HD or digital channels be in the clear, although a majority of cable companies have followed that practice. Because the SDV technology only applies to digital feeds, TWC is technically not breaking any rules yet.


----------



## cramer (Aug 14, 2000)

The word everyone is looking for is "loophole". Yes, SDV increases the effective capacity. But it also renders every existing certified device useless. No cable operator is happy about the integration ban. So, out of pure spite -- and because they legally can -- MSOs have a strong motivation to make as many channels as possible switched.



cableguy763 said:


> It is illegal for cable companies to put the local broadcasters in any type of encryption.


SDV is not encryption. If no one is watching, it simply isn't broadcast. When someone does, the unencrypted QAM signal is placed at a random frequency.



TiVoMonkey said:


> There are cable boxes being tested now that use a one-way Multistream Card, but do all of the 2-way communication with a built in DOCSIS modem.
> ...
> Perhaps TiVo could come up with a way that an external DOCSIS modem could be used in conjunction with the Series 3 to communicate the same way the DSG boxes do.
> 
> This would of course require the full cooperation of the cable companies, since you just couldn't take your home cable modem and make it work.


All cableCARD(tm)s are bidirectional. They always have been. It's the host, into which one shoves the cableCARD(tm), that has to have bidirectional hardware. And it's entirely _possible_ to use an external DOCSIS cablemodem. A cablemodem is a cablemodem is a cablemodem. It doesn't matter if it's an external Motorola SB5100 or a Xylinx FPGA glued to the motherboard. The HFC MAC address controls into which network the headend places the modem -- i.e. which configuration is sent to it. However, as I have stated (repeatedly) elsewhere, there's no way in hell Cable Labs will ever certify an external field upgrade. (plus, there's no amount of software that will get a tivo to grow an RF modulator.)



[NG]Owner said:


> SDV will definately take current analog channels and move them into the SDV realm...


If you mean they'll stop offering the analog channel and instead broadcast it as a digital (sub) channel, then yes, it's possible. However, it's very unlikely. If they can take 25 SD analog channels and push them out as 1 digital channel, then they will have freed up 24 channels and thus not need to switch those 25 channels. Of course, that won't stop 'em.


----------



## gbelous (Jan 10, 2007)

Anyone know if Comcast will use tivo boxes or just tivo software?


----------



## FlippedBit (Dec 25, 2001)

gbelous said:


> Anyone know if Comcast will use tivo boxes or just tivo software?


Just TiVo software.


----------



## gbelous (Jan 10, 2007)

Think TiVo will re-release the series 3 so it can handle SDV?


----------



## vstone (May 11, 2002)

I'd bet they're working on Cablecard 2 (they may have already sidelined this, it may never show), OCAP, SDV, and probably some other stuff. How much of this stuff makes it out of the lab depends on how hard, how expensive, and how long the market window is open for a particular technology.


----------



## gbelous (Jan 10, 2007)

So do you think the S3 will be used post SDV with new updates, cards, etc. or will it become as others have said a paperweight and well have to buy a new one anyway?


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

The issue people say with SDV and the S3 is that there is no outgoing capability in the S3.
I am wondering why they can't use the ethernet jack to do it. They could even require the broadband to be on their pipe or is that to much of a leap in development cost.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

zalusky said:


> The issue people say with SDV and the S3 is that there is no outgoing capability in the S3.
> I am wondering why they can't use the ethernet jack to do it. They could even require the broadband to be on their pipe or is that to much of a leap in development cost.


The whole problem right now is the lack of any standards related to the process of a CableCard host communicating with the head end to tune SDV or to request VOD or PPV material. While many things are possible, to have every cable system provide their own way of doing it via an outside device would be a nightmare. Now when the standard is actually finalized, that'll cover 2-way CableCard host devices, but still won't provide a way for one-way devices to work around the problem. And it's probably pretty unlikely they ever do. It's certainly technologically possible if anyone in charge wanted to provide the capability.


----------



## gbelous (Jan 10, 2007)

I don't know I just wish someone knew what they will do and when. If I had reassurance that the S3 could be adapted to SDV in the near future I would run out and get one today! It's just too risky for $650 not knowing what lies ahead.


----------



## Cblong (Jan 31, 2007)

Anyone have a sense if outfits like Verizon Fios are less likely to do this with their greater bandwidth resources? just hoping!


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

Cblong said:


> Anyone have a sense if outfits like Verizon Fios are less likely to do this with their greater bandwidth resources? just hoping!


http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=4816474&&#post4816474


----------



## Cblong (Jan 31, 2007)

thanks dt_dc!


----------



## jeblis (Mar 24, 2003)

I have a tivo s3 installed with Austin TWC and a whole bunch of channels are now on SDV, not just unpopular ones. I've had to install a Time Warner HD DVR in parallel just to get the channels I'm missing.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

jeblis said:


> I have a tivo s3 installed with Austin TWC and a whole bunch of channels are now on SDV, not just unpopular ones. I've had to install a Time Warner HD DVR in parallel just to get the channels I'm missing.


 Do they have an up to date published list of channels on SDV in Austin? I'd be curious to see what channels are on SDV if you can supply a link.


----------



## gbelous (Jan 10, 2007)

You have both dvr's hooked up at the same time allowing the TW one to play the channels your Tivo won't?


----------



## raygundan (Oct 29, 2003)

*msu2k*

_Exactly. This is happening THIS YEAR. I never would have imagined I'd get less than a year out of my S3 before it was essentially crippled. _

Oh. My. God.

This is astonishingly bad. After the three-year wait for a HD Tivo, I drop a small fortune on it and the cablecos render it useless (and likely unsellable) within a SINGLE YEAR?!?!?!

This is very likely the worst purchase I have ever made.


----------



## cableguy763 (Oct 29, 2006)

Austin has over 150 channels in switched right now. More to come.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

cableguy763 said:


> Austin has over 150 channels in switched right now. More to come.


 Do you know the reasoning behind that many going SDV? Surely there are not 150 "less popular" channels. Perhaps the entire digital simulcast lineup is on SDV which may make some sense. If bandwidth savings is not the main motivation then what is?


----------



## mrmot (Aug 27, 2006)

moyekj said:


> Do they have an up to date published list of channels on SDV in Austin? I'd be curious to see what channels are on SDV if you can supply a link.


I second that request.

Actually, I think it'd be extremely helpful if some of the folks in the areas with SDV could publish a list of which channels are currently switched - I suspect that the cable companies might not have that information online anywhere.

The large numbers of switched channels being reported in other parts of this thread are somewhat worrying


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

moyekj said:


> Do you know the reasoning behind that many going SDV? Surely there are not 150 "less popular" channels.


To quote Paul Brooks, senior network architect in Time Warner's advanced technology group:


> http://www.bigbandnet.com/news/inTheNews/2005/news_062705a.php
> 
> Operators can save 12 to 15 channels of 6 MHz, but it's not for those who want to take baby steps. "*Go big or go home*," was his concluding advice.


----------



## cableguy763 (Oct 29, 2006)

The reason is simple. Bandwidth. Consumers want more HD channels, without losing channels they already have. The only way to get those is to use SDV. With D* offering some 150 HD channels on their new birds, cable has to do something to compete.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

cableguy763 said:


> The reason is simple. Bandwidth. Consumers want more HD channels, without losing channels they already have. The only way to get those is to use SDV. With D* offering some 150 HD channels on their new birds, cable has to do something to compete.


 Is TW Austin currently using 750MHz or 860MHz system? For SDV to be that agressive I would guess it must be at 750MHz right now... I suppose implementing SDV is cheaper (or at least much quicker) than going after system upgrades at least in the short term. At some point SDV runs into diminishing returns and I wouldn't have guessed the inflection point would be at 150+ channels...


----------



## cableguy763 (Oct 29, 2006)

Austin is 750 Mhz. They wrestled with going 1 Ghz or going switched. Switched was a cheaper option with more bang for the buck.


----------



## davecramer74 (Mar 17, 2006)

> I suppose implementing SDV is cheaper (or at least much quicker) than going after system upgrades at least in the short term.


thats exactly the reason they are going sdv. it buys them alot of time to upgrade. They can go the last mile methodically like they did when they originally upgraded their networks in the 90's to allow for digital tv and cable modems. Their backbones are already in place. They just need to go from the street to the house id imagine in most of their markets. I know thats the case in the bay area. They laid fiber all over the place 10 years ago.


----------



## seattlewendell (Jan 11, 2006)

Hopefully someone knows the answer:
SDV works by sending you the channel only when the box request it by changing to that channel. When my Tivo changes the channel to record isn't the same as the cable company's box changing the channel (talking strictly S3 here). Why would SDV not work the same and broadcast the channel when the S3 tunes to it?


----------



## Agent86 (Jan 18, 2002)

moyekj said:


> Do you know the reasoning behind that many going SDV? Surely there are not 150 "less popular" channels. Perhaps the entire digital simulcast lineup is on SDV which may make some sense. If bandwidth savings is not the main motivation then what is?


The main reason is why NOT?

If you have decided that you are going to do SDV, you should realisticially move EVERY non-analog channel into the SDV system. Why only move half, and save bandwidth on 50% of the digital channels you offer? You should move ALL your digital channels into SDV, and get the maximum amount of bandwidth savings for your SDV investment.

The way to get the most bandwidth back, and the best return on investment, would be to SDV all digital channels.


----------



## Agent86 (Jan 18, 2002)

seattlewendell said:


> Hopefully someone knows the answer:
> SDV works by sending you the channel only when the box request it by changing to that channel. When my Tivo changes the channel to record isn't the same as the cable company's box changing the channel (talking strictly S3 here). Why would SDV not work the same and broadcast the channel when the S3 tunes to it?


The digital cable boxes can talk back to the cable company to say what channel they've changed to. S3 TiVos cannot. Its along the same reason why the cable company boxes do PPV and OnDemand and TiVos cannot.


----------



## CharlesH (Aug 29, 2002)

Agent86 said:


> The way to get the most bandwidth back, and the best return on investment, would be to SDV all digital channels.


But what do you gain if pretty much every node currently has a given channel active?

But if in the process you can screw over your competition and sidestep that inconvenient FCC integration ban, then hey, why not?


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

CharlesH said:


> But what do you gain if pretty much every node currently has a given channel active?


Statistically speaking, this is not very likely at all. They will tune node sizes appropriately to gain the best optimization. As much as we all hate this, don't take the MSOs for fools. They are not dropping hundreds of millions of dollars on a whim.


----------



## CharlesH (Aug 29, 2002)

cableguy763 said:


> Austin is 750 Mhz. They wrestled with going 1 Ghz or going switched. Switched was a cheaper option with more bang for the buck.


My area is being upgraded from 550MHz (no OnDemand, very few PPV channels) directly to 1GHz this year, so maybe I'll be lucky.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

Well, if my cable company (Cox, Orange County, CA) decides to get very aggressive with SDV such as TWC Austin I guess my backup plan I formulated at the time when I opted to buy the S3 will kick in. I decided I could probably live without certain cable channels such as ESPNHD & TNTHD etc. I would drop digital cable completely and go with OTA for all HD needs with my S3. About 90% of what I watch in HD is on network channels which I can receive OTA anyway... Tiny gesture of retribution I know, but so be it.


----------



## yunlin12 (Mar 15, 2003)

My guess is that if Comcast in my area will use SDV, they will use it to add more HD channels. Most of the shows that I Tivo are network shows, so as long as all the local network (NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox) HD channels are not on SDV, I'm more then happy to keep my 750 GB Tivo S3, and get 90-95% of the HD content that I would want, rather than going with a SDV compatible Comcast DVR (even with Tivo) that's more HDD limited, to catch 100% of HD TV channels. Right now the only channel Comcast can put up that may change my mind is Sci-Fi HD. If they start moving local HD's onto SDV, I'll look into OTA, write FCC, look into FiOS progress, and as a last resort, sell the S3 and get the Comcast DVR.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

CharlesH said:


> My area is being upgraded from 550MHz (no OnDemand, very few PPV channels) directly to 1GHz this year, so maybe I'll be lucky.


As far as I can tell ... the S3 has an 860MHz tuner. So ... any channels placed above 860MHz won't be tuneable by the S3 either.


----------



## ScratchFury (Feb 12, 2005)

Sounds like the S4 will need to have a modular tuner to keep up with changes.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

Agent86 said:


> The main reason is why NOT?
> 
> If you have decided that you are going to do SDV, you should realisticially move EVERY non-analog channel into the SDV system. Why only move half, and save bandwidth on 50% of the digital channels you offer? You should move ALL your digital channels into SDV, and get the maximum amount of bandwidth savings for your SDV investment.
> 
> The way to get the most bandwidth back, and the best return on investment, would be to SDV all digital channels.


This bring an interesting hypothetical question.
If you bought S3 with 3 year commitment;
AND you can't receive OTA (reception problem);
AND your cable company switched ALL digital channels to SDV;
- will TiVo let you out of your commitment or you are stuck paying $13/month for a $800 doorstop?


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

samo said:


> AND your cable company switched ALL digital channels to SDV;


This absolutely WILL NOT HAPPEN.

For one thing, they can't move locals to SDV.

Second, it's POINTLESS. The only reason to put a channel on SDV is because it is so rarely watched, that a good percentage of the time nobody is tuned to it. Say for example, they add 30 channels (or whatever it is) of VOOM. Odds are that most of the time, nobody in your neighborhood will be watching it.

However, you locals would not receive ANY benefit to SDV because someone will always be watching it. Same with ESPN, HBO, etc...


----------



## DeathRider (Dec 30, 2006)

Going back to this article...

http://www.bigbandnet.com/news/inTh...ews_062705a.php



> One problem Time Warner didn't run into in Austin, but will face in other markets, is that of customers with one-way CableCARD TV sets.


Which markets have a large amount of customers using CableCARDs in their TVs?

I wonder how many times cableco thwarted a customer from using a cablecard in their tv and talked them into a STB so they don't miss VOD/PPV or that cablecards will only cause problems, yada, yada, yada...


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

I'd really like someone in-the-know to let us know how well the S3 will handle switched channels even if they are currently turned ON. We are all worried about switched channels that are currently OFF (talk of workarounds to keep certain channels on) but I'm not convinced the S3 will properly handle channels that are on. If the QAM channel changes based on the service being turned off then on again will the S3 notice the change?


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> This absolutely WILL NOT HAPPEN.
> 
> For one thing, they can't move locals to SDV.
> 
> ...


That's not true. While moving locals to SDV might run foul of the no-ecrypted locals rule, There is a definite incentive for the MSO's to put SDV on the *Most Watched* channels. Even if these channels are always on, this technology allows them to make more money from third parties, and that will have them drooling to put everything on SDV sooner rather than later.

That said I'm waiting for my S3 to arrive any day now. 
[EDIT: According to FedEx it's going to be here today!]

-Kyle


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

DeathRider said:


> Going back to this article...
> 
> http://www.bigbandnet.com/news/inTheNews/2005/news_062705a.php


Nice quote. (For others, I fixed the link.)

I found the next paragraph more interesting though:



> he MSO has about 6,000 such subscribers who wouldn't be able access switched-broadcast networks because there is no return path from their sets. Time Warner engineers say they're working on options to solve that problem.


It seems the TW engineers think there is something they can do to work around this?

I find it surprising too that TW only has 6000 CC installs nationwide?

-Kyle


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

DeathRider said:


> Going back to this article...
> 
> http://www.bigbandnet.com/news/inTh...ews_062705a.php


Interesting that they had the same problem the TiVo has of trying to determine if anyone is watching the channel currently tuned. TiVo doesn't care, the SDV needs to relinquish the channel in a timely fashion to make best use of the resource.


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

kjmcdonald said:


> I find it surprising too that TW only has 6000 CC installs nationwide?


That was June, 2005.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

kjmcdonald said:


> That's not true. While moving locals to SDV might run foul of the no-ecrypted locals rule, There is a definite incentive for the MSO's to put SDV on the *Most Watched* channels. Even if these channels are always on, this technology allows them to make more money from third parties, and that will have them drooling to put everything on SDV sooner rather than later.
> 
> That said I'm waiting for my S3 to arrive any day now.
> 
> -Kyle


Ok.. but think about this... there's a lot of incentive for them to move analog to all digital. Yet here we are in 2007 and I have 100 channels of analog cable with Comcast still....

They still have to balance replacing STB's and customers canceling because they can no longer receive their core programming....

I'm sure they will roll out SDV at some point, but it will be slow and they won't shut off popular programming IMHO.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

There would be one benefit to having every channel delivered via SDV: Gathering viewing information for every channel.


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

dswallow said:


> There would be one benefit to having every channel delivered via SDV: Gathering viewing information for every channel.


The benefit I'm thinking of has the possibilty to make major $$$ for the MSO's. 
It's actually almost the same business Tivo wants to make money (from third parties) at.

-Kyle


----------



## CharlesH (Aug 29, 2002)

Why are the MSOs being so obstructionist about letting third parties do the two-way functionality?  Whether it's their box or a third party box, they would be getting the $$$ from PPV, OnDemand, or other premium products, plus the frequency reuse benefits of SDV. What is it about it being *their* box (or at least their UI via OCAP) that is so important? Are the ads on their UI that valuable? Are they afraid that the third party won't provide access to their premium products? Or are they just control freaks for no rational reason?


----------



## QZ1 (Mar 24, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> The only reason to put a channel on SDV is because it is so rarely watched, that a good percentage of the time nobody is tuned to it. Say for example, they add 30 channels (or whatever it is) of VOOM. Odds are that most of the time, nobody in your neighborhood will be watching it.


http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=113263

_"According to the report, Comcast execs plan to have a quarter of their footprint enabled for SDV by the end of 2007, and launch "the next 50 channels of HD" as switched channels."_

I don't think they will adding VOOM channels anytime soon. So, there are bound to be many popular HD channels that will be added. Popular in the sense of HD, not to the general subscriber base of SD channels, at least not yet. They probably think this is the only way to get a lot of HD channels on the air. Whatever the case, future Comcast HD is going SDV, and don't be surprised if the current HD channels go SDV, as well.


----------



## gbelous (Jan 10, 2007)

Now we just have to figure out what Tivo is going to do about it.


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

CharlesH said:


> Why are the MSOs being so obstructionist about letting third parties do the two-way functionality?  Whether it's their box or a third party box, they would be getting the $$$ from PPV, OnDemand, or other premium products, plus the frequency reuse benefits of SDV. What is it about it being *their* box (or at least their UI via OCAP) that is so important? Are the ads on their UI that valuable? Are they afraid that the third party won't provide access to their premium products? Or are they just control freaks for no rational reason?


I don't know if you're replying to me or not, but license revenues from third party boxes, and ads on the UI were not what I was talking about. Unfortunately I'm not comfortable saying more at this time, though I know there are others around who can guess what I'm thinking of. I'm pretty sure it's public knowledge but I want to be careful.

-Kyle


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

> This absolutely WILL NOT HAPPEN.
> 
> For one thing, they can't move locals to SDV.


Yes they can and already did.
From the post earlier in this thread:


> I would not say that TWC folks in Upstate NY are doing "just fine." Just this past Friday, I lost 27 more channels to Switched Video, including CBS and ABC. That's right, I will not be watching the Super Bowl on HD.


And wouldn't you say that 150 channels moved to SDV in Austin is pretty close to all channels already?


cableguy763 said:


> Austin has over 150 channels in switched right now. More to come.


----------



## tivotivotivo (Aug 29, 2002)

Yikes.

Looks like, although I have to go with Time Warner cable to start, I am just going to use them and run out the clock untol FIOS gets to my neck of the woods.

This is a very, very disturbing trend in regards to TivoHD users.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

samo said:


> Yes they can and already did.
> From the post earlier in this thread:
> 
> And wouldn't you say that 150 channels moved to SDV in Austin is pretty close to all channels already?


THEY being TWC??? I thought we were talking about about Comcast?  The title is "Comcast Sets Switched-Video Rollout"


----------



## cableguy763 (Oct 29, 2006)

Adam1115 said:


> THEY being TWC??? I thought we were talking about about Comcast?  The title is "Comcast Sets Switched-Video Rollout"


Cry all you want about this being a Comcast thread. This is your very near future.


----------



## Monty2_2001 (Aug 6, 2005)

Any word yet from Tivo on SDV? Seems they have their heads buried in the sand, or someplace, really deep... Maybe the issue will just go away...


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

cableguy763 said:


> Cry all you want about this being a Comcast thread. This is your very near future.


We'll see when it gets here. Right now this is a lot of noise about something that nobody has all the information on yet.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

GoHokies! said:


> We'll see when it gets here. Right now this is a lot of noise about something that nobody has all the information on yet.


Yes, we'll never have ALL the information. We just have very senior Comcast execs stating that intend to roll this out over a significant portion of their network and the CFO stating that they have allocated enough money to spend on SDV like drunken sailors. Pretty good info if you ask me.


----------



## ewilts (Feb 26, 2002)

GoHokies! said:


> We'll see when it gets here. Right now this is a lot of noise about something that nobody has all the information on yet.


You seem to want to ignore the threat to Comcast users because only TWC users appear to be impacted today. Let me refer you to a famous quote:

When the Nazis arrested the Communists,
I said nothing; after all, I was not a Communist.
When they locked up the Social Democrats,
I said nothing; after all, I was not a Social Democrat.
When they arrested the trade unionists,
I said nothing; after all, I was not a trade unionist.
When they arrested me, there was no longer anyone who could protest.​
When TWC locked out their TiVo S3 customers,
I said nothing; after all I was not a TWC customer.

I'll let you fill in the rest.

.../Ed


----------



## LostInAustin (Sep 15, 2006)

samo said:


> Yes they can and already did.
> From the post earlier in this thread:
> 
> And wouldn't you say that 150 channels moved to SDV in Austin is pretty close to all channels already?


Ummm... I'm a TWC Austin customer and have had the S3 since the first week it came out. I haven't noticed the loss of any channels except maybe the Speed channel. They have added some new channels in the last month or so like MTVHD and A&E HD that I can't get on the S3, but most of the existing ones seem to be operating fine. I find it hard to believe that 150 channels have been moved to SDV without me even noticing. Does anyone have a list of the supposed 150 channels?

I got a letter from TWC on Dec 18, 2006 that was supposedly sent to all cableCard customers:



> As of January 16, 2007, Time Warner Cable will move the following channels to the "two-way" platform and CableCard customers will no longer be able to access them without a digital set-top box:
> 
> *"Sports Pak," Including:
> *FOX College Sports Atalantic
> ...


That's hardly 150 channels, and most of those I've never watched anyway. This obviously doesn't preclude them from moving more channels, but the sky hasn't fallen yet, even in Austin.


----------



## mcukier (Mar 22, 2002)

ewilts said:


> You seem to want to ignore the threat to Comcast users because only TWC users appear to be impacted today. Let me refer you to a famous quote:
> 
> When the Nazis arrested the Communists,
> I said nothing; after all, I was not a Communist.
> ...


hahah, a bit dramatic, no? I think we're all protesting SDV (I'm SURE everyone reading this thread has taken the time to fill out a complaint form at the FCC.... hint, hint), but we're also concerned about our personal plights in terms of our current service providers....

Furthermore, failing to distinguish between how different service providers handle SDV is silly-- since they obviously will be handling it differently.


----------



## Austin_Martin (Sep 13, 2006)

> That's hardly 150 channels, and most of those I've never watched anyway. This obviously doesn't preclude them from moving more channels, but the sky hasn't fallen yet, even in Austin.


You're forgetting all the simulcast channels. Which means that as tivo customers we receive the analog version, vs the cable box customers who receive the digital versions. While we still have the channel, the quality might not be there, and tivo's encoding is also a limiting factor.


----------



## jeffsinsfo (Oct 16, 2005)

Thank you for posting the specific information regarding what's happening with TWC in Austin.

While I am not happy with the prospect of SDV getting in the way of me receiving _any_ channels I want to watch, it's nice to see that the "sky is falling" posts are, in fact, overly exaggerated at this point. Only time will tell how SDV is actually going to impact S3 owners; and that impact is obviously going to be different in different cable markets.



LostInAustin said:


> Ummm... I'm a TWC Austin customer and have had the S3 since the first week it came out. I haven't noticed the loss of any channels except maybe the Speed channel. They have added some new channels in the last month or so like MTVHD and A&E HD that I can't get on the S3, but most of the existing ones seem to be operating fine. I find it hard to believe that 150 channels have been moved to SDV without me even noticing. Does anyone have a list of the supposed 150 channels?
> 
> I got a letter from TWC on Dec 18, 2006 that was supposedly sent to all cableCard customers:
> 
> ...


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

ewilts said:


> You seem to want to ignore the threat to Comcast users because only TWC users appear to be impacted today. Let me refer you to a famous quote:
> 
> When the Nazis arrested the Communists,
> I said nothing; after all, I was not a Communist.
> ...


I always forget, is it Goodwin's law that says the Nazi thing will always come up, or am I confused again? Either way, it doesn't contribute to the discussion, so thanks...

I'm not saying it's not going to happen to us, but it really sounds like the "150 channels are gone, the sky is falling!!!" may be a little bit overblown... Whining about it this much now (other than complaining to the FCC ) is putting the cart before the horse, methinks...


----------



## LostInAustin (Sep 15, 2006)

Austin_Martin said:


> You're forgetting all the simulcast channels. Which means that as tivo customers we receive the analog version, vs the cable box customers who receive the digital versions. While we still have the channel, the quality might not be there, and tivo's encoding is also a limiting factor.


Not to be argumentative, but the original statement I challenged was that 150 channels were moved to SDV. The simulcast channels weren't moved, they were duplicated, and I'm not even sure that was done using SDV (I think at least some of them are fixed QAM). But as an S3 owner I didn't lose something I used to have. It's also my understanding that we could get the digital simulcast version if TWC would change the cable card mapping for those channels, but for some unknown reason they send the analog version instead. Maybe that will happen in the future, but that's a completely separate issue from SDV.

As a side note, I also have a TWC SA 3250HD STB in the bedroom that does pick up the SDV channels. My experience is there's a significant lag when tuning to some of the SDV channels before anything appears on the screen. I imagine the lag is only there if I'm the first one on my node to tune the channel, but it is annoying. It would be really irritating if every channel were like that, particularly if you like to flip through the channels.

Anyway, I don't mean to hijack a Comcast specific thread, but just wanted to let people know things aren't as bad as some people are implying in Austin. Not yet, anyway, and apparently TWC Austin has a policy of notifying their cable card customers before making changes that will aversely affect them. Believe me, I'm not happy about SDV either, but my S3 is still working fine for 99% of the content I normally watch. I'm more concerned about missing new HD channels that might be added than losing existing capabilities.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

Thanks for clarifying your post - I think that 150 number was being tossed around too much without people actually understanding what it meant...


----------



## jeblis (Mar 24, 2003)

gbelous said:


> You have both dvr's hooked up at the same time allowing the TW one to play the channels your Tivo won't?


Yes. The time warner one is sucky, but it will get Discovery HD, etc. that the tivo can't.


----------



## jeblis (Mar 24, 2003)

LostInAustin said:


> Ummm... I'm a TWC Austin customer and have had the S3 since the first week it came out. I haven't noticed the loss of any channels except maybe the Speed channel. They have added some new channels in the last month or so like MTVHD and A&E HD that I can't get on the S3, but most of the existing ones seem to be operating fine. I find it hard to believe that 150 channels have been moved to SDV without me even noticing. Does anyone have a list of the supposed 150 channels?
> 
> I got a letter from TWC on Dec 18, 2006 that was supposedly sent to all cableCard customers:
> 
> That's hardly 150 channels, and most of those I've never watched anyway. This obviously doesn't preclude them from moving more channels, but the sky hasn't fallen yet, even in Austin.


I've got a full list of the channels I get on my Time Warner DVR versus my Tivo S3 DVR. I'll post it later, but it's at least 50 channels.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

jeblis said:


> I've got a full list of the channels I get on my Time Warner DVR versus my Tivo S3 DVR. I'll post it later, but it's at least 50 channels.


This is what worries me. Is it all of the SDV channels that the S3 can't see or just those that are currently switched off?


----------



## jeblis (Mar 24, 2003)

ah30k said:


> This is what worries me. Is it all of the SDV channels that the S3 can't see or just those that are currently switched off?


I'm not sure the s3 can view any channels that are switched whether they are on or not.

I ran through the list twice on separate days and got the same results.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

ah30k said:


> This is what worries me. Is it all of the SDV channels that the S3 can't see or just those that are currently switched off?


This has been answered before. It would not be able to see any of the SDV channels because without SDV support it wouldn't know where to tune for the channel even if it were active. In overly simplisitic terms, imagine there are only 10 real channel spots but 20 channels being switched into those 10 spots. They would be randomly assigned based on which spots were currently in use when a new channel was requested. So even if the S3 could tune the 10 real spots it wouldn't know which one had the desired channel at this moment.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

HiDefGator said:


> This has been answered before. It would not be able to see any of the SDV channels because without SDV support it wouldn't know where to tune for the channel even if it were active. In overly simplisitic terms, imagine there are only 10 real channel spots but 20 channels being switched into those 10 spots. They would be randomly assigned based on which spots were currently in use when a new channel was requested. So even if the S3 could tune the 10 real spots it wouldn't know which one had the desired channel at this moment.


I must have missed where it was answered before. The S3 *could* find channels that are currently turned on *if* the carousel with channel map data (the one that your S3 reads from the CableCARD after power-on) is updated in a timely manner.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

Possibly, I wouldn't know. But could it hold that channel there for the length of the desired recording if it couldn't tell the SDV equipment what it wanted in the first place?


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

No, it couldn't hold (reserve) the channel. You could lose it part way through if no one else with a STB is watching.


----------



## TexasAg (Apr 2, 2006)

ah30k said:


> No, it couldn't hold (reserve) the channel. You could lose it part way through if no one else with a STB is watching.


FlippedBit proposed in another thread that if you had multiple Tivos (like an S2), you could cause an STB hooked to the S2 to tune to a channel you wanted. That might help ensure you get the channel on the S3.


----------



## SMWinnie (Aug 17, 2002)

ah30k said:


> I must have missed where it was answered before. The S3 *could* find channels that are currently turned on *if* the carousel with channel map data (the one that your S3 reads from the CableCARD after power-on) is updated in a timely manner.


This is where my technical understanding falls apart.

I can imagine the MSOs winning the SDV argument before the FCC, since it really does offer more channels over the same bandwidth. What confuses me is whether some of the possible implementations of SDV might be harmonizable with the FCC's intent regarding CableCard.

So, naively, if the FCC were to mandate that (1) CableCard channel maps be frequently updated as ah30k describes and (2) third-party devices be allowed to request SDV channels, would that be technologically onerous? (Isn't that all TiVo would need to add on a USB Series 3 SDV dongle?)


----------



## legendarybc (Dec 17, 2006)

Here's an article about the gaining momentum of SDV:

Rollouts Fuel Switching Buzz

SCARY! Makes me want to sell my S3 and admit that TiVo was defeated. When is the FCC going to step in?

BC

...depressed in ohio...


----------



## FlippedBit (Dec 25, 2001)

TexasAg said:


> FlippedBit proposed in another thread that if you had multiple Tivos (like an S2), you could cause an STB hooked to the S2 to tune to a channel you wanted. That might help ensure you get the channel on the S3.


But I think HiDefGator is saying my idea won't work. He said:

"It would not be able to see any of the SDV channels because without SDV support it wouldn't know where to tune for the channel even if it were active. In overly simplisitic terms, imagine there are only 10 real channel spots but 20 channels being switched into those 10 spots. They would be randomly assigned based on which spots were currently in use when a new channel was requested. So even if the S3 could tune the 10 real spots it wouldn't know which one had the desired channel at this moment."

I think I will have to have another system to record the SDV channels that I want to watch. Somebody in Houston said Speed was moved to SDV which is where I go to get my motorcycle racing fix.


----------



## TexasAg (Apr 2, 2006)

FlippedBit said:


> But I think HiDefGator is saying my idea won't work.


Bummer. Still, I wonder how the cable companies will handle this with their own boxes when it becomes necessary for them to start using cablecards.


----------



## cableguy763 (Oct 29, 2006)

TexasAg said:


> Bummer. Still, I wonder how the cable companies will handle this with their own boxes when it becomes necessary for them to start using cablecards.


The boxes cable co's use with cablecards will still be two way capable, so no problem at all.


----------



## TiVolunteer (Jul 10, 2001)

LostInAustin said:


> It's also my understanding that we could get the digital simulcast version if TWC would change the cable card mapping for those channels, but for some unknown reason they send the analog version instead. Maybe that will happen in the future, but that's a completely separate issue from SDV.


It may be a separate issue in Austin, but it is very much the same issue in Time Warner/Raleigh. The VP of Engineering told me personally that the reason we receive only the analog channels is because their current plan is to put a large number (potentially all) of the digital simulcast on SDV when they roll that out. They didn't want to give the S3's the digital version and then take it away when SDV rolled out.

I need to post this over in the Time Warner thread but just wanted to let people know that they may be related.


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

TexasAg said:


> Bummer. Still, I wonder how the cable companies will handle this with their own boxes when it becomes necessary for them to start using cablecards.


That's the thing. They are required to replace the part of the CableBox that proves to the headend what account it is registered with. They required to change that part to use CableCARD instead. There is no requirement for them to rip out the proprietary upstream communication hardware they use today.

The CableCard itself has nothign to do with communicating back up the stream. The host the cards go into do that. When people talk about the CableCARD 2.0 *SPEC* they're talking about a document that describes not only the cards, but also the machine the cards go into. CC 1.0 didn't require any HW to communicat upstream - hence the S3 doesn't have it. CC 2.0 requires the host to have this HW (and a bunch of other stuff that is the sticking point of the negotiations.)

The MSO's are even free to buy new CableCARD devices with (draft?) standards based upstream communications HW today. They know what they'll be buying, and they'll make sure whatever it is will work on the network they buy it for. There's no risk for them.

They control what works, and they're capable of making sure what they buy does work.

The CE Vendor can't develop something that might only work in parts of the market. They need to know the standard is reliably implemented in a large (and preferrably growing) segment of the market. (Tivo believed this about CC 1.0 or they wouldn't have bothered creating the S3.)

The Consumer won't have the pull to make the MSO make changes to their plant to support a single device. Consumers will probably on average buy less than 2 of a particular device. And all the customers of an MSO will all buy different devices. Without a standard used by all devices, getting enough critical mass of a single model of 3rd party device to make it worth it to the MSO to support it will be tough.

-Kyle


----------



## jeblis (Mar 24, 2003)

moyekj said:


> Do they have an up to date published list of channels on SDV in Austin? I'd be curious to see what channels are on SDV if you can supply a link.


I posted a list in the TWC Thread


----------



## FlippedBit (Dec 25, 2001)

jeblis said:


> I posted a list in the TWC Thread


That is a disaster. Adding HBO to that list, as you speculated, and over half of what I watch is gone. HBO, Speed, Versus, Science Channel, Discovery channels, Bloomberg. Oh well, at least now I know that I will be screwed so I can start figuring out what I am going to do. No FIOS for me. It's either Comcast or DirecTV.


----------



## jeblis (Mar 24, 2003)

FlippedBit said:


> That is a disaster. Adding HBO to that list, as you speculated, and over half of what I watch is gone. HBO, Speed, Versus, Science Channel, Discovery channels, Bloomberg. Oh well, at least now I know that I will be screwed so I can start figuring out what I am going to do. No FIOS for me. It's either Comcast or DirecTV.


Please check out the comment after mine. There may be just a authorization issue with some of the channels (including showtime). I'll update that list after that.


----------



## CharlesH (Aug 29, 2002)

I've heard that Comcast is upgrading the system in our town to 1GHz. Since the current cable boxes and other equipment (including the S3) can only go up to 860MHz, why would they do that? Can they put their Internet service in the range above 860MHz, or is that subject to the same 860MHz limit? (Wishful thinking dept: maybe with all the capacity in our upgraded system, they won't put in SDV, or at least not aggressively.)


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

CharlesH said:


> I've heard that Comcast is upgrading the system in our town to 1GHz. Since the current cable boxes and other equipment (including the S3) can only go up to 860MHz, why would they do that? Can they put their Internet service in the range above 860MHz, or is that subject to the same 860MHz limit? (Wishful thinking dept: maybe with all the capacity in our upgraded system, they won't put in SDV, or at least not aggressively.)


 Future proofing. If you've got to rip up and replace existing lines may as well be prepared for future equipment upgrades that can support 1GHz. They are probably transitioning from 750MHz currently to 860MHz in the short term.


----------



## CharlesH (Aug 29, 2002)

moyekj said:


> Future proofing. If you've got to rip up and replace existing lines may as well be prepared for future equipment upgrades that can support 1GHz. They are probably transitioning from 750MHz currently to 860MHz in the short term.


Actually, they are upgrading from a 550MHz system. We were one of the first systems in this area to get two-way (like cable Internet), and we currently get no OnDemand and two PPV channels, and the digital channels are painfully down-sampled.

Do they actually have to rip up lines? I thought it was a matter of upgrading the amplifiers.


----------



## davecramer74 (Mar 17, 2006)

> Actually, they are upgrading from a 550MHz system. We were one of the first systems in this area to get two-way (like cable Internet), and we currently get no OnDemand and two PPV channels, and the digital channels are painfully down-sampled.


Damn, no on demand or ppv? I'm suprised they can offer you a cable modem. they may have to lay fiber. your system sounds like ours before they upgraded. Difference is, they upgraded ours like in 1996. they had to lay fiber here in the bay area. Im suprised South San Fran didnt get updated with everyone elses. I know they were laying fiber everywhere out here (concord, walnut creek, vallejo, pittsburgh, antioch, etc) Basically the whole east bay. I assumed everyone else was getting it.


----------



## Poochie (Dec 27, 2003)

Nope, there are several Bay Area cities still in 550MHz-land (mine included, Sunnyvale). Saratoga, Milpitas, Los Gatos, and Sunnyvale are among them, and possibly others. The SF Bay Comcast thread over at AVSForum would have the complete list I would think. 

Does anyone know for sure if the TiVo is only able to support frequencies up to 860MHz, as had been alluded to by CharlesH? Also, if cable STBs (and the TiVo S3 as well) could only support up to 860MHz, maybe they'd put the cable modems in the range above 860MHz, assuming the cable modems could support the higher freqs, and keep packing channels in to the lower frequencies so they don't need to swap out all their own cable boxes. 

But it's all speculation at this point, since they haven't yet upgraded us, and there's all the SDV talk. 

Also, it doesn't surprise me that they do offer cable modem service but didn't allocate bandwidth for OnDemand - I'm sure they figured out which one gives them more revenue/profit/customer demand and picked that one. And IIRC, we do have one or two channels for PPV, but I've never used that service and likely never will.


----------



## tgibbs (Sep 22, 2002)

If Comcast goes to SDV, while FIOS does not, then Comcast will lose me as a customer--probably for phone and internet service as well as cable, since it's usually cheaper to get everything from one supplier.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

CharlesH said:


> I've heard that Comcast is upgrading the system in our town to 1GHz. Since the current cable boxes and other equipment (including the S3) can only go up to 860MHz, why would they do that?





CharlesH said:


> Actually, they are upgrading from a 550MHz system.


According to Scientific Atlanta / Cisco (who sells 1GHz systems and has been a big proponent of 1GHz so, take it for what you will):


> http://www.scientificatlanta.com/pr...s/MAY_06_G1618A_BandwidthManagement-Tylka.pdf
> 
> The economics of moving from 550 MHz or 750 to 870 or 1 GHz look nearly identical. Operators who are operating at 550 MHZ and looking for a bandwidth expansion option should heavily consider moving all the way to 1 GHZ. The cost will be virtually identical to stopping at 870 MHz and the 1 GHZ solution will position them well for the future. With no reduction in the need for bandwidth no matter what mix of services you forecast, the 1 GHz solution is the best route for anyone looking to move up from 550 MHz.


With AT&T and Astound Broadband moving in ... and the Comcast 550MHz customers already ticked at not getting everything (VOD, voice, etc) others get ... and other bandwidth techniques not likely to quite get them there alone ... and the cost being "virtually identical" (what's a few million between friends) ... might as well go 1GHz eh?

Plant upgrades make a bad wall street story (http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=4856063&&#post4856063) so ... cable doesn't talk much about them. But yes ... they are 'kicking the 1GHz tires':


> http://www.cedmagazine.com/article/CA6375644.html?industryid=43678
> 
> Some operators have been upfront about upgrading older 550 MHz plant to 1 GHz, but no one is yet speaking publicly about how they might fill that extra headroom with video services.


Note: the above article is a very interesting read (for a CableCard user in an area getting upgraded to 1GHz) ... check it out.

I actually wouldn't be too surprised ... in the immediate term ... if Comcast isn't upgrading just to get the systems up to the service levels of the rest of the area. And heck, you could almost justify the 1GHz (instead of 870MHz) upgrade just for marketing reasons alone ... "Yes, it took us a while to upgrade. But hold on ... we're upgrading to the latest / newest / greatest so don't even think about switching over to U-Verse yet, those FTTC simpletons will have nothing on us when we're done."

After that ... interesting to see what (if anything) they do.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

Poochie said:


> Also, if cable STBs (and the TiVo S3 as well) could only support up to 860MHz, maybe they'd put the cable modems in the range above 860MHz, assuming the cable modems could support the higher freqs, and keep packing channels in to the lower frequencies so they don't need to swap out all their own cable boxes.


I don't think (current DOCSIS 1.0, 1.1, 2.0) cable modems can go beyond 870MHz:
http://www.cablemodem.com/faq/#FAQ3

However ... 1GHz is something that has certainly been talked about for DOCSIS 3.0:
http://www.cable360.net/ct/sections/features/20942.html

So perhaps ... mid 2008 ... especially considering the area ... Comcast can come out with some very-high speed (50+Mbps) broadband offering. You'd need a new (DOCSIS 3.0) cable modem to get it ... but ... I can think of some (many?) people that would be willing. And old cable modems could still be supported (at the current, lower speeds, of course) in their current frequencies. Just a thought ... seems like a good use of that extra head-room. And heck, again, just from the marketing perspective of "see, we can offer 50Mbps too" ... even in places where they couldn't offer it yet ... "hold on, it's coming"


----------

