# National broadband plan: replace STBs with gateways by 2013 , fix CableCARD this year



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

Specifically section 4.12:

Recommendation 4.12: The FCC should initiate a proceeding
to ensure that all multichannel video programming
distributors (MV PDs) install a gateway device or equivalent
functionality in all new subscriber homes and in all
homes requiring replacement set-top boxes, starting on or
before Dec. 31, 2012.

To facilitate innovation and limits costs to consumers, the
gateway device must be simple. Its sole function should be to
bridge the proprietary or unique elements of the MVPD network
(e.g., conditional access, tuning and reception functions) to widely
used and accessible, open networking and communications standards.
That would give a gateway device a standard interface with
televisions, set-top boxes and other in-home devices and allow
consumer electronics manufacturers to develop, market and support
their products independently of MVPDs.
The following key principles apply:
&#10148;&#10148; A gateway device should be simple and inexpensive, both
for MVPDs and consumers. It should be equipped with only
those components and functionality required to perform
network-specific functions and translate them into open,
standard protocols. The device should not support any
other functionality or components.117
&#10148;&#10148; A gateway device should allow consumer electronics
manufacturers to develop, sell and support network-neutral
devices that access content from the network independently
from MVPDs or any third parties.118 Specifically, third-party
manufacturers should not be limited in their ability to innovate
in the user interface of their devices by MVPD requirements.
User-interface innovation is an important element
for differentiating products in the consumer electronics
market and for achieving the objectives of Section 629.
Similar to broadband modems (see Box 4-1), the proposed
gateway device would accommodate each MVPDs use of different
delivery technologies and enable them to continue unfettered
investment and innovation in video delivery. At the same time, it
would allow consumer electronics manufacturers to design to a
stable, common open interface and to integrate multiple functions
within a retail device. Those functions might include combining
MVPD and Internet content and services, providing new user
interfaces and integrating with mobile and portable devices such
as media players and computers. It could enable the emergence
of completely new classes of devices, services and applications
involving video and broadband.
To ensure a competitive market for set-top boxes, the open
gateway device:
&#10148;&#10148; Should use open, published standards for discovering, signaling,
authenticating and communicating with retail devices.119
&#10148;&#10148; Should allow retail devices to access all MVPD content and
services to which a customer has subscribed and to display
the content and services without restrictions or requirments
on the devices user interface or functions and without
degradation in quality (e.g., due to transcoding).120
&#10148;&#10148; Should not require restrictive licensing, disclosure or certification.
Any criterion should apply equally to retail and
operator-supplied devices. Any intellectual property should
be available to all parties at a low cost and on reasonable
and non-discriminatory terms.121
&#10148;&#10148; Should pass video content through to retail devices with
existing copy protection flags from the MVPD.122
Requiring that the gateway device or equivalent functionality
be developed and deployed by the end of 2012 is reasonable
given the importance of stimulating competition and innovation
in set-top boxes, the extensive public record established
in this subject area123 and the relatively simple architectures
proposed to date.124
The FCC should establish interim milestones to ensure
that the development and deployment of a gateway device or
equivalent functionality remains on track. In addition, the
FCC should determine appropriate enforcement mechanisms
for MVPDs that, as of Dec. 31, 2012, have not begun deploying
gateway device functionality in all new subscriber homes and in
all homes requiring replacement set-top boxes.
Enforcement mechanisms would be determined with public
input as part of the rulemaking proceeding. They could include,
for example, issuing fines against non-compliant operators or
denying extensions of certain CableCARD waivers like those
granted for Digital Transport Adapters (DTAs). The FCC could
also reach agreements with operators to provide set-top boxes
for free to new customers until a gateway device is deployed.
The FCC should establish up front the criteria for the
enforcement mechanisms. The FCC may want, for instance, to
grant small operators more time to deploy the gateway device
to take account of unique operational or financial circumstances.
Transparency in the criteria for the enforcement
mechanisms will establish more regulatory certainty in the
market and help limit the number of waiver requests.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

Also addresses the CableCARD problems by this fall, fixes SDV (good luck):

Recommend ation 4.13: On an expedited basis, *the FCC
should adopt rules for cable operators to fix certain Cable-
CARD issues while development of the gateway device
functionality progresses. Adoption of these rules should be
completed in the fall of 2010.*
Four factors hinder consumer demand to purchase
CableCARD devices and manufacturers' willingness to produce
those devices. First, retail CableCARD devices cannot access all
linear channels in cable systems with Switched Digital Video
(SDV) unless cable operators voluntarily give customers a
separate set-top box as an SDV tuning adapter.125 Second, consumers
perceive retail set-top boxes to be more expensive than
set-top boxes leased at regulated rates from the cable operator.
This perception is partially driven by a lack of transparency in
CableCARD pricing for operator-leased boxes and by the bundling
of leased boxes into package prices by operators.126 Third,
consumers who buy retail set-top boxes can encounter more
installation and support costs and hassles than those who lease
set-top boxes from their cable operators.127 Fourth, the current
retail CableCARD device certification process, run through
CableLabs, incurs incremental costs of at least $100,000 to
$200,000 during product development. The process also
currently introduces other negative elements, including complexity,
uncertainty and delays.128
Specifically, the proposed rules should address the four
CableCARD issues. They should:
➤➤ Ensure equal access to linear channels for retail and
operator-leased CableCARD devices in cable systems with
SDV by allowing retail devices to receive and transmit outof-
band communications with the cable headend over IP.129
➤➤ Establish transparent pricing for CableCARDs and operator-
leased set-top boxes. Consumers should see the
appropriate CableCARD charge, whether they purchase a
retail device or lease one from the operator, and they should
receive a comparable discount off packages that include
the operator-leased set-top box if they choose to purchase
one instead.130
➤➤ Standardize installation policies for retail and operatorleased
CableCARD devices to ensure consumers buying
CableCARD-enabled devices at retail do not face materially
different provisioning hurdles than those using operatorleased
set-top boxes.131
➤➤ Streamline and accelerate the certification process for retail
CableCARD devices.132 For example, the rules could restrict
the certification process to cover hardware only, similar to
the certification required for cable-ready TVs, to ensure retail
CableCARD devices do not harm a cable operator's network.
Addressing these issues will not require large investments in
either headend or customer premise infrastructure.133
In fact, fixing these four CableCARD issues will sustain the
current retail market for set-top boxes, enable companies that
have invested in CableCARD-based products in accordance
with current rules to compete effectively until the gateway
device is deployed at scale, encourage more innovation until
the gateway device is widely deployed and potentially allow for
competition in the provision of the gateway device.


----------



## andyw715 (Jul 31, 2007)

All this stuff would work it self out if the gov't already enforced anti-monopoly laws. The lack of competition has stifled adoption of any sort of open architectured technology. Not to mention the number of cable card devices "rentals" is so low that its insignificant.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

Ideally cable converters should be a thing of the past and used only to support older TVs.

Newer TVs should be "cable ready" and that should be the FIRST option that one has for connecting it to cable service. To be fair, the same rules should apply to satellite and IPTV as well.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

"Ensure equal access to linear channels for retail and operator-leased CableCARD devices in cable systems with SDV by allowing retail devices to receive and transmit outof-band communications with the cable headend over IP."

insert happy dance here.


----------



## bschuler2007 (Feb 25, 2007)

I don't get it. I thought this whole thing was to try to phase out illegal cable boxes. Looks like a market would open up quickly for illegal gateways that would strip off protection bits or allow other access, no?


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Where's Bicker, this should be good for a laugh when he starts to go into his protectionist monopoly rant telling us how the cable co's do no harm.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

bschuler2007 said:


> I don't get it. I thought this whole thing was to try to phase out illegal cable boxes. Looks like a market would open up quickly for illegal gateways that would strip off protection bits or allow other access, no?


I don't see that. if the gateway is two way it can securely authenticate with the headend and that should kill off any illegal access. In fact it may even be better than what's in place today.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

OK- so if that's the plan- then real world we can expect the interim cabecard "fixes" to be fully implemented in 2020 and the first gateway should be installed sometime around 2028 with universal adoption by the big players sometime in 2033.

at least our kids might benefit...


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

There's no reason this can't be done sooner, other than how willing the FCC is willing to bend to the ears of the cable company lobbyists who will surely put pressure on them and congress to avoid having to do this.

It's entirely in the interest of the cable companies to have complete control over the content coming into your home, including the box it comes in on.

The advertising revenue alone that they get with their own boxes is worth millions to them.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Raj said:


> ...To be fair, the same rules should apply to satellite and IPTV as well.


hopefully that's what they envision with "all MVPD"- but who knows....


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

I think this might be up for comment soon, so make sure your comments are heard. Might be a good idea to ask your local congress critter to support this section of the plan if you agree. I'd be happy with fixing CableCARD quite honestly. The STB gateway is not a big rush for me but it's a "nice to have."

Yes I agree that the term "MVPD" SHALL be all inclusive of satellite, cable and IPTV over VDSL/Fiber a la U-Verse.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

So does this essentially obsolete the Tivo Premiere announcement or will be able to take the cable card out of it and let it run untethered. Then the question is how would it handle channel mappings since I thought thats one of the things the cablecard did.


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

zalusky said:


> So does this essentially obsolete the Tivo Premiere announcement or will be able to take the cable card out of it and let it run untethered. Then the question is how would it handle channel mappings since I thought thats one of the things the cablecard did.


Potentially the cable card could be eliminated and the TiVo would have a pure IP connection to the gateway.

Alternatively the cable card could be used for tuning and decrypting of the media streams and there would be a mandated pure IP connection to the gateway for services like On Demand and PPV.

All in all this is ultimately paving the way for a pure IP solution with a standard protocol, something that is about 5 years overdue.


----------



## MirclMax (Jul 12, 2000)

So what's the status of this? is this a proposal that is to be voted on? Is this something that has been passed already? What's up?


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

jmpage2 said:


> Where's Bicker, this should be good for a laugh when he starts to go into his protectionist monopoly rant telling us how the cable co's do no harm.


:up::up::up:


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Based on the language, if this goes through Tru2way is dead.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

In theory, at least the TiVo premiere could be ready to be part of such a scheme, supposing it can handle such protocols.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

Stormspace said:


> Based on the language, if this goes through Tru2way is dead.


The cablecos didnt want to support it. So now if this goes thru they will have no choice. I think home gateway is the best option. Tivos could be easly programmed to work with it. The SDV should be fixed now.


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

I wouldn't get too excited over this. You could still be paying the same monopoly you are paying now. As matter of fact by the time the monopoly lobbyist gets hold of this - history shows they will make you pay more!


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

Read the FCC's recommendations on pages 51-54.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

Joe3 said:


> I wouldn't get too excited over this. You could still be paying the same monopoly you are paying now. As matter of fact by the time the monopoly lobbyist gets hold of this - history shows they will make you pay more!


I don't anything will solve the "monopoly" "problem."

This is basically what TiVo, Sony and others have asked for - fix CableCARD, and transition to a home gateway.

I'd be happy if they just fixed CableCARD. While I don't have any CableCARD problems myself due to a cooperative cable provider and one who really doesn't try to push their equipment on us (in fact they are happy to have customers who use CableCARD because they often run out of HD STBs), I have heard the horror stories of others, including some cable companies like Verizon charging $70 for a truck roll to install a CableCARD. Putting CableCARDs and cableco STBs on equal footing is a HUGE deal.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Raj said:


> Newer TVs should be "cable ready" and that should be the FIRST option that one has for connecting it to cable service. To be fair, the same rules should apply to satellite and IPTV as well.


The rules would apply to satellite already if they didn't have a *waiver* for the cablecard requirement.

(AFAIK, IPTV is completely different from the FCC's perspective, but if satellite didn't have a waiver, we could theoretically have a single box that did DISH, DirecTV, and cable.. as well of course of OTA.)


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Wow, the FCC actually took TiVo's proposal seriously. I'm pleasantly stunned. :up:


----------



## caddyroger (Mar 15, 2005)

jmpage2 said:


> Potentially the cable card could be eliminated and the TiVo would have a pure IP connection to the gateway.
> 
> Alternatively the cable card could be used for tuning and decrypting of the media streams and there would be a mandated pure IP connection to the gateway for services like On Demand and PPV.
> 
> All in all this is ultimately paving the way for a pure IP solution with a standard protocol, something that is about 5 years overdue.


The only problem with this some people do not have a internet connection so ip would not work.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

Wow. This is even more positive for TiVo than I'd expected. Of course, now the NCTA will crank up their lobbying machine and try to head some or all of this off in Congress.

It's also great to see them take on the immediate problem of cable companies making cable cards unattractive. Every cable box requires a cable card now so if you're charging for cable cards you have to show that for everyone. No more pre-provisioning cable cards for your own set top boxes and doing easy swaps on those but requiring truck rolls for retail devices with cable cards.

I'm sure the cable industry will do their best to turn these changes against the FCC. They'll add a separate cable card charge as a price increase for customers leasing boxes and say that it's required by FCC regulations (so complain to your congressman).


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

nrc said:


> Of course, now the NCTA will crank up their lobbying machine and try to head some or all of this off in Congress.
> .....
> I'm sure the cable industry will do their best to turn these changes against the FCC. They'll add a separate cable card charge as a price increase for customers leasing boxes and say that it's required by FCC regulations (so complain to your congressman).


Sad reality, but most likely it is what cable companies will do.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

mattack said:


> The rules would apply to satellite already if they didn't have a *waiver* for the cablecard requirement.
> 
> (AFAIK, IPTV is completely different from the FCC's perspective, but if satellite didn't have a waiver, we could theoretically have a single box that did DISH, DirecTV, and cable.. as well of course of OTA.)


There is no waiver for satellite. DBS is regulated by separate legislation and has virtually NONE of the "burdens" Cable TV does. Satellite can do pretty much what it wants and no current legislation compels satellite regarding 3rd party set-top-boxes or just about anything in the technical arena. It is quite unregulated in that way and is why in the current state of the art equipment, DirecTV and Dish Network use incompatible systems.

Also, Cable TV has one universal standard as per the cable industry's Cable Labs, so it is cost efficient to design a 3rd party box to work with a true standard Cable Labs specification providing access to cable's huge critical mass. This is why Moxi and TiVo design their boxes to work only (TiVo has an OTA Legacy) with Cable TV: it makes economic sense.

Moxi and TiVo will work with FiOS because once FiOS reaches your home (FTTP or FTTH), it is then converted to the Cable Labs specification for distribution to STB's in your home. In other words, it becomes Cable TV, and that is why Moxi and TiVO work with FiOS as there were already several manufacturers/models of Cable TV STB's Verizon could buy "off the shelf" without having to design its own STB technology that would have poor economies of scale since Verizon would be the only user.

TiVo and Moxi will not work with AT&T Uverse because Uverse is yet a different standard: IP. There is insufficient critical mass of Uverse subscribers to justify the added expense of additional hardware for an already expensive STB.

TiVo and Moxi aren't compatible with satellite for similar reasons as Uverse, but even worse is a lack of standards between Dish and DirecTV. While at its foundation Dish and DirecTV use the same DBS technology (same platform and encoding for HD services: DVB and MPEG4) for some of its services there are significant differences in the delivery (Ka and DBS Ku for DirecTV; DBS Ku and FSS Ku for Dish) and platform (DSS vs. DVB) and encoding (Digicipher vs. MPEG) each uses for its SD services as well as differences in how each handles the challenge of receiving multiple satellites and distributing the data to multiple STB's in a household. DirecTV's SWM (CSS) technology and Dish Network's DishPro (BSS) technology are not compatible and require different hardware outside and inside the box. Mind numbing, really.

Also, each sat co. can use different modulation schemes--that require the compatible hardware inside the box--or variances of Turbo Coding which requires the correct chip--in advance. Each has charted a similar but hardware different technology path to maximize the limited availability of DBS satellite bandwidth and bandwidth outside the DBS spectrum, and future proof their STB's accordingly to work with Legacy, current, and planned solutions of several variants of technology and standards.

Now consider the huge--and expensive--memory necessary for all that software for all those different standards if it were to be all in one box--so you wouldn't have to go out and buy another box should you change providers--(only part of the software would be downloaded via satellite, cable, FiOS or IP to complete the software package so the box can function) That presents great expense to a 3rd party such as TiVo and Moxi to add necessary hardware for DirecTV's and Dish's separate technical solutions. Very poor economies of scale that would not net any returns for TiVo or Moxi.

The above is complicated, and that is what I was trying to communicate in explaining that it really isn't all that simple nor economical to design and manufacture a box that would work with all MVS. It can be done, but it would be so expensive, very few could afford it, and satellite and AT&T lacking a true _industry_ standard, can change technologies and methods any time they want for their own reasons. Both sat companies have swapped out Legacy technology at their own expense or significant discount. That would cause headaches for TiVO and Moxi who I couldn't imagine swapping out their Legacy boxes for free or at any discount. That would mean you would no longer be able to receive your satellite provider or many of its channels that you are paying for.

The Mantra of all economists is "Standardization is Good." We don't have that outside Cable TV or, in the case of FiOS, when it arrives at your home to become the Cable TV standard. Without standardization we have higher costs, and that is why we don't have a single box solution that can function with Cable TV, FiOS, IP, DirecTV and Dish Network. Cable Labs has standardization and the greatest critical mass for maximum return on investment, and that is why Moxi and TiVo sitck with Cable TV. I hope that was a sufficiently complex explanation .


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

caddyroger said:


> The only problem with this some people do not have a internet connection so ip would not work.


It doesn't matter if they are subscribing to internet services or not. The gateway would have IP connectivity through the cable feed and the TiVo (or other end device) has IP. They can have a private network for this communication with no internet access needed and greatly improve the present situation.


----------



## RayChuang88 (Sep 5, 2002)

Here's what I really want: a "universal" TiVo DVR that can support digital cable (including SDV), DirecTV, Dish Network, Verizon FIOS and AT&T U-Verse depending on a adapter box that plugs into the back of the TiVo box itself.

Think of it as a TiVo Premiere DVR but with a supersized adapter box (with appropriate connectors for cable, satellite, FIOS or U-Verse connecting cable) that plugs into the back of the DVR itself like a large-sized version of CableCARD. That way, you rent the adapter box from the provider and the TiVo box becomes the tuner, DVR and even PPV on-demand controller all at once.


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

I want a lot of things too (Ferrari, Jet Pack, Hawaiian Mansion, etc). I think that you have to keep things in the realm of the *possible* and try to prod the FCC in that direction.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

mattack said:


> The rules would apply to satellite already if they didn't have a *waiver* for the cablecard requirement.
> 
> (AFAIK, IPTV is completely different from the FCC's perspective, but if satellite didn't have a waiver, we could theoretically have a single box that did DISH, DirecTV, and cable.. as well of course of OTA.)


That is where the gateway comes in. All signals from MVPDs will be translated to an open standard which any TV can display.

CableCARD is an immediate fix right now and later on the gateway to bring in the rest of services will fix the rest.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

Series3Sub said:


> Moxi and TiVo will work with FiOS because once FiOS reaches your home (FTTP or FTTH), it is then converted to the Cable Labs specification for distribution to STB's in your home. In other words, it becomes Cable TV, and that is why Moxi and TiVO work with FiOS as there were already several manufacturers/models of Cable TV STB's Verizon could buy "off the shelf" without having to design its own STB technology that would have poor economies of scale since Verizon would be the only user.


It's not really "converted" to traditional cable. It's RF overlay. The signals are generated to be used on traditional cable frequencies at the VHO, transmitted via fiber and then simply downconverted at the ONT. It's the same thing that cable companies do except that the "ONT" (node) is on the pole not at your house.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

RayChuang88 said:


> Here's what I really want: a "universal" TiVo DVR that can support digital cable (including SDV), DirecTV, Dish Network, Verizon FIOS and AT&T U-Verse depending on a adapter box that plugs into the back of the TiVo box itself.
> 
> Think of it as a TiVo Premiere DVR but with a supersized adapter box (with appropriate connectors for cable, satellite, FIOS or U-Verse connecting cable) that plugs into the back of the DVR itself like a large-sized version of CableCARD. That way, you rent the adapter box from the provider and the TiVo box becomes the tuner, DVR and even PPV on-demand controller all at once.


That's what the FCC wants in 3 years.


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

jmpage2 said:


> I want a lot of things too (Ferrari, Jet Pack, Hawaiian Mansion, etc). I think that you have to keep things in the realm of the *possible* and try to prod the FCC in that direction.


I'd simply like the government to get out of the way and let private business do with their property as they see fit.

I don't think it's the governments job to tell a content deliverer how to deliver that content unless such methods impact some other content deliverer's ability to deliver similar content.

Supply and demand should dictate. Not the "greater good."

I'd like to see broadband everywhere, too. But it is just not cost-effective (yet). The government shouldn't be subsidizing these endeavors.

Cheers!
-Doug


----------



## flaminiom (Dec 27, 2008)

jmpage2 said:


> It doesn't matter if they are subscribing to internet services or not. The gateway would have IP connectivity through the cable feed and the TiVo (or other end device) has IP. They can have a private network for this communication with no internet access needed and greatly improve the present situation.


Yup. Basically set top devices would have its own a DOCSIS modem.

Maybe cable providers simply charge a device fee, and then customers can do whatever they want within IP tiers of service. Pricing will be key, but that would open the cable system for full competition and the cable companies would get compensated for their plant investment. Of course, the CableCos won't like being marginalized to data providers, but that's where things around going. It's just a question of whether the cable company is the IP content provider.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

dstoffa said:


> I'd simply like the government to get out of the way and let private business do with their property as they see fit.
> 
> I don't think it's the governments job to tell a content deliverer how to deliver that content unless such methods impact some other content deliverer's ability to deliver similar content.
> 
> Supply and demand should dictate. Not the "greater good."


Can you tell me what the "supply" and the "demand" is here, and how using open networking and communications standards would have a negative effect on it?


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

so, just making sure, this wouldn't hurt us new Premiere owners right? Cablecards will still work? Otherwise our Tivos would be giant paperweights.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

dstoffa said:


> I'd simply like the government to get out of the way and let private business do with their property as they see fit.
> 
> I don't think it's the governments job to tell a content deliverer how to deliver that content unless such methods impact some other content deliverer's ability to deliver similar content.
> 
> ...


Sure. Let private companies and individuals do as they wish with their own property.

While we're at it, can I charge rent to utility companies using my property for their wires and other equipment? Because right now the Gov't basically forced me to give up part of my property for those wires and equipment in exchange for zero monetary compensation.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

b_scott said:


> so, just making sure, this wouldn't hurt us new Premiere owners right?


No way. This is TiVo's own proposal being adopted here.


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

Looks like we have to watch this then make some noise in favor when this thing gets before a committee vote.


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

MickeS said:


> Can you tell me what the "supply" and the "demand" is here, and how using open networking and communications standards would have a negative effect on it?


Who should pay for bringing broadband to places that do not have it? If there is demand for broadband in rural America, then someone will provide it. It shouldn't be the government's responsibility to 'force' private companies to do this. And it definitely should not be the government's job to get into the telecom business.

Regarding "open networking and communications standards", if I am a deliverer of content, over lines which I have spent money laying out, and installing, then I am privy to use any standard I see fit for transmitting data over those lines.

I am not saying that open standards are a bad thing, nor am I against them. I am saying that the only time government should get involved is IF the protocol of my choice prohibited someone else from installing a similar system. If I laid out the capital, then I should be able to use as I see fit provided I do not prevent anyone else from setting up a similar network.

The issue at hand is cable companies spent money and years setting up their infrastructure. They shouldn't have to be forced to share. No trophies for everyone. If I invested my capital, I should be able to reap the benefits.

Cheers!
-Doug


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

Should the FCC mandate cable gateways, that would almost certainly benefit Premiere owners. A cable gateway could potentially turn the Premiere into a quad-tuner DVR.

Broadcom's SoCs are able to "tune" and record streams from both dedicated tuners and the on-chip data transport module. U-Verse uses the data transport module in the BCM7401 (same chip in TiVo HD) to record four MPEG-4 SD streams or 2-3 MPEG-4 HD streams over the network.

The BCM7401 in the TiVo HD doesn't have have the memory bandwidth necessary to handle more more than three full-bitrate MPEG-2 streams (two record, one playback) with everyone else TiVo does, but the BCM7413 in the Premiere can. For the Premiere, a cable gateway could be the functional equivalent of add-on tuners.


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

Raj said:


> Sure. Let private companies and individuals do as they wish with their own property.
> 
> While we're at it, can I charge rent to utility companies using my property for their wires and other equipment? Because right now the Gov't basically forced me to give up part of my property for those wires and equipment in exchange for zero monetary compensation.


Did you own your property before or after the installation of the telephone poles? I bet after. You weren't involved in agreements made at the time.

I own land in a rural area, and have been approached by other land owners (well, a real estate broker) if they could install telephone poles over my property in order to run power / cable / phone to reach theirs, because if they had to use their own right of way to the nearest wired point, NYSEG / TWC / Verizon would have charged MORE than the cost of the land. I told them, sure, its up to negotiation. I wanted them to pay my school and property taxes in perpetuity, and I also wanted a lien on their land. I also wanted this recorded in the county ledger. Of course, they said, "No fracking way."

Needless to say, they never ran power to their land, and the broker never got their nice commission. They were planning to subdivide, and I simply wasn't going to help them.

I've also been compensated by the County and State when they had to take from frontage for a bridge reconstruction project.

So, I am sure that a previous owner of your land made a deal or received compensation for a pole on your property. You inherited the previous owner's agreement.

Cheers!
-Doug


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

dstoffa said:


> Who should pay for bringing broadband to places that do not have it? If there is demand for broadband in rural America, then someone will provide it. It shouldn't be the government's responsibility to 'force' private companies to do this. And it definitely should not be the government's job to get into the telecom business.
> 
> Regarding "open networking and communications standards", if I am a deliverer of content, over lines which I have spent money laying out, and installing, then I am privy to use any standard I see fit for transmitting data over those lines.
> 
> ...


I must be missing something, because I don't see how what you're talking about has anything to do with what is discussed in this thread. What is discussed here is what standards should be used to communicate with equipment NOT owned by the MVPD, on infrastructure NOT owned by the MVPD. The MVPD can do whatever they want with their own lines and hardware, and I don't see anyone suggesting anything else.

I'm still curious though what you meant when you said this was a supply and demand issue. Can you explain?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Series3Sub said:


> TiVo and Moxi aren't compatible with satellite for similar reasons as Uverse, but even worse is a lack of standards between Dish and DirecTV.


I would just get a moxi and be done with it


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

MickeS said:


> I'm still curious though what you meant when you said this was a supply and demand issue. Can you explain?


The title of this thread is "National Broadband Plan". I do not believe it's the governments responsibility to provide this. If the demand for broadband in a rural area is there, then someone will supply it. Those who want it should pay for it, and even pay for installation of infrastructure.

I was certain this fact was raised in the first two posts on this thread. But after reviewing, I realize that this was cited elsewhere (newspaper or other that I read today.) When I read the post about "What is Wanted" (jet pack, fast car, etc., I responded that I'd rather the free market decide what is offered, based on its ability to recoup its investments, without the influence of government mandates and price fixing.

That's where the supply and demand slant comes from. This 'plan' describes what the government wants to tell private enterprise what to do. This may or not be in the best interest of said enterprises.

If I were an internet pipe, and the government forced my hand and told me what I could charge for provided 'affordable' service, that reeks of price-fixing. If the government's plan agrees with public demand, then someone will supply it. They shouldn't be forced to supply it.

To sum up, if I am internet service provider, and the government tells me what I can charge for carrying data, I'd rather say, "Fine. You do it." And I'd go around ripping up all my infrastructure and sell it as scrap. Government has no right telling me what a just and reasonable rate for service is. Supply and Demand does.


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

dstoffa said:


> The title of this thread is "National Broadband Plan". I do not believe it's the governments responsibility to provide this. If the demand for broadband in a rural area is there, then someone will supply it. Those who want it should pay for it, and even pay for installation of infrastructure.
> 
> I was certain this fact was raised in the first two posts on this thread. But after reviewing, I realize that this was cited elsewhere (newspaper or other that I read today.)
> 
> ...


Pretty sure it's more that there is monopoly. If there was equal competition in all areas, there would be less instances of needing regulation of, let's face it, almost necessity nowadays. Cable/net is the new phone line.


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

b_scott said:


> Pretty sure it's more that there is monopoly. If there was equal competition in all areas, there would be less instances of needing regulation of, let's face it, almost necessity nowadays. Cable/net is the new phone line.


You are lucky if you have two options for broadband. And in fact, because Cable and Telephone companies were in separate businesses in the past made it possible for both to go after the brass ring which is broadband internet services.

You will be hard pressed to find ANY enterprise attempt to penetrate a new market against an incumbent, because they will have to charge much more for the same product when compared to the incumbent. If the area to be penetrated isn't dense, then the potential return on investment is lower.

An analogy can be drawn to a-la-carte pricing versus packaged pricing for cable-tv networks.

Sure, the cost per sub is low when the cost is spread out, but if a channel needs that revenue, then they have to charge 10x+ more per sub from whoever subs to that channel. Then, those subs may even consider dropping the channel. It's like raising taxes to increase revenue. Eventually, you get to the point where increasing your cost lowers your revenue, simply because you lose subscribers who no longer thing your product is worth what you are asking.

If a new-comer to the ISP field were to enter your neighborhood, and was to lay down all new infrastructure, they wouldn't be able to charge a rate that would make you switch (if they wanted to stay in business for any length of time). With FIOS, Verizon had some infrastructure in place, and their business model permitted them to add a new service as they upgraded their infrastructure. If people didn't buy, they could still sell phone service. Their risk was/is low. It would be much different if they had to build from the ground up, with no infrastructure in place.

It has nothing to do with Monopoly, but simply start-up costs.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

dstoffa said:


> Did you own your property before or after the installation of the telephone poles? I bet after. You weren't involved in agreements made at the time.
> 
> I own land in a rural area, and have been approached by other land owners (well, a real estate broker) if they could install telephone poles over my property in order to run power / cable / phone to reach theirs, because if they had to use their own right of way to the nearest wired point, NYSEG / TWC / Verizon would have charged MORE than the cost of the land. I told them, sure, its up to negotiation. I wanted them to pay my school and property taxes in perpetuity, and I also wanted a lien on their land. I also wanted this recorded in the county ledger. Of course, they said, "No fracking way."
> 
> ...


You don't seem to have much understanding of the difference between a utility easement and eminent domain.

Out here they are talking about running powerlines here on property and land owners pretty much don't have a choice. Not my property personally but my neighbors, and I have attended the meetings with the power company about it.

Here is what they said - if they are actually taking the land via eminent domain, they'll pay. If they're simply using an easement, there will be no compensation because they're not actually taking the land and it is still yours. But the utility company has access to cut trees and perform maintenance, and you are PROHIBITED from planting trees below the power lines or doing much else for that matter. You can't even tell utility workers they need permission to be on your land because they have access according to the easement. Get it? So in effect you actually ARE giving up rights to your land. You're just not being paid for it because of a convenient loophole.

If you refuse, they'll condemn your house, seize the land and you are guaranteed to get much less than what your property is worth. Plus with ugly power lines on your property and the fear of cancer your property value is reduced a great deal so you lose even more.

In the end, you have no choice in the matter, and the use of your land is forcibly seized.

So yes, your land can be forcibly seized without your consent and without compensation.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

dstoffa said:


> To sum up, if I am internet service provider, and the government tells me what I can charge for carrying data, I'd rather say, "Fine. You do it." And I'd go around ripping up all my infrastructure and sell it as scrap. Government has no right telling me what a just and reasonable rate for service is. Supply and Demand does.


I assume you are talking hypothetically here? Since the reality is that in return for giving up some price control, the cable companies get exclusive, local government granted access rights.

Are you arguing that they should get these franchise agreements AND be allowed to set prices however they want? Or are you arguing that they should all give UP the access rights, and instead compete in a free market? Obviously, that has proven to NOT be the choice of cable providers. While I am all for it, I doubt many of them want this.

Are there situations where cable companies do NOT have franchise rights or any other government deals but are still price controlled? If there are, I am not aware of them.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

flaminiom said:


> Yup. Basically set top devices would have its own a DOCSIS modem.
> 
> Maybe cable providers simply charge a device fee, and then customers can do whatever they want within IP tiers of service. Pricing will be key, but that would open the cable system for full competition and the cable companies would get compensated for their plant investment. Of course, the CableCos won't like being marginalized to data providers, but that's where things around going. It's just a question of whether the cable company is the IP content provider.


You are confusing the proposed media gateway with something else.

The gateway would have its own connection to the MVPD for the TV service, and if need be, internet. The gateway would provide IP for the set-top-boxes, which would connect with Ethernet or similar. The gateway box could provide internet on the internal network. The way MVPDs offer TV service does not change, just the hardware in your home does.

The "something else" I am guessing is the concept of current MVPDs just becoming pipe providers, and you access the programming sources directly. 
That would be a whole other discussion. Let's keep this one to the gateway proposal and "fix" for cablecards.

As for Cablecards, they won't be discontinued soon. I would expect the Gateway would have to get going and prove itself before they stopped support for those.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

the demand is for customers and Congress is asking the FCC to supply them


----------



## RayChuang88 (Sep 5, 2002)

Let me clarify on what I mean by a "universal" TiVo DVR.

Essentially, it looks like a larger-sized version of the TiVo Premiere box, but in the back there is a large "hole" where you insert an adapter box sized a little larger than a pack of cigarettes, with one side of the adapter having connectors for cable TV F connector, the satellite TV antenna connector, Verizon FIOS connector or AT&T U-Verse connector. (It should be noted that the cable TV adapter box includes built-in SDV functionality.)

In short, when you plug in the appropriate adapter box, the TiVo box automatically configures itself for the TV provider you select. For example, in my case I would rent an adaptor box from Comcast that when plugged into to this "universal" TiVo DVR automatically gets all the digital channels, plus since this adapter box does true two-way communications you get the Comcast Program Guide and On-Demand capability in addition to support for premium channels, even if the channels are sent using SDV.

In another example, if you plug in the adapter box provided by DirecTV, the TiVo DVR becomes your DirecTV tuner, and using either an Ethernet connection or the optional Wi-Fi connection, will get Program Guide information or allow you to order PPV events on DirecTV through the Internet.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Series3Sub said:


> There is no waiver for satellite. DBS is regulated by separate legislation and has virtually NONE of the "burdens" Cable TV does. Satellite can do pretty much what it wants and no current legislation compels satellite regarding 3rd party set-top-boxes or just about anything in the technical arena. It is quite unregulated in that way and is why in the current state of the art equipment, DirecTV and Dish Network use incompatible systems.
> 
> ....


actually you are incorrect.

the law (1996 telecommunications law) requiring retail availibility of third party devices most certinaly applies to satellite. The FCC has said so:

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1998/fcc98116.pdf


> III. SUMMARY
> 8. This Order adopts rules and policies implementing Section 629. The decisions made in this Order
> may be summarized as follows:
>  Section 629 is broad in terms of the multichannel video programming distributors ("MVPDs") covered
> ...


the FCC granted them a waiver becasue they were new technology (I THINK- can't find the citation on this yet) from young competitors and at the time you could actually go into a retail store and buy a dbs box from a variety of brands with a variety of features - and said box would work pretty much anywhere in the US.
from the same FCC report and order:


> MVPDs must separate out security functions from non-security functions by July 1, 2000. *An exception
> is made for navigation devices that operate throughout the continental United States and are
> commercially available from unaffiliated sources, which includes DBS*.


why the fcc hasn't since revoked the waiver now that Directv is actually the biggest multi channal provider in the US and both Directv and DIsh have killed off the ability to buy a choice of boxes at retail is one of the great mysteries of life. Well not exactly- probably just further proof that government sucks and can do very little well.

IN fact Cable of late has been arguing to the FCC that DBS's waivers should in fact be revoked becasue of their size and lack of retail availibility of third party devices.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

dstoffa said:


> I'd simply like the government to get out of the way and let private business do with their property as they see fit.
> 
> I don't think it's the governments job to tell a content deliverer how to deliver that content unless such methods impact some other content deliverer's ability to deliver similar content.
> 
> ...


There are a lot of reasons why the government should be involved in markets like this. I cannot distill 7 years worth of econ and business regulation into 1 post, but here's a few that you may not understand...

First of all, they are natural monopolies. It's not feasible to put down multiple cable lines for multiple companies and monopolies in the cable industry just WANT to happen... they happen naturally and it's not cost effective to try and prevent it. When a city reaches a specific size, competition might show up, but even that's not a given. So best to let the monopolies happen and then regulate them.

Second, it's in the public interest to have people connected. Studies show that television and internet improve knowledge, decision making and social interaction... for example, violence against women decreases in India in areas where people have television. Of course, that's not the US, but it just shows that these things have net benefits to society that are not internalized properly. See, internalization of costs and benefits is part of what the government does... if something has more benefits than are accounted for in the costs (i.e. I buy X and X helps me Y amount, but it helps society Y+Z amount, then society should pay for Z... I shouldn't) then the government picks that up. You can see this in housing (we provide tax breaks for housing purchases), children (same), farming (subsidized), etc.

Third, the cable industry uses public land to do business. They run wires on public property. Those wires are often maintained partially by the government when they maintain power lines. They get to block roads to work on lines.

So cable companies get to be excluded from anti-trust law, they get to use public property and cable + internet provides a net benefit to society over and above your own personal value of having the service... therefore, it is a PERFECT place for government regulation. It is in fact one of the classic definitions of a place where the market cannot operate on its own and MUST be regulated.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

RayChuang88 said:


> Let me clarify on what I mean by a "universal" TiVo DVR.
> 
> Essentially, it looks like a larger-sized version of the TiVo Premiere box, but in the back there is a large "hole" where you insert an adapter box sized a little larger than a pack of cigarettes, with one side of the adapter having connectors for cable TV F connector, the satellite TV antenna connector, Verizon FIOS connector or AT&T U-Verse connector. (It should be noted that the cable TV adapter box includes built-in SDV functionality.)
> 
> ...


The real vision is a gateway that installs either in a closet in your house or outside in a weatherproof box. Your service provider runs their line to that box (FIOS, U-Verse, Cable, Sat, whatever) and then a single co-ax runs out of that to your existing cable network. Your devices use that co-ax to talk digital IP for viewing the content provided by the gateway.

Do you have a cable modem or DSL modem connected to a router for your internet? Same concept. It doesn't matter how the modems talk to the ISP... all of your computers talk IP internally and the modem translates that.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

Raj said:


> You don't seem to have much understanding of the difference between a utility easement and eminent domain.
> 
> Out here they are talking about running powerlines here on property and land owners pretty much don't have a choice. Not my property personally but my neighbors, and I have attended the meetings with the power company about it.
> 
> ...


And, in addition, you are responsible for maintaining the easement!

It's theirs functionally... but you have to maintain it for them.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

EngadgetHD has now also put an article up on it.

http://hd.engadget.com/2010/03/17/a-cablecard-replacement-is-due-by-december-2012-bandaids-by-thi/



> The list below of immediate fixes is pretty impressive, and other than the persistent lack of video on demand support, it'll help make CableCARD a pretty respectable solution.
> 
> * Ditch Tuning Adapters and let devices with Ethernet ports communicate upstream via IP to tune SDV channels.
> * If a customer has a CableCARD in their leased set-top box, it must be reflected on the bill like any other CableCARD would.
> ...


The last sentence there could be interesting and even with potential for TiVo.

TiVo has always wanted to be in the software business. This could easily open up TiVo to sell just the TiVo software to work on a Win 7 PC with Ceton's InfiniTV 4 which would be cable labs certified. This could be something they offer without using a company like Nero. They would only have to license PlayReady DRM which is currently cable labs approved.


----------



## RealityCheck (Feb 15, 2007)

All these new FCC requirements sound good for future products. I simply doubt TiVo will update any of their current non-premiere DVRs to take advantage of these new potential laws. If I were a Cable MVPD, I'd call them out over this ("we've jumped through hoops implementing this, and TiVo won't bother to update capable hardware to support these technologies").


----------



## brewman (Jun 29, 2003)

dstoffa said:


> ... some deleted to shorten response
> 
> The issue at hand is cable companies spent money and years setting up their infrastructure. They shouldn't have to be forced to share. No trophies for everyone. If I invested my capital, I should be able to reap the benefits.
> 
> ...


Cable companies were also given exclusive franchise rights to ensure they would be able to profit from their large capital outlays.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

innocentfreak said:


> The last sentence there could be interesting and even with potential for TiVo.
> 
> TiVo has always wanted to be in the software business. This could easily open up TiVo to sell just the TiVo software to work on a Win 7 PC with Ceton's InfiniTV 4 which would be cable labs certified. This could be something they offer without using a company like Nero. They would only have to license PlayReady DRM which is currently cable labs approved.


I don't see that gaining traction. TiVo wants to sell _service_, and they want to sell plug and play service too. I don't see DIY HTPCs as a major part of the TiVo strategy.

Remember that TiVos were made by a variety of manufacturers - Philips, Sony, Humax, Pioneer, Hughes/DirecTV etc. All of these boxes were boxes that you brought home, plugged in and began recording.

So with that in mind I can see a return to more OEMs if/when the gateway becomes reality or CableCARD is fully fixed.


----------



## Enrique (May 15, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> now that Directv is actually the biggest multi channal provider in the US.


To correct, DirecTV is the second largest multi-channel provider in the US(Comcast is the largest). DirecTV is the largest multi-channel provider in the world, which is easy to clam as Comcast doesn't operate outside the US(And DirecTV does).


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

brewman said:


> Cable companies were also given exclusive franchise rights to ensure they would be able to profit from their large capital outlays.


Section 621 of the telecom act prohibits exclusive franchise agreements.

There are no more exclusive franchise agreements.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

RealityCheck said:


> All these new FCC requirements sound good for future products. I simply doubt TiVo will update any of their current non-premiere DVRs to take advantage of these new potential laws. If I were a Cable MVPD, I'd call them out over this ("we've jumped through hoops implementing this, and TiVo won't bother to update capable hardware to support these technologies").


I can almost guarantee that they will. They already have the technology in place to do it.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

Raj said:


> I don't see that gaining traction. TiVo wants to sell _service_, and they want to sell plug and play service too. I don't see DIY HTPCs as a major part of the TiVo strategy.
> 
> Remember that TiVos were made by a variety of manufacturers - Philips, Sony, Humax, Pioneer, Hughes/DirecTV etc. All of these boxes were boxes that you brought home, plugged in and began recording.
> 
> So with that in mind I can see a return to more OEMs if/when the gateway becomes reality or CableCARD is fully fixed.


Not saying it would necessarily be huge for them, but it would completely eliminate the need for dealing with hardware. Not only could they continue to offer a subscription they would also be gaining software sales without the hardware hurting them. It would also be only one piece of the puzzle.

This doesn't mean other companies couldn't then license the software for plug and play devices that would also work by themselves and with the PC software. TiVo Desktop would just become a real TiVo Desktop where you would also be able to record with approved tuners and other devices like the Popcorn hour could work as extenders/streamers.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Meh. There's almost no point in discussing this "National Broadband Plan." It's a non-stop series of recommendations that are no more than "wouldn't it be nice if ____ would happen?" 

If anything happens as described in this document, it's sheer coincidence, only if the broadband providers feel like it, and they'll likely figure out a way to make it completely customer UN-friendly and/or charge an arm and a leg for it.

Cynic? Me? Noooo... never....


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

dstoffa said:


> I'd simply like the government to get out of the way and let private business do with their property as they see fit.
> 
> I don't think it's the governments job to tell a content deliverer how to deliver that content unless such methods impact some other content deliverer's ability to deliver similar content.
> 
> ...


If this rationale had been followed then there never would have been telephone or electric utility service in huge rural areas of the US as it would have been incredibly cost ineffective. Running a single POTS line to a farm house in Iowa, back in the early 20th century could easily cost hundreds or thousands of dollars.

Don't like "public good"? That's okay, those farmers don't need to feed you either.

The reality is that your tax dollars subsidize these companies due to huge tax deductions and other bonuses they get from the Fed and crying that they actually have to do something by Federal mandate in exchange for the freedom to operate their virtual monopoly in a market is misguided at best and simply laughably inane at worst.

Still don't like "public good"? A certain popular Fox News commentator likes to rail on and on about how foolish public good works are, and mentioned that he learned lots of things from library books, because they're FREE! Apparently he's too foolish to realize that the library is a *tax payer funded* PUBLIC GOOD project. When people are free to go and check out whatever reading material they like, in order to expand their brains, we all win.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

MichaelK said:


> actually you are incorrect.
> 
> the law (1996 telecommunications law) requiring retail availibility of third party devices most certinaly applies to satellite. The FCC has said so:
> 
> ...


Yes, but as is with all laws, it is subject to interpretation: The law means t[/I][/I]o _encourage_ 3rd parties to produce devices to work with as many MVPD's out there in the belief that competition is good for consumers and promotes innovation, but they must have approval from the FCC before attempting to do so and submitting it to the FCC for review, and that is what the 1996 law attempt makes clear: The FCC must allow 3rd parties to produce set-top-boxes for any MVP and regulate appropriately. There is no mandate that anyone must manufacture a 3rd party STB nor that an MVP adopt a standard, just that MVP must--in layman's terms--cooperate or have the technology "open" with any 3rd party *IF* they wish to produce an STB for that system. MVP can't say. "NO." There is nothing that either satellite company is doing to prevent anyone from manufacturing a 3rd party satellite STB or Cable, FiOS, IP, satellite combo STB. It just that no 3rd party wants to do it.

Dish and Direct wanted to be included for Cable Card, but the cable cos. did everything to shut them out, and Dish and DirecTV wrote letters of protest to Congressional committees saying so, but in the end, the cable cos. got what they wanted, Cable card for themselves only (FiOS does use Cable TV standards, so the Cable Cards work on FiOS).

Yes, it is true that 3rd party STB's were available for DBS, most significantly DirecTV, but DirecTV relied exclusively on 3rd party STB's in the early years NOT because the law mandated it, but because DirecTV chose that business model. The then Hughes Corporation who owned DirecTV at the the time did not want to increase their already high costs for DirecTV with the burden of having to staff and operate an arm that would design and manufacture *consumer* set-top-boxes for DirecTV. It was more cost effective at the time for DirecTV to license its technology to 3rd parties and let them incur the cost of STB manufacture. That is why Sony, RCA, and others had DirecTV STB's on the market, but they were quite expensive and never "free" as the 3rd parties wanted full return on their STB investment. There may have been a Hughes branded product at back in the early days at one point, but Hughes did not manufacture it. 3rd party STB's was so with DirecTV because DirecTV wanted it that way for economic reasons.

Dish Network originally was going to follow the DirecTV model, but because they already had great experience in designing and manufacturing consumer satellite STB's, Echostar (the then owners of Dish Network) engineers were successful in persuading CEO Charlie Ergan into letting them design and manufacture the STB's, allowing full control of cost which did result in Dish Network systems being more affordable. It was because of this business model that Dish was the first sat co to offer free systems, an advantage to which DirecTV could not match for at least 2 years until DirecTV/Hughes began manufacturing its own STB's in huge bulk and adopted the Dish Network business model.

Any 3rd party is free to make a satellite or IP (Uverse) STB. The reason no one has done so in many years is that it is too expensive to do so with less critical mass for IP and satellite already have their own DVR's in millions of homes, and the lack of standardization for DBS systems. 3rd parties can't compete with a DirecTV or Dish Network branded STB that is given away for free to subs and make it work for both satellite systems. That would be a very expensive STB, indeed, that would be at a very bad price point. Why do you think there are only TWO (TiVo and Moxi) 3rd party options available after all these years? Economies.

Ironically, it is the fact that DirecTV and Dish make their own branded products and _can afford_ to hand them out for free (control of cost of STB and its own revenue stream) that has allowed satellite to become as big as it has providing an alternative to millions of households and provide real competition for cable, not the proliferation of 3rd party boxes that would certainly have a retail cost *more* than a TiVo as 3rd parties have no way of subsidizing the cost of the STB as Dish and DirecTV using their branded product over which they have full pricing control and a huge stream of revenue (subscriptions on the average of $50-$69 per month) with which to recoup short term losses.

The current loss of huge numbers of TiVo subscriptions is an affirmation of the poor economies of being a 3rd party STB maker in the current technology (gateway technology may solve that), certainly for satellite that lacks an industry standard at the STB level. TiVo is trying to get *OUT* of the STB business altogether for reasons cited above. Tom Rogers has been trying to flee the STB scene for years now and has made progress, but will it be in time. Being a 3rd party STB provider is running TiVo out of business, but Moxi feels they can make it work, and they may be right as they don't go down the OTA, satellite, or IP road and this allows Moxi not to have to charge a monthly fee for use of the box. The is the USA and Moxi demonstrates that there are some companies who will buck the trend.

I have explained the _"great mystery of life"_ in my previous paragraph. The reason is old fashioned free market economics. 3rd parties should be free to not lose money and go out of business and people lose jobs. Dish and DirecTV branded boxes have allowed access to satellite far more affordable than any 3rd party could ever do. I would love 3rd party boxes, but it doesn't make economic sense because most families are NEVER going to pay for any 3rd party STB's when they can get one provided by the MVD at a lower cost--unless you are promoting the economics of Socialism?

Cable co's. call for the change in satellite's regulation has nothing to do with "cable card" like devices nor more 3rd party STB's nor any "waiver", but everything to do with with the lack of the same oversight and mandates the Cable suffers because it is still considered a "monopoly" and must endure federal and local government price controls and approvals for charges and mandates of certain free services and a mandated low charge for Cable Cards, public access rules (that increases costs), and more. Cable's arguments that satellite is now truly a competitive option is made in appeals for the Feds to free it of its status as a "monopoly," and allow them to, essentially, raise prices as they see fit for a host of services and mandates unencumbered by local governments.

Cable also wants satellite to cease its enjoyment of having much less royalty payments for content than cable. That is when you hear the satellite cos. make the argument that they are not a mature industry yet, and repeal of such enjoyments would no longer make them competitive. So, STELA keeps satellite's unique system of royalty payments because it is regulated by the old SHIVRA and the soon to be passed STELA legislation for regulation of satellite DBS companies that have NOTHING to do with legislation regulating Cable TV.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

innocentfreak said:


> Not saying it would necessarily be huge for them, but it would completely eliminate the need for dealing with hardware. Not only could they continue to offer a subscription they would also be gaining software sales without the hardware hurting them. It would also be only one piece of the puzzle.
> 
> This doesn't mean other companies couldn't then license the software for plug and play devices that would also work by themselves and with the PC software. TiVo Desktop would just become a real TiVo Desktop where you would also be able to record with approved tuners and other devices like the Popcorn hour could work as extenders/streamers.


I just don't see TiVo going into the HTPC niche, other than the current Nero Liquid TV product, when the others offer a similar product with no subscription fee.

In fact Windows 7 even comes with the DVR software bundled with the OS. I don't think anyone's going to really pay $13/month when they can use WMC for free.


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

jmpage2 said:


> If this rationale had been followed then there never would have been telephone or electric utility service in huge rural areas of the US as it would have been incredibly cost ineffective. Running a single POTS line to a farm house in Iowa, back in the early 20th century could easily cost hundreds or thousands of dollars.


Actually, it was electricity, not POTS, that needed to be distributed to rural areas. Electricity was first to make inroads in urban areas. But an urban load is not constant. The power generating companies realized that in order to make efficient use of their plant, they needed more constant loads on it 24/7. Those power generating companies actually installed power lines to farmers, provided they would actually 'sign-up' for the service. It took a bit to convince the farmer of the benefit of electric power. Once those farmers realized its potential, and the power companies had their customers who were willing to buy, they were more than happy to run power lines. I am pretty sure the telegraph had good penetration in rural areas, much more so than electric power.

The TVA is a completely different situation, as the TVA actually generated a source of power (hydro), and also controlled flooding.



> Don't like "public good"? That's okay, those farmers don't need to feed you either.


And they shouldn't need government subsidies to grow nothing, either.



> The reality is that your tax dollars subsidize these companies due to huge tax deductions and other bonuses they get from the Fed and crying that they actually have to do something by Federal mandate in exchange for the freedom to operate their virtual monopoly in a market is misguided at best and simply laughably inane at worst.


I am most certain that any tax breaks / deductions realized by these huge companies are more than made up in usage and roll-down taxes imposed on the public. Large Company A gets a tax-break? Well, they employ X people, who pay income tax. These people also buy goods, which in turn generates sales and usage taxes. It's not laughable.



> Still don't like "public good"? A certain popular Fox News commentator likes to rail on and on about how foolish public good works are, and mentioned that he learned lots of things from library books, because they're FREE! Apparently he's too foolish to realize that the library is a *tax payer funded* PUBLIC GOOD project. When people are free to go and check out whatever reading material they like, in order to expand their brains, we all win.


A resident of a town / village / city, can usually vote on their town's budget (It's lumped in the school budget where I live, and I can vote YES or NO). They can choose NOT to fund the library. Yes, they'll pay less, but having no library usually results in lower property values, which will cost them more in the end than the taxes to fund the library.


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

Grakthis said:


> There are a lot of reasons why the government should be involved in markets like this. I cannot distill 7 years worth of econ and business regulation into 1 post, but here's a few that you may not understand...


Government shouldn't be SUBSIDIZING these enterprises. Regulating may be okay for certain things, but in no shape or form should real taxpayer dollars be funneled to subsidize someone's broadband connection.



> First of all, they are natural monopolies. It's not feasible to put down multiple cable lines for multiple companies and monopolies in the cable industry just WANT to happen... they happen naturally and it's not cost effective to try and prevent it. When a city reaches a specific size, competition might show up, but even that's not a given. So best to let the monopolies happen and then regulate them.


Well, cable companies used to deliver TV. Phone companies used to provide telephone service. It was not prudent to overbuild for these services. However, mother necessity and invention has changed the game. Now, these companies provide the services of the other. These companies should be catering to and serving their own customers / needs before they even begin selling any extra bandwidth to 3rd party, nor should they be forced to. If it's profitable for them to sell their excess bandwidth, then they should have the choice to do so.



> Second, it's in the public interest to have people connected. Studies show that television and internet improve knowledge, decision making and social interaction... for example, violence against women decreases in India in areas where people have television. Of course, that's not the US, but it just shows that these things have net benefits to society that are not internalized properly. See, internalization of costs and benefits is part of what the government does... if something has more benefits than are accounted for in the costs (i.e. I buy X and X helps me Y amount, but it helps society Y+Z amount, then society should pay for Z... I shouldn't) then the government picks that up. You can see this in housing (we provide tax breaks for housing purchases), children (same), farming (subsidized), etc.


I don't believe that television and the internet improve people's knowledge. I think that they improve people's ACCESS to knowledge, but the quality of that information is subject to interpretation. I think you would agree that downloading p0rn and music and watching American Idol and Dancing With the Stars does not really improve one's knowledge.

The ends don't necessarily justify the means.



> Third, the cable industry uses public land to do business. They run wires on public property. Those wires are often maintained partially by the government when they maintain power lines. They get to block roads to work on lines.
> 
> So cable companies get to be excluded from anti-trust law, they get to use public property and cable + internet provides a net benefit to society over and above your own personal value of having the service... therefore, it is a PERFECT place for government regulation. It is in fact one of the classic definitions of a place where the market cannot operate on its own and MUST be regulated.


I am most certain that counties / towns made deals back in the day in order to get the new toy in town. The power companies blazed the trail, and everyone else just followed.

The government may have a say in regulation for the service originally intended, but when it comes to new services above and beyond, say, broadcast basic, the government should have no say.

Just my opinion.

Cheers!
-Doug


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

RayChuang88 said:


> Let me clarify on what I mean by a "universal" TiVo DVR.
> 
> Essentially, it looks like a larger-sized version of the TiVo Premiere box, but in the back there is a large "hole" where you insert an adapter box sized a little larger than a pack of cigarettes, with one side of the adapter having connectors for cable TV F connector, the satellite TV antenna connector, Verizon FIOS connector or AT&T U-Verse connector. (It should be noted that the cable TV adapter box includes built-in SDV functionality.)


I get what you mean, but it won't happen.
The drive, at least by TiVo and other CE manufacturers is the gateway concepts. Besides , it doesn't "fix" cablecard mostly, except the varying signal types, which the gateway also fixes, and set-top manufacturers need include no more than an Ethernet socket.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

dstoffa said:


> A resident of a town / village / city, can usually vote on their town's budget (It's lumped in the school budget where I live, and I can vote YES or NO). They can choose NOT to fund the library. Yes, they'll pay less, but having no library usually results in lower property values, which will cost them more in the end than the taxes to fund the library.


Our municipal budgets aren't up for public vote. Our town council is, however. But by the time they're up for re-election the taxes are raised and the damage is done.

Our school budgets can increase up to 4% without voter approval. State law.

Also, they are not lumped together.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Raj said:


> I just don't see TiVo going into the HTPC niche, other than the current Nero Liquid TV product


No longer current -- Liquid TV is dead.


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

RealityCheck said:


> All these new FCC requirements sound good for future products. I simply doubt TiVo will update any of their current non-premiere DVRs to take advantage of these new potential laws. If I were a Cable MVPD, I'd call them out over this ("we've jumped through hoops implementing this, and TiVo won't bother to update capable hardware to support these technologies").


Of course they will. The beauty of the IP gateway is any TiVo with an Ethernet port could be a client. So in other words even older TiVos could be updated (assuming the chip will support the throughput etc). TiVo wouldn't have recommended it if they didn't think it was a good idea and why wouldn't they implement it, now that they got their way.


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

LoadStar said:


> Meh. There's almost no point in discussing this "National Broadband Plan." It's a non-stop series of recommendations that are no more than "wouldn't it be nice if ____ would happen?"


Not really. Unlike most of the Broadband Plan, the FCC already has the power to implement these changes. Congress passed the law giving the FCC this power in 1996, so I see no reason why the FCC won't follow through with it.

This is why the CableCARD changes are due by this Fall -- yes, in six months. And the new gateway is supposed to be DEPLOYED within the next 33 months or the FCC is going to start punishing the cable cos.

What I think is going to happen is that CableLabs is going upgrade the OCUR spec into a BOCUR spec and add some DLNA and DTCP-IP to make it the IP Gateway spec. So it'll expose bi-directional control over the tuners in the network device.

All the groundwork has been laid, there is no reason it can't be done in the time frame proposed.


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

bdraw said:


> Of course they will. The beauty of the IP gateway is any TiVo with an Ethernet port could be a client. So in other words even older TiVos could be updated (assuming the chip will support the throughput etc). TiVo wouldn't have recommended it if they didn't think it was a good idea and why wouldn't they implement it, now that they got their way.


It seems others are jumping in on a good idea.

Google and Intel have teamed with Sony to develop a platform called Google TV.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/technology/28webtv.html?ref=media


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

bdraw said:


> Not really. Unlike most of the Broadband Plan, the FCC already has the power to implement these changes. Congress passed the law giving the FCC this power in 1996, so I see no reason why the FCC won't follow through with it.
> 
> This is why the CableCARD changes are due by this Fall -- yes, in six months. And the new gateway is supposed to be DEPLOYED within the next 33 months or the FCC is going to start punishing the cable cos.
> 
> ...


Do you actually think there will be enough bandwidth to provide everyone on a given node with a great HD picture?


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

dstoffa said:


> Government shouldn't be SUBSIDIZING these enterprises. Regulating may be okay for certain things, but in no shape or form should real taxpayer dollars be funneled to subsidize someone's broadband connection.
> 
> Well, cable companies used to deliver TV. Phone companies used to provide telephone service. It was not prudent to overbuild for these services. However, mother necessity and invention has changed the game. Now, these companies provide the services of the other. These companies should be catering to and serving their own customers / needs before they even begin selling any extra bandwidth to 3rd party, nor should they be forced to. If it's profitable for them to sell their excess bandwidth, then they should have the choice to do so.
> 
> ...


Doug,

This isn't opinion. I am telling you measured, demonstrated and observed facts. These things have a measured and demonstrated benefit to society. Therefore, we subsidize them in various ways.

I am explaining to you how it works and why it works. I am not providing an opinion. If you do not subsidize things that have value to society as a whole, then that value will not be realized...

Let me give you a simple example... fire service. If my neighbors house catches on fire, and burns down, there is a good chance this endangers my house. If nothing else, it sure is scary and is an eye sore and is going to hurt property values. It is to MY benefit that my neighbor have fire protection services. But my neighbor only looks at HIS benefit... if we lived in a world where my neighbor did not value his house AND fire service were option (you could subscribe to the fire department, for example) then he might choose not to subscribe because his house burning down is not worth as much to him as the cost to subscribe. But that's ignoring the value of him having fire service to ALL of his neighbors! That's a lot of lost value! By subsidizing fire service (or internalizing it, via taxes) we are able to realize the FULL value of universal fire service.

This *IS* how it works. I am explaining it to you. It's not an opinion.

I hope this helps clarify things for you.


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

Grakthis said:


> Doug,
> Let me give you a simple example... fire service. If my neighbors house catches on fire, and burns down, there is a good chance this endangers my house. If nothing else, it sure is scary and is an eye sore and is going to hurt property values. It is to MY benefit that my neighbor have fire protection services. But my neighbor only looks at HIS benefit... if we lived in a world where my neighbor did not value his house AND fire service were option (you could subscribe to the fire department, for example) then he might choose not to subscribe because his house burning down is not worth as much to him as the cost to subscribe. But that's ignoring the value of him having fire service to ALL of his neighbors! That's a lot of lost value! By subsidizing fire service (or internalizing it, via taxes) we are able to realize the FULL value of universal fire service.
> 
> This *IS* how it works. I am explaining it to you. It's not an opinion.
> ...


This is not a good example. You cite fire protection as your case study. Let us assume that fire protection is optional, and my neighbor declines to purchase it. His action (or non-action) actually threatens my property in case of his home catching fire. Depending on the wind / weather / location of the start of the fire, etc. not only my home, but all surrounding homes are threatened. Therefore, he should buy the protection plan, not to protect his property, but to prevent his ignorance / cheapness from threatening my property. Property must be protected. If his house burns to the ground, I'll be sure to call the Fire Department, because I purchased the protection, and tell the chief when he arrives that it is his duty to protect my house. Spray my house / brush / property line with water to prevent fire. Let my neighbors home burn to the ground.

With broadband internet, property is not threatened. Therefore, one's decision to buy it or not does not impact their neighbor's safety or property.

We may agree to disagree, but I still think that broadband internet should be a choice, and not something subsidized by the government.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

dstoffa said:


> With broadband internet, property is not threatened. Therefore, one's decision to buy it or not does not impact their neighbor's safety or property.


the government is trying to promote business innovation and to draw in businesses you need to have access to many customers. Also if Govt. intends to provide services over the internet, which could save significant money long term - then access needs to be provided to as many as possible.

The same thing happened with phone service and in fact a charge is still on most phone bills related to it. It is how things are.


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> It is how things are.


That doesn't mean it's right.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

dstoffa said:


> This is not a good example. You cite fire protection as your case study. Let us assume that fire protection is optional, and my neighbor declines to purchase it. His action (or non-action) actually threatens my property in case of his home catching fire. Depending on the wind / weather / location of the start of the fire, etc. not only my home, but all surrounding homes are threatened. Therefore, he should buy the protection plan, not to protect his property, but to prevent his ignorance / cheapness from threatening my property. Property must be protected. If his house burns to the ground, I'll be sure to call the Fire Department, because I purchased the protection, and tell the chief when he arrives that it is his duty to protect my house. Spray my house / brush / property line with water to prevent fire. Let my neighbors home burn to the ground.
> 
> With broadband internet, property is not threatened. Therefore, one's decision to buy it or not does not impact their neighbor's safety or property.
> 
> We may agree to disagree, but I still think that broadband internet should be a choice, and not something subsidized by the government.


You're still not listening to me. This is not an "agree or disagree" thing. There is no opinion here. When you say "we may agree to disagree" you are saying "I am going to keep being wrong because I do not like what you are telling me."

Your neighbors having services like internet, TV and telephone DOES benefit you. It makes them more educate, less prone to violence and crime, more likely to report violence and crime they see, it encourages informed decision making, healthier living...

All of these things are recorded and known. Society benefits when people are connected.

Your neighbor being "on the grid" increases your property values, protects your property and your wellbeing (they can report crime, receive a phone call from you, call other neighbors, use their internet to lobby government organizations, become informed on local issues that they may be asked to vote on) and generally makes your city/state/country a better place.

So it is EXACTLY the same as fire protection philosophically, it is just a question of the AMOUNT of benefit/damage we are weighing. You want to subsidize as closely as possible the exact amount of societal benefit and leave the personal benefit up to the individuals to pay.

Now, fire protection is SOOOO important that we do not leave it to chance thanks to the free-rider problem, so we tax and spend. But in the case of communications we still leave some portion of the costs for you to pick up personally on the free market... this encourages diversity and innovation. But you are still taxed and that money is still used for oversight of cable companies, for building up infrastructure and for the FCC.

So you see, the BASIC infrastructure required for these services SHOULD be subsidized for all of the reasons I stated above.

I mean, the other option, if you REALLY want to disagree, is to say that the government should not internalize costs and benefits. In which case we'd live in a hedonistic wasteland with airplane services only going to major cities, cable, internet and TV only going to large metropolitan neighborhoods, cell coverage only in major cities, unbelievably high energy prices, very high cable and internet prices and overcrowded cities with massive sprawling empty areas in between. Does that sound like fun to you?

edit: Oh, I am forgetting the internalized costs... we'd have industrial dumping, lots of smog, no seat belt laws, no safety requirements for cars... on the plus side, the unsafe, gas guzzling cars would be dirty cheap and so would the led filled smoggy fuel they burned.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

dstoffa said:


> That doesn't mean it's right.


Does not mean it is wrong either


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Raj said:


> Section 621 of the telecom act prohibits exclusive franchise agreements.
> 
> There are no more exclusive franchise agreements.


CURRENTLY-

but there have been many changes over the years.

in 1970 or so when they all started they got exclusives.

so the incumbant provider got a leg up early on and now has an advantage becasue of the early help. In many cases it creates the natural monopoly posted about above.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

business decisions for both sides sure do exist but-

Sure all laws are open to interpretation- we can argue if the speed limit on a given road is really 65 or not, we can argue what the definitition of "is" is, you can parse words all day long. But you said dbs is regulated under a differnet law than cable and that there is no waiver. THe currently established law of the land is clear and so is the waiver. You should read them if you are interested in the subject. DBS could argue in court of they want but currently they are regulated by the FCC and have a waiver against separable security.

DBS is a MVPD and that's that (albeit currently since 1996- maybe someone sues...)

nothing says anyone should or shouldn't make cable boxes. The law simple directs the FCC to do what they think is needed to make sure that 3rd party devices are availible at retail for consumers to purchase.

You are correct that out of one side of their mouth directv demanded to be a part of devleoping the POD (point of deployment) - aka 'cablecard' solution- but out of the other side of their mouth they said they sholdn't have to abide by the regulation requiring it's use.

So they have a waiver so they dont need to provide separable security.

And the FCC picked cablelabs (against Drirectv and others objections) to be the entity that made the cablecard standard as the FCC said they basically trusted everyone to behave nicely and that cablelabs was the only one that could get it done soon and the fcc dreamed their initial regulations would only take like 2 years to work and not 10.

You are incorrect that anyone can make a STB for dbs- they can't without separable security (which they have a waiver NOT to provide) or permission from the DBS provider. See - the lapse of tivo units on directv for years when directv would not ALLOW it.

I think you have a fundemental misunderstanding of the 1996 law and 3rd party devices- it's not that the FCC should appove them for radio emmisions or antyhing like that- the whole point of the section in question is that congress thought competition was good. Read the law. Read the comments from congress. Read the FCC's interpretations and the comments they made about them. Read the regulations. It's all quite clear the intent is to make standards so that anyone who who wants can have a far shake at making a box that interoperates with a MVPD.



Series3Sub said:


> Yes, but as is with all laws, it is subject to interpretation: The law means t[/I][/I]o _encourage_ 3rd parties to produce devices to work with as many MVPD's out there in the belief that competition is good for consumers and promotes innovation, but they must have approval from the FCC before attempting to do so and submitting it to the FCC for review, and that is what the 1996 law attempt makes clear: The FCC must allow 3rd parties to produce set-top-boxes for any MVP and regulate appropriately. There is no mandate that anyone must manufacture a 3rd party STB nor that an MVP adopt a standard, just that MVP must--in layman's terms--cooperate or have the technology "open" with any 3rd party *IF* they wish to produce an STB for that system. MVP can't say. "NO." There is nothing that either satellite company is doing to prevent anyone from manufacturing a 3rd party satellite STB or Cable, FiOS, IP, satellite combo STB. It just that no 3rd party wants to do it.
> 
> Dish and Direct wanted to be included for Cable Card, but the cable cos. did everything to shut them out, and Dish and DirecTV wrote letters of protest to Congressional committees saying so, but in the end, the cable cos. got what they wanted, Cable card for themselves only (FiOS does use Cable TV standards, so the Cable Cards work on FiOS).
> 
> ...


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

RayChuang88 said:


> Let me clarify on what I mean by a "universal" TiVo DVR.
> 
> Essentially, it looks like a larger-sized version of the TiVo Premiere box, but in the back there is a large "hole" where you insert an adapter box sized a little larger than a pack of cigarettes, with one side of the adapter having connectors for cable TV F connector, the satellite TV antenna connector, Verizon FIOS connector or AT&T U-Verse connector. (It should be noted that the cable TV adapter box includes built-in SDV functionality.)
> 
> ...


that's what the fcc is proposing- except rather then there be a whole to plugin the "adapter box' into the DVR. the provider would supply a single adapter box for the entire house so all the dvr's and whatnot could talk to it.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

dstoffa said:


> Do you actually think there will be enough bandwidth to provide everyone on a given node with a great HD picture?


If you are suggesting that cable will need to convert everyone to IP straming- that's not what the FCC saying. (If I understand- could certianly be wrong)

TV wouldn't have to be sent via IP over the providers infrastructure.

the providers could continue to use whatever methods they do now to broadcast, narrowcast, stream whatever to the gateway.

But they would have to install a gateway and the gateway would then tune the 'channel' and convert the output to some standard IP to push it around the house.


----------



## johnm4 (Jun 23, 2008)

Wow... someone in government actually pays attention to the real problems and proposes real solutions to fix them.

If they can actually push this though I'll be pleasantly surprised.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

MichaelK said:


> TV wouldn't have to be sent via IP over the providers infrastructure.
> 
> the providers could continue to use whatever methods they do now to broadcast, narrowcast, stream whatever to the gateway.
> 
> But they would have to install a gateway and the gateway would then tune the 'channel' and convert the output to some standard IP to push it around the house.


This is how I understand it. I think a lot of people are misunderstanding this to be turning everything into IPTV. Not the case. The upstream communication to the headend will be over IP through a standard protocol. The headend will probably deliver the service through whatever means is appropriate. IP is an option but most cable services will still be delivered through your cable tuners initially.


----------



## brewman (Jun 29, 2003)

Raj said:


> Section 621 of the telecom act prohibits exclusive franchise agreements.
> 
> There are no more exclusive franchise agreements.


I take it you didn't read dstoffa's comments or put my response in context.


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

With an IP gateway the rest of the infrastructure remains the same, this is the entire point of it. Whether you are cable, fiber or satellite, you keep everything the way it is now and add a IP gateway. This gateway would be specific to the providers network on one end and a standard on the other. Think of it like internet access. If you switch from DSL to Cable, you don't get a new PC, just a new "modem." (which is really a bridge more than a modulator de-modulator)

I believe this IP Gateway will basically be a OCUR on traditional cable system, which is that Media Center uses to tune encrypted QAM today. It is already IP based and discovered via UPnP. All that would be needed is to upgrade the one way nature of the spec to two ways (which was previously discussed as a BOCUR). But I also think they need to make it DLNA compliant. So that any DLNA client that supports DTCP-IP or PlayReady DRM could become a client. If the provider wants to throw a little RVU in there so that the user gets its user interface, fine, but not require it. 

It really is a very simple and elegant solution that already has all the groundwork done. 

As for picture quality and number of tuners. I'd bet the default will be a dual tuner gateway, but I know Ceton at least has the technology to deliver four or six tuners. Now hopefully you can bring your own gateway or the providers don't charge much for them, as it'd suck to have to have four gateways just to power two TiVos. The picture quality should be identical as the gateway doesn't actually touch the video, it just decrypts and passes it on (and re-encrypts in the case of Copy Once).


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

bdraw said:


> As for picture quality and number of tuners. I'd bet the default will be a dual tuner gateway, but I know Ceton at least has the technology to deliver four or six tuners. Now hopefully you can bring your own gateway or the providers don't charge much for them, as it'd suck to have to have four gateways just to power two TiVos. The picture quality should be identical as the gateway doesn't actually touch the video, it just decrypts and passes it on (and re-encrypts in the case of Copy Once).


I think 2 tuners, would stump most households. Plus i understand it will be both IP and tuner based. My guess it would be 6 tuners, and IP. So if your ip, you can do at least 10 streams. Its just IP. Right now i have 10 tvs i can watch , threre is no way i can handle less. But if its done with Ip, it wouldnt be a problem.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bdraw said:


> As for picture quality and number of tuners. I'd bet the default will be a dual tuner gateway,


there is no reason to put tuners in the gateway. The thing to do is make analog go away and then use the OCUR technology (cable card) to deliver digital streams within the house - a tuner in your CE device will get the digital stream and 'tune' to the correct channel as dictated by the gateway in meta data or by the CE device (TV) if manual tuning is in use. This would in essence just move the cable cards (seperable security) out of the CE devices and into the gateway.

Win for consumers since they can just buy a CE device and plug it in.
Win for broadcasters as they would have full control of how many streams you have access to within the house and can thus do their digital outlet fee as with current billing system.
Downside - a 3 "tuner" box may mean additional fees beyond the typical get M card and pay one digital outlet fee perhaps. The FCC will have to watch and make sure the broadcasters can not go digital outlet crazy


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

dstoffa said:


> It has nothing to do with Monopoly, but simply start-up costs.


call it what you will, but i refer to the Microsoft case. Sure, there was Mac OS, Linux, etc. But they got hit on being a monopoly because there was just no way to compete.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> CURRENTLY-
> 
> but there have been many changes over the years.
> 
> ...


Between 1996 and now is 14 years. Between now and then, cable operators have had to upgrade their networks, both to more bandwidth and to accommodate digital signals and high bandwidth two way services, including HD, broadband and VOIP. Some have done node splits and fiber has gone further and further to the edge. In the 80s/90s fiber was just for backhaul, now we're seeing it at the curb. So it has in effect been a complete rebuild for many cable operators.

We have been seeing the prohibition on monopolies bearing fruit in many regards, with competition from telephone companies and overbuilders. In fact the newcomers are building a better network as we can see with Verizon FiOS.

So I don't really buy the "leg up" argument. Years ago you could string a cable down the mountain and connect homes along the way, offer 5-10 channels and call it cable. Today you have to offer triple play, HD and ondemand. All of these cost money. Cable is a capital intensive business and the reason nobody wants to touch the cable business except for well funded telcos is the huge outlay required.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

bdraw said:


> As for picture quality and number of tuners. I'd bet the default will be a dual tuner gateway, but I know Ceton at least has the technology to deliver four or six tuners. Now hopefully you can bring your own gateway or the providers don't charge much for them, as it'd suck to have to have four gateways just to power two TiVos. The picture quality should be identical as the gateway doesn't actually touch the video, it just decrypts and passes it on (and re-encrypts in the case of Copy Once).


Dual tuner for the whole house would be a step back. Ideally it would start with dual and allow for expansion.

This is one reason I favor CableCARD and I'm not really thrilled with the gateway idea. I feel as though we'll end up with U-Verse. Limited streams and even more limited HD simultaneous viewing/recording are the hallmark of that excuse for a TV service.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Raj said:


> Dual tuner for the whole house would be a step back. Ideally it would start with dual and allow for expansion.
> 
> This is one reason I favor CableCARD and I'm not really thrilled with the gateway idea. I feel as though we'll end up with U-Verse. Limited streams and even more limited HD simultaneous viewing/recording are the hallmark of that excuse for a TV service.


they will not put tuners in the gateway - unneeded expense for broadcaster and ridiculous limitation for consumer. The concept of tuners in the gateway was started in this thread by those unfamiliar with how a cable card works.

Mcard in the gateway device gives access to 5 digital streams - any CE device with a digital tuner can glom one of those streams from the gateway and use the CE device digital tuner to get the correct channel "tuned in". Gateway simply has slots for however many Mcards to provide enough digital streams for house - have DBS rig up something similar to provide a similar digital stream. If the broadcaster wants a UI then have channel(s) that access an OCAP or whatever environment in gateway device to display the VOD/PPV stuff. That way any device can display its own stuff and the consumer can go to channel XX of the broadcaster and get to all that stuff.

The way it should have been done in the first place


----------



## lgerbarg (Jun 26, 2000)

Raj said:


> Dual tuner for the whole house would be a step back. Ideally it would start with dual and allow for expansion.
> 
> This is one reason I favor CableCARD and I'm not really thrilled with the gateway idea. I feel as though we'll end up with U-Verse. Limited streams and even more limited HD simultaneous viewing/recording are the hallmark of that excuse for a TV service.


Why do you think the Gateway would have only two tuners? It needs to support at least what the cable companies are pushing as their standard HD installation packages, which are a dual tuner DVR and then another box or two for sets in kitchens, bedrooms, etc. Whatever boxes they support will be designed to support that level of installation, even if the FCC doesn't mandate some sort of minimum during the standardization process. Personally, I suspect the standard one of these for cable will be able to tune at least 4 channels.

I also seriously doubt they will make these units expandable. If they size them correctly then so few people will need additional tuners that it will be easier and cheaper just to install a second gateway right next to the first.

Finally, some deployments might not have inherent limitations on the number of channels. For instance, it would not shock me if FiOS or Uverse decide to use multicast IP on their backend, which means the device would not even have tuners per se.


----------



## lgerbarg (Jun 26, 2000)

ZeoTiVo said:


> they will not put tuners in the gateway - unneeded expense for broadcaster and ridiculous limitation for consumer. The concept of tuners in the gateway was started in this thread by those unfamiliar with how a cable card works.
> 
> Mcard in the gateway device gives access to 5 digital streams - any CE device with a digital tuner can glom one of those streams from the gateway and use the CE device digital tuner to get the correct channel "tuned in". Gateway simply has slots for however many Mcards to provide enough digital streams for house - have DBS rig up something similar to provide a similar digital stream. If the broadcaster wants a UI then have channel(s) that access an OCAP or whatever environment in gateway device to display the VOD/PPV stuff. That way any device can display its own stuff and the consumer can go to channel XX of the broadcaster and get to all that stuff.
> 
> The way it should have been done in the first place


I suspect they will put tuners in the gateways. Look, a tuner in the users home is a tuner in the users home, whether it is in the gateway or the television set, and they eventually pay for it either way. Why force manufacturers to install QAM hardware in every set and retail STB in a house instead of consolidating it into one chokepoint that the provider can deal with. Why make DBS providers provides gateway box have a couple of QAM modulators in addition to that, instead of simply having everything go over ethernet (cat5, HomePlug AV2, Moca 2.0, or 802.11n)?


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

b_scott said:


> call it what you will, but i refer to the Microsoft case. Sure, there was Mac OS, Linux, etc. But they got hit on being a monopoly because there was just no way to compete.


Well... keep in mind, being a monopoly is not actually an issue. It's behaving monopolisticly that gets you into trouble. You can have a monopoly of a market, but until you leverage that monopoly to DO something, you haven't hurt anything.


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> they will not put tuners in the gateway - unneeded expense for broadcaster and ridiculous limitation for consumer. The concept of tuners in the gateway was started in this thread by those unfamiliar with how a cable card works.


Something has to tune the signal and demodulate it before it gets to the input of the cable card. That is what a "tuner" does. If two channels are in the same QAM or transponder polarization, then both could go to the cable card (or its successor hardware/software) from one tuner, but if the second, third or fourth channel are on a different QAM or transponder on a different frequency or polarization, then another tuner is needed.

To me, this means that MVPDs will offer gateways of different capability at different price points. A two tuner model for people who want to feed one TV with a DVR or two TVs without and a four or more tuner model at a higher price point, that could serve as a whole house gateway for those people wanting to feed a DVR plus two or three other Television sets.

Whether it will actually shake out this way is anyone's guess, but this guess is mine.

P.S. If Cable switches to a different modulation scheme, such as a dedicated QAM or two (or base band) per house with upstream signaling required for all delivery, then of course no Tuner would be needed, but I assume they will use current head end equipment in my guess.


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

Grakthis said:


> Well... keep in mind, being a monopoly is not actually an issue. It's behaving monopolisticly that gets you into trouble. You can have a monopoly of a market, but until you leverage that monopoly to DO something, you haven't hurt anything.


you mean things like owning NBC, which almost seems like a conflict of interest on top of owning something that other cable companies will equally be contracting.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Raj said:


> Between 1996 and now is 14 years. Between now and then, cable operators have had to upgrade their networks, both to more bandwidth and to accommodate digital signals and high bandwidth two way services, including HD, broadband and VOIP. Some have done node splits and fiber has gone further and further to the edge. In the 80s/90s fiber was just for backhaul, now we're seeing it at the curb. So it has in effect been a complete rebuild for many cable operators.
> 
> We have been seeing the prohibition on monopolies bearing fruit in many regards, with competition from telephone companies and overbuilders. In fact the newcomers are building a better network as we can see with Verizon FiOS.
> 
> So I don't really buy the "leg up" argument. Years ago you could string a cable down the mountain and connect homes along the way, offer 5-10 channels and call it cable. Today you have to offer triple play, HD and ondemand. All of these cost money. Cable is a capital intensive business and the reason nobody wants to touch the cable business except for well funded telcos is the huge outlay required.


all very true- but still TODAY- you dont see comcast overbuild anyone- they just buy up incumbant providers. It's some amount easier when you are already there (how much i couldn't say). So rather then build a new network on top of another they just buy up the old one. They pay well more than the cost of the network so presumably they see some value to being the incumbant- even if they only buy in. So there is some amount of historic inertia that any new company has to overcome. How much is certainly up for debate- but it does exist.

It was easier for the incumbant to move from 10 analog channels to 20 than it was for someone to build a new system with 20. Not any cheaper necassarily but since they already where the only game it town it was a better BET that they would get their money back than for a newbie. It was easier to take that 20 ananlog channels and add one-way cable modem. It was easier to take that 20 analog with on-way modem and add 20 digital channels. and on and on and on.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

lgerbarg said:


> Why do you think the Gateway would have only two tuners?


Nobody knows for sure what it will have, but this is what others in this thread have speculated.

On one end of the spectrum I could see a "basic" gateway having 2 tuners minimum.

On the other end of the spectrum I could see a wideband media conversion thingy sort of like a HFC node or fiber ONT. That may be on the expensive side of things and I have no idea how they're going to stuff the whole 54-870MHz spectrum in an IP connection.



> It needs to support at least what the cable companies are pushing as their standard HD installation packages, which are a dual tuner DVR and then another box or two for sets in kitchens, bedrooms, etc. Whatever boxes they support will be designed to support that level of installation, even if the FCC doesn't mandate some sort of minimum during the standardization process. Personally, I suspect the standard one of these for cable will be able to tune at least 4 channels.


Like I said, this would be a downgrade for me as my new HTPC based on CableCARD will have 4 tuners minimum. I'm thinking of adding a second CableCARD HTPC later on for 8 tuners total. Right now I'm using Clear QAM tuners to bump up my tuner count and as a result I could record 7 broadcast networks (Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC, MyNetwork, CW, PBS) on a given night.



> I also seriously doubt they will make these units expandable. If they size them correctly then so few people will need additional tuners that it will be easier and cheaper just to install a second gateway right next to the first.


That's the problem with sizing. TiVo seems to think that a dual tuner DVR is enough. HTPC enthusiasts disagree and we're going for four streams at once, 8 with the Microsoft AEP. But if the FCC is listening to TiVo, the FCC might think that 2 tuners per host is enough.



> Finally, some deployments might not have inherent limitations on the number of channels. For instance, it would not shock me if FiOS or Uverse decide to use multicast IP on their backend, which means the device would not even have tuners per se.


With FiOS that probably won't happen. They'll likely adopt what cable adopts since they're using QAMs for their cable TV service.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> all very true- but still TODAY- you dont see comcast overbuild anyone- they just buy up incumbant providers. It's some amount easier when you are already there (how much i couldn't say). So rather then build a new network on top of another they just buy up the old one. They pay well more than the cost of the network so presumably they see some value to being the incumbant- even if they only buy in. So there is some amount of historic inertia that any new company has to overcome. How much is certainly up for debate- but it does exist.
> 
> It was easier for the incumbant to move from 10 analog channels to 20 than it was for someone to build a new system with 20. Not any cheaper necassarily but since they already where the only game it town it was a better BET that they would get their money back than for a newbie. It was easier to take that 20 ananlog channels and add one-way cable modem. It was easier to take that 20 analog with on-way modem and add 20 digital channels. and on and on and on.


Big cable companies don't overbuild primarily because they cooperate with each other.

In fact some of them even share headend facilities and fiber feeds, which they only share with legacy Cable TV providers, and not with telco cable providers like FiOS or U-Verse.

Incidentally, AT&T and Verizon have been overlapping in some areas.


----------



## lgerbarg (Jun 26, 2000)

Raj said:


> With FiOS that probably won't happen. They'll likely adopt what cable adopts since they're using QAMs for their cable TV service.


FiOS is hybrid. They use QAM for all of their linear channels, they do all their on demand via IP already (their boxes use MoCA to talk to the ONT, but fundamentally they are doing Video over IP). In their case the "gateway" would handle both of those, and the box next to your TV would not know which the source was, since it would all be IP before it got to the that box. Obviously in FiOSes case the gateway would most likely end up in the provided IP router, or the ONT.

Going forward, if they don't care about being compatible with legacy QAM tuners it is probably easier for all their new service and upgrades to expand from the IP side (though their QAM headends and spectrum will be around for a long time). In some senses they are in the best shape since everything but their cheapest boxes is already IP connected via MoCA and can do video over it, so most of their end user HW could be upgraded to use IP for linear channels.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

bschuler2007 said:


> I don't get it. I thought this whole thing was to try to phase out illegal cable boxes. Looks like a market would open up quickly for illegal gateways that would strip off protection bits or allow other access, no?


What illegal cable boxes? Other than stolen STBs or DVRs, I know of no such thing as an illegal CATV box. Would you care to provide an example? In hte mean time, no, "this whole thing" was not intended to eliminate any particular device, per se. The notion was to allow 3rd party devices such as TVs and DVRs to interoperate with the CATV providers without the need for a leased STB or DVR. Essentially, the ides is to enable consumers to eliminate legal boxes, if they so choose.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

caddyroger said:


> The only problem with this some people do not have a internet connection so ip would not work.


It doesn't have to be internet. In fact, it most likely would not be, or at least not directly. Regardless of the transport path, it is going to be over a secure link to the CATV headend. Whether that path is over a separate physical network supplied by the CATV provider or over a secure VPN tunnel to the headend across the internet doesn't matter at all to the end device. It woouldn't be able to tell the difference. Consequently, the CATV providers could choose to provide a DOCSIS modem with nonroutable addresses to those CATV subs who don't have internet service. To those who do, they could either employ exactly the same equipment or else choose to deliver a VPN endpoint router to the sub rather than a dedicated DOCSIS modem.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Raj said:


> That's what the FCC wants in 3 years.


That's what the FCC said they wanted 25 years ago - give or take. Twenty years later, CableLabs spit out CableCards as an answer.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

innocentfreak said:


> * Ditch Tuning Adapters and let devices with Ethernet ports communicate upstream via IP to tune SDV channels..


Interesting... I seem to remember someone suggesting that very same thing when the notion of a Tuning Adapter was first proposed sbout three years ago. I wonder who it was.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

You confused me with my own quote lol. Then I found it was a quote of some of the engadgethd post.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

lrhorer said:


> What illegal cable boxes? Other than stolen STBs or DVRs, I know of no such thing as an illegal CATV box.


The reason you don't know about illegal cable boxes is because you are honest person and never investigated the possibility to steal cable. If you search internet you can always find shady characters selling pirate cable and satellite boxes. You can even find Tivos rigged to work without a subscription.
Fact that people like you or me will never consider looking for the device that helps to steal does not mean that these devices do not exist.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

dstoffa said:


> Do you actually think there will be enough bandwidth to provide everyone on a given node with a great HD picture?


Do you have some reason to think there won't be? SDV allows the CATV provider to deliver literally millions of channels over their existing architecture.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

samo said:


> The reason you don't know about illegal cable boxes is because you are honest person and never investigated the possibility to steal cable.


Did I mention I worked as an Engineer for a CATV company for five years? That alleviating theft of service was often a concern of mine?



samo said:


> If you search internet you can always find shady characters selling pirate cable and satellite boxes. You can even find Tivos rigged to work without a subscription.


OK, you're talking about illegally modified boxes, not un-modified boxes which it is illegal to own. No, the CableCard spec was not designed to prevent piracy. It was designed to allow third party devices to participate in the encryption protocols which were designed to prevent theft of services.



samo said:


> Fact that people like you or me will never consider looking for the device that helps to steal does not mean that these devices do not exist.


It's no more difficult to hack a cablecard than an STB. The CATV companies wanted to (and did) implement encryption. Their devices were designed specifically by the CATV equipment manufacturer to work specifically with said manufacturer's equipment and none other. Consumer equipment was forced to employ the CATV provider's box to deliver the encrypted serrvices. Neither subscribers nor the TV manufacturers liked that. They wanted to have a small widget, provided by the local CATV company, whihc plugged into the back of the TV in order to provide the encrypted services. The result: CableCard.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

innocentfreak said:


> You confused me with my own quote lol. Then I found it was a quote of some of the engadgethd post.


Yeah, sorry. I didn't know how to accredit endgadget as the origin of the quote.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

lgerbarg said:


> FiOS is hybrid. They use QAM for all of their linear channels, they do all their on demand via IP already (their boxes use MoCA to talk to the ONT, but fundamentally they are doing Video over IP). In their case the "gateway" would handle both of those, and the box next to your TV would not know which the source was, since it would all be IP before it got to the that box. Obviously in FiOSes case the gateway would most likely end up in the provided IP router, or the ONT.


The main TV product is still QAM. The fact that their ondemand (and guide) is delivered over IP is similar to the concept of TiVo and its ondemand offerings, more or less. But anyway thanks for explaining what I already know.



> Going forward, if they don't care about being compatible with legacy QAM tuners it is probably easier for all their new service and upgrades to expand from the IP side (though their QAM headends and spectrum will be around for a long time). In some senses they are in the best shape since everything but their cheapest boxes is already IP connected via MoCA and can do video over it, so most of their end user HW could be upgraded to use IP for linear channels.


 There is quite a bit of customer owned QAM equipment out there including TiVos and OCURs for media center. I don't think the FCC will let them brick third party equipment overnight, regardless of how small the percentage may be. Furthermore they've been talking about IPTV for a while now since they stopped using the Microsoft framework but nothing as come of it. Similarly I don't expect a complete overhaul to IPTV to happen if the FCC says that they have to deploy gateways.

So in light of this here's what I expect the FCC to do. They'll push "fixes" for CableCARD. The gateways likely won't happen for 8-10 years minimum, if at all.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

lrhorer said:


> Do you have some reason to think there won't be? SDV allows the CATV provider to deliver literally millions of channels over their existing architecture.


Provided everyone isn't watching different channels at the same time.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> they will not put tuners in the gateway - unneeded expense for broadcaster and ridiculous limitation for consumer. The concept of tuners in the gateway was started in this thread by those unfamiliar with how a cable card works.
> 
> Mcard in the gateway device gives access to 5 digital streams - any CE device with a digital tuner can glom one of those streams from the gateway and use the CE device digital tuner to get the correct channel "tuned in". Gateway simply has slots for however many Mcards to provide enough digital streams for house - have DBS rig up something similar to provide a similar digital stream. If the broadcaster wants a UI then have channel(s) that access an OCAP or whatever environment in gateway device to display the VOD/PPV stuff. That way any device can display its own stuff and the consumer can go to channel XX of the broadcaster and get to all that stuff.
> 
> The way it should have been done in the first place


This has nothing to do with the familiarity of CableCARD. This has to do with what the recommendation says.

And since the gateway concept is meant to include all MVPDs (Cable, DBS, telco IPTV) it will have to include tuners or translators of some sort. Cable right now seems to want to stay between 54-870 for linear video and 5-42 for the return with DOCSIS on some systems going to 1GHz. But satellite is a different matter. They have a couple of different bands and there are also different satellite slots. Different beast entirely. IPTV may be easier since it could be routed as IP traffic.

Otherwise what you are describing is basically a whole house tuning adapter with an ethernet connection instead of USB.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Raj said:


> Big cable companies don't overbuild primarily because they cooperate with each other.
> 
> In fact some of them even share headend facilities and fiber feeds, which they only share with legacy Cable TV providers, and not with telco cable providers like FiOS or U-Verse.
> 
> Incidentally, AT&T and Verizon have been overlapping in some areas.


True for sure but not the whole story. I'm down the road in Flemington. Verizon's statewide franchise covers my town too. Yet verizon doesn't lay fiber at all in this part of the state- so no fios for us. Why? becasue we aren't served by verizon for phone- we have centurytel (nee embarq, nee sprint, nee united telcom....) . It's not that we aren't wealthy over here- trust me as I can only afford a townhouse- so it's not that they are cherry picking elsewhere.

So while there are some parts of texas that att and verizon and the local cable company all overlap that certainly isn't the experience here in NJ. Verizon only builts where they have copper already. The only explanation that seems to fit is that even the mighty verizon doesn't want to bother being a non-incumbant company at all. It would cost them just as much to overbuild Flemington/Raritan as it does to do Hillsboro right next door, and if I read the school funding tables we have more scratch over this side of the line. Every new customer they gained would be stolen from centurytell or comcast. So why wouldn't verizon build here while they build the next town over where they are the incumbant phone company?


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> True for sure but not the whole story. I'm down the road in Flemington. Verizon's statewide franchise covers my town too. Yet verizon doesn't lay fiber at all in this part of the state- so no fios for us. Why? becasue we aren't served by verizon for phone- we have centurytel (nee embarq, nee sprint, nee united telcom....) . It's not that we aren't wealthy over here- trust me as I can only afford a townhouse- so it's not that they are cherry picking elsewhere.
> 
> So while there are some parts of texas that att and verizon and the local cable company all overlap that certainly isn't the experience here in NJ. Verizon only builts where they have copper already. The only explanation that seems to fit is that even the mighty verizon doesn't want to bother being a non-incumbant company at all. It would cost them just as much to overbuild Flemington/Raritan as it does to do Hillsboro right next door, and if I read the school funding tables we have more scratch over this side of the line. Every new customer they gained would be stolen from centurytell or comcast. So why wouldn't verizon build here while they build the next town over where they are the incumbant phone company?


Where do you live in NJ? I live in Wantage (Sussex County), I'm covered by Embarq/Centurylink too and you are right. However in some parts of Texas ATT and Verizon have overlapped.


----------



## lgerbarg (Jun 26, 2000)

Raj said:


> There is quite a bit of customer owned QAM equipment out there including TiVos and OCURs for media center. I don't think the FCC will let them brick third party equipment overnight, regardless of how small the percentage may be. Furthermore they've been talking about IPTV for a while now since they stopped using the Microsoft framework but nothing as come of it. Similarly I don't expect a complete overhaul to IPTV to happen if the FCC says that they have to deploy gateways.
> 
> So in light of this here's what I expect the FCC to do. They'll push "fixes" for CableCARD. The gateways likely won't happen for 8-10 years minimum, if at all.


Like I said, yes, I fully expect Verizon to be pushing QAM data for quite a long time, legacy is a big deal. But if this goes through then I expect anything major they do to be from the IP side as soon as that is even remotely feasible. Some providers will keep on using QAM between their headend and their gateway for decades I imagine, though there are some pretty big incentives not push the QAM out to the individual STBs once you have to have something like a gateway around anyway.

As for customer owned QAM HW, no, there really isn't much out there. The broadband plan claims that less than 1% of devices in use are cablecard based. Whether or not that is an accurate number, it is the number they are using. There is some clear QAM HW, but that is a different beast entirely.

Also, Moxi, TiVo, and Windows MCE can all be updated in software to handle IP based gateways. Potentially some of them won't be, but I guarantee you that whatever the currently shipping cablecard based Moxi and TiVos are will be updated to support home gateways, as will the then current version of Windows MCE. TiVo Series 3 and HD might be screwed, but if you don't think that the FCC is okay with obsoleting <1% of the HW on the market 3 years after it is sold then I don't know how the DTV transition happened ;-)


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

lgerbarg said:


> Like I said, yes, I fully expect them to be pushing QAM data for quite a long time, legacy is a big deal. But if this goes through then I expect anything major they do to be from the IP side as soon as that is even remotely feasible. Some providers will keep on using QAM behind their headend and their gateway for decades I imagine, though there are some pretty big incentives not push the QAM out to the individual STBs once you have to have something like a gateway around anyway.
> 
> As for customer owned QAM HW, no, there really isn't much out there. The broadband plan claims that less than 1% of devices in use are cablecard based. Whether or not that is an accurate number, it is the number they are using. There is some clear QAM HW, but that is a different beast entirely.
> 
> Also, Moxi, TiVo, and Windows MCE can all be updated in software to handle IP based gateways. Potentially some of them won't be, but I guarantee you that whatever the currently shipping cablecard based Moxi and TiVos are will be updated to support home gateways, ad will the then current version of Windows MCE. TiVo Series 3 and HD might be screwed, but if you don't think that FCC is okay with obsoleting <1% of the HW on the market 3 years after it is sold then I don't know how the DTV transition happened ;-)


I think you underestimate the FCC. They specifically made analog must carry rules for cable providers because of a minority of people who resisted digital cable (despite free boxes and other incentives from cable companies). With all the bad press about CableCARD I don't think they want TiVo crying to them anymore about the evil cablecos.

Don't forget the DTV transition too. Again, a small minority of people that the FCC specifically made allowance for by delaying it and giving away coupons for free converter boxes.


----------



## lgerbarg (Jun 26, 2000)

Raj said:


> I think you underestimate the FCC. They specifically made analog must carry rules for cable providers because of a minority of people who resisted digital cable (despite free boxes and other incentives from cable companies). With all the bad press about CableCARD I don't think they want TiVo crying to them anymore about the evil cablecos.
> 
> Don't forget the DTV transition too. Again, a small minority of people that the FCC specifically made allowance for by delaying it and giving away coupons for free converter boxes.


Sure, I don't expect QAM to go away (as a requirement) the day gateways ship. If gateways actually do ship at the end of 2013 I would expect cable companies be required to keep QAM cablecard setups working until at least 2015 or 2016. Now multiply that time line by 2 and things start to look realistic ;-)

Again, this is very different than the DTV conversion. There aren't hundreds of sets from dozens of manufacturers and tons of disconnected people who don't know what is going on. This only impacts people who are willing to buy retail STBs and home theatre computers, around a dozen products from 3 companies, all of which can be software updated.

Hell if the FCC just got TiVo, Moxi, and MS to guarantee to push software updates for all their CableCard platforms (including what will be legacy platforms by that point) there would be practically no obsolete HW.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

nrc said:


> This is how I understand it. I think a lot of people are misunderstanding this to be turning everything into IPTV. Not the case. The upstream communication to the headend will be over IP through a standard protocol. The headend will probably deliver the service through whatever means is appropriate. IP is an option but most cable services will still be delivered through your cable tuners initially.


Well, I stand corrected. The diagram of the gateway and description in their response to the FCC does propose that the gateway would have tuners and output IP content. The cable plant could still use it's own broadcast digital channels to deliver content, but the output of the gateway would be all IP.

http://hd.engadget.com/2009/12/23/tivo-sony-and-others-tell-the-fcc-gateways-should-replace-cab/









Obviously it's all just proposals at this point


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

So how this proposed Gateway will work with satellite? Say I have satellite service but do not have broadband (very realistic scenario - my mother has satellite but does not have internet and has no intention to get it).
How will feedback signal get back to satellite?


----------



## lgerbarg (Jun 26, 2000)

samo said:


> So how this proposed Gateway will work with satellite? Say I have satellite service but do not have broadband (very realistic scenario - my mother has satellite but does not have internet and has no intention to get it).
> How will feedback signal get back to satellite?


That gateway won't the DBS providers would have a different gateway device, but the protocols and interfaces on the ethernet port would be the same as those from a cable company gateway, so all the devices connected to it (like a TV or a TiVo) wouldn't be able to tell the difference between satellite and cable.

Presumably a DBS gateway would have a couple of satellite tuners, their conditional access cards, ethernet and/or telephone connections to order PPV, etc.


----------



## socrplyr (Jul 19, 2006)

samo said:


> So how this proposed Gateway will work with satellite? Say I have satellite service but do not have broadband (very realistic scenario - my mother has satellite but does not have internet and has no intention to get it).
> How will feedback signal get back to satellite?


Satellite would not need the feedback. (It doesn't need it now does it?) Nothing in the proposal would require it to either. The idea is that a provider whether it be Cable/Telephone Co/Satellite designs and implements its own proprietary technology for transmission. Then in your home they give you a box that uses that technology to receive signals (and transmit them if the tech requires it). The received signals are then turned into a standardized IP stream for distribution throughout your house on your choice of IP networking gear (WiFi, MoCA, Ethernet, Powerline, etc.).

In reality, this method is very simple for the providers to implement. All they need to do is take their current boxes and instead of having them convert and output the MPEG stream to your TV, they ship it out via IP on an ethernet port. Obviously the device would have to be able to receive requests on the ethernet port, but that should be simple enough. The real issue with all of this is that they are going to argue forever over standardizing how your device talks via IP to their box.

The other silly comments that I have seen was people whining about how many tuners the gateway is going to have. Obviously 4-6 would be reasonable. Irrespective of how many each gateway has, I guarantee you someone like the cable company will allow you to have a second gateway. If this proposal did see the light of day you would definitely see a steep increase in the cost of cable based upon the number of tuners you had in your house. This would be done to prevent you from sharing the IP signal with your neighbors at next to no cost.

Another silly thing is the comparison of the bandwidth of what Cable Cos want to use on their networks vs sat. The whole point of the proposal is that it wouldn't matter as the gateway will switch it to the standard IP based distribution system inside the home.

As for ability to create hardward that does this. The satellite boxes already have all the hardware necessary most likely to be a gateway. Uverse has it (and in reality does it this way). FiOS has it. Cable companies have it if their boxes have an ethernet port or MoCA (I don't use one so I couldn't say). If you say cable companies don't have it all they have to do is by a CableCard HD Homerun and pair it with a cable modem voila. That was so difficult. The rest is really just software... which of course should be the easier part, but it won't be. On the consumer side of things, anyone with a PS3/Xbox360 has the hardware necessary (software awaits). Anyone owning a computer as well. Anyone with a S3 Tivo or newer does as well. Possibly S2 Tivos (MPEG2 vs MPEG4) as well. I think TVs would much more quickly adopt this than the close piece of crap that is tru2way.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

socrplyr said:


> Satellite would not need the feedback. (It doesn't need it now does it?) Nothing in the proposal would require it to either. The idea is that a provider whether it be Cable/Telephone Co/Satellite designs and implements its own proprietary technology for transmission. Then in your home they give you a box that uses that technology to receive signals (and transmit them if the tech requires it). The received signals are then turned into a standardized IP stream for distribution throughout your house on your choice of IP networking gear (WiFi, MoCA, Ethernet, Powerline, etc.).
> 
> In reality, this method is very simple for the providers to implement. All they need to do is take their current boxes and instead of having them convert and output the MPEG stream to your TV, they ship it out via IP on an ethernet port. Obviously the device would have to be able to receive requests on the ethernet port, but that should be simple enough. The real issue with all of this is that they are going to argue forever over standardizing how your device talks via IP to their box.
> 
> ...


So if and when Gateway arrives I throw away my DVRs and TVs or buy Xboxes or TiVos so I can connect my TVs to Gateway. I have 9 DVRs with 15 tuners. Perhaps I can go down to 8 tuners. That woud probably require 4 Gateways from two DBS providers. Disregarding the cost, why should I be jumping hoops to make TiVo happy? How about my mom? Right now she also subs to both Dish and DirecTV. She has two DVR boxes and prety happy with what she got. Why should she be forced to get two Gateways and try to figure how to make them work together? Not talking about geting TiVo she refused to use 10 years ago.
And then we have a problem with "just software". TiVo can't fix the bugs for simple DVRs, can't make TA to work. I can only immagine what it would take to make "just software" to work with Gateways made by different providers.
In theory cable cards should work without problems, TA adaptors were design to work just great. The devil is in details. Toyota is not suppose to run away either, according to Toyota there are no problems with software.
My take on it - leave my satellites alone. I'm happy with how things are now and I don't need any Gateways or TiVos.


----------



## socrplyr (Jul 19, 2006)

samo said:


> 1. So if and when Gateway arrives I throw away my DVRs and TVs or buy Xboxes or TiVos so I can connect my TVs to Gateway.
> 2. I have 9 DVRs with 15 tuners. Perhaps I can go down to 8 tuners. That woud probably require 4 Gateways from two DBS providers.
> 3. Disregarding the cost, why should I be jumping hoops to make TiVo happy?
> 4. How about my mom? Right now she also subs to both Dish and DirecTV. She has two DVR boxes and prety happy with what she got. Why should she be forced to get two Gateways and try to figure how to make them work together? Not talking about geting TiVo she refused to use 10 years ago.
> ...


1. You wouldn't need to get rid of or replace any of your old equipment, unless your providers decided to change how things are transmitted.
2. First off I think you watch too much TV  j/k You do point out a benefit of the system. Once new TVs came out with the ability to use the IP stream, you would actually wind up with fewer boxes in your house. What makes you think that you would need 4 gateways. For all you know the gateways will have 10 tuners... Again, remember that you wouldn't even need to change your equipment that you have now, so you wouldn't be affected.
3. Tivo isn't the only one pushing for this type of thing. I guarantee you that Microsoft, Moxi, Silicon Dust, etc. If you are happy with the offerings that your provider requires you to use fine, they won't go away. However, they might get better with more competition.
4. Actually your mom might benefit from this. She MIGHT be able to buy a single DVR that connects to both Dish and DirecTV's gateways. (Could be an interesting product, that she could have everything all in one place.) I have no idea why you and your mom don't like Tivo, but you wouldn't be required to use one either.
5. There are very different things between standards compliant things and things that need to be hodgepodged together to make them work. The TA is not a standard and in general is a little supported piece of junk. The cable companies have no desire to make it work well. The majority of the issues with it are not on Tivo's side but with the device (or software the device is running). IP based protocols are much easier to implement and make compatible than physical layer ones.
6. Fine and you wouldn't have to change anything.

I just want to clarify something from my earlier post. My point about the hardware technology being there on most of the boxes already was to show that the costs to implement a gateway wouldn't be all that high.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

Raj said:


> On the other end of the spectrum I could see a wideband media conversion thingy sort of like a HFC node or fiber ONT. That may be on the expensive side of things and I have no idea how they're going to stuff the whole 54-870MHz spectrum in an IP connection.


The point of IP is you don't have to. You only pipe down the one or two selected streams from those available at the gateway.


> Like I said, this would be a downgrade for me as my new HTPC based on CableCARD will have 4 tuners minimum. I'm thinking of adding a second CableCARD HTPC later on for 8 tuners total. Right now I'm using Clear QAM tuners to bump up my tuner count and as a result I could record 7 broadcast networks (Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC, MyNetwork, CW, PBS) on a given night.


Cable isn't changing at the back end; you will still be able to do what you want.

If you must go to gateways, I would bet they do up to 6 tuners (which is the limit of CC, which I bet the gateways will use), after which you need another gateway.



> That's the problem with sizing. TiVo seems to think that a dual tuner DVR is enough.
> 
> 
> > They might think that more is better, but not economical from their perspective, at least for now. They might have a 4 or 6 tuner Premiere in the works for all I know.
> ...


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

lrhorer said:


> What illegal cable boxes? Other than stolen STBs


.

They are boxes made to decode pay programming without authorization from the provider, and by certain extension devices that command provider boxes to decode pay programming, on command of the "customer" instead of the provider.

This was big in the middle/late 1990s when cable was still analog, and scrambling was simply manipulation of the video signal to not be viewable on a TV.

Many people that had them claimed to want their own boxes, not have to rent them from the provider, so likely whomever came up with the 1996 telecoms act saw that as an impetus for allowing customer owned STB, which the cablecos had to get their two cents in, requiring separable security.


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> they will not put tuners in the gateway - unneeded expense for broadcaster and ridiculous limitation for consumer. The concept of tuners in the gateway was started in this thread by those unfamiliar with how a cable card works.


I suspect you didn't read the TiVo's submission to the FCC (PDF) that got this gateway idea going, as I don't see how you could interpret this image from the submission any other way.










The gateway will support encrypted QAM on one side and an IP standard on the other. This means that the content must be decrypted and re-encrypted. The only chip that can do this currently is the one that will be in the Ceton InfiniTV tuners.

No, there will most certainly be tuners in the gateway, then the TiVo would just turn into a IPTV box (sort of).



ZeoTiVo said:


> Mcard in the gateway device gives access to 5 digital streams - any CE device with a digital tuner can glom one of those streams from the gateway and use the CE device digital tuner to get the correct channel "tuned in".


A M-CARD can decode 6 streams not five and if the tuner in the TiVo was used how could it work with both cable and satellite?


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

samo said:


> So if and when Gateway arrives I throw away my DVRs and TVs or buy Xboxes or TiVos so I can connect my TVs to Gateway. I have 9 DVRs with 15 tuners. Perhaps I can go down to 8 tuners. That woud probably require 4 Gateways from two DBS providers. Disregarding the cost, why should I be jumping hoops to make TiVo happy? How about my mom? Right now she also subs to both Dish and DirecTV. She has two DVR boxes and prety happy with what she got. Why should she be forced to get two Gateways and try to figure how to make them work together? Not talking about geting TiVo she refused to use 10 years ago.
> And then we have a problem with "just software". TiVo can't fix the bugs for simple DVRs, can't make TA to work. I can only immagine what it would take to make "just software" to work with Gateways made by different providers.
> In theory cable cards should work without problems, TA adaptors were design to work just great. The devil is in details. Toyota is not suppose to run away either, according to Toyota there are no problems with software.
> My take on it - leave my satellites alone. I'm happy with how things are now and I don't need any Gateways or TiVos.


The internet is based on standards around IP and other than a few sites that don't render correctly even grandma can use it. Sure the first version will be a little buggy, but they'll get the kinks worked out.

And Toyota's don't run away, idiots drive them that way. If you don't know how to put your car in neutral than surrender your license.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

samo said:


> My take on it - leave my satellites alone. I'm happy with how things are now and I don't need any Gateways or TiVos.


Nowhere in the proposal does it say that gateways must replace existing STBs, so you're whining about nothing.

You could make an argument that it will cost the satCos some bucks to develop the gateway spec for their systems, but that's probably not a big chunk of change, and could easily pay for itself with new customers who want to use their own 3rd party DVRs, TVs, etc.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

classicsat said:


> Cable isn't changing at the back end; you will still be able to do what you want.


The point of the gateway is because Cable *is* changing on the backend, and the gateway is a means to simplify the change without additional equipment such as tuning adapters.



> If you must go to gateways, I would bet they do up to 6 tuners (which is the limit of CC, which I bet the gateways will use), after which you need another gateway.


6 streams is the minimum for M cards per the spec but that is per card. There are devices in development which already max out the 6 streams per host already. 4 tuner devices are coming out and will be relatively common in short order.

Having more than one gateway will probably be necessary but let's hope that the FCC ensures that we can have more than one. I'd hate to be limited to one gateway with only 6 streams.



> They might think that more is better, but not economical from their perspective, at least for now. They might have a 4 or 6 tuner Premiere in the works for all I know.


Right now they're the only ones complaining loudly to the FCC. This proposal is mostly theirs. And as far as some cable companies know, CableCARDs are for TiVo only. No kidding. Call any cable company in the US and ask them for a card for a device other than a TiVo. Some will flat out refuse and some will have a confused look on their face. I know the FCC regs say that they're supposed to provide it for any Cablelabs certified device but this is real world resistance people are seeing.



> A couple years ago it was rumored FIOS was considering going from QAM to IP. Just saying. In that case, the gateway wouldn't matter. Since their current STBs are a hybrid QAB/IP box, the gateway would be the same and you wouldn't notice, except it is likely they can deliver only so much IPTV at once, the same as Uverse now can.


For quite a few reasons I don't see them going to IP. Their current IP implementation actually uses the internet connection and reduces internet speed while ondemand content is being played. It's not as easy to flick a switch and say, "hey we're going to IP, bye bye QAMs" it's going to break a lot of stuff and it's probably more trouble than its worth.

Most likely the reason why they haven't done it yet.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

slowbiscuit said:


> Nowhere in the proposal does it say that gateways must replace existing STBs, so you're whining about nothing.


It will phase out existing STBs.

_Recommendation 4.12: The FCC should initiate a proceeding to ensure that all multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) install a gateway device or equivalent functionality in all new subscriber homes *and in all homes requiring replacement set-top boxes,* starting on or before Dec. 31, 2012._

So let's say DirecTV decides to launch a couple of new birds or implement super duper MPEG-6 (just to use an imaginary standard pulled out of nowhere) and add some new 3D channels. Customers will need new STBs as a result. That's where the gateway requirement kicks in.

Also I'm not sure if they mean replacement of defective STBs or replacement for new technologies. The latter would be more in line with what the gateway is supposed to accomplish.


----------



## ac3dd (Mar 2, 2002)

Raj said:


> Section 621 of the telecom act prohibits exclusive franchise agreements.
> 
> There are no more exclusive franchise agreements.


But there were such monopolistic agreements when the cable companies were digging up the ground to lay down their wiring, and those agreements remained for several years after that, allowing them to recoup most or all of their investment.

New competitors to the market don't have that kind of protection, so most of the existing cable companies are able to keep their monopolies.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

ac3dd said:


> But there were such monopolistic agreements when the cable companies were digging up the ground to lay down their wiring, and those agreements remained for several years after that, allowing them to recoup most or all of their investment.
> 
> New competitors to the market don't have that kind of protection, so most of the existing cable companies are able to keep their monopolies.


I doubt that underground wiring represents the majority of cable TV wiring in the country and when cable operators upgrade their networks they have to dig anyway. In other words, I'm pretty sure that most cable TV systems didn't start off as two way digital 1GHz HFC systems, which represents the latest iteration (apart from FTTH like Verizon). Many cable operators have had at least one if not more than one rebuild to provide two way service for DOCSIS and to add bandwidth for HD. Some companies could overdrive their line gear beyond what it was designed for but that gets messy. Therefore they had no choice but to go into the field and upgrade it all, especially with FTTH, satellite and overbuilders nipping at their heels.


----------



## valley_nomad (Dec 21, 2004)

Now TiVo itself IS indeed a STB which will be replaced by the gateway box in FCC's plan. So will future TiVo become just a service and a couple of downloadable applications running on the gateway box? Not sure that is what TiVo wants to see...


----------



## ac3dd (Mar 2, 2002)

Raj said:


> I doubt that underground wiring represents the majority of cable TV wiring in the country and when cable operators upgrade their networks they have to dig anyway. In other words, I'm pretty sure that most cable TV systems didn't start off as two way digital 1GHz HFC systems, which represents the latest iteration (apart from FTTH like Verizon). Many cable operators have had at least one if not more than one rebuild to provide two way service for DOCSIS and to add bandwidth for HD. Some companies could overdrive their line gear beyond what it was designed for but that gets messy. Therefore they had no choice but to go into the field and upgrade it all, especially with FTTH, satellite and overbuilders nipping at their heels.


Yes, but when upgrading, they already had the various underground tunnels etc. in place, so it's not as massive an effort as the original dig. And when they upgrade, they have the advantage of already having an established customer base in the area to fund it. So even though the monopoly is no longer enforced by the government, most still have a monopoly and the root of their monopoly is the government.


----------



## ac3dd (Mar 2, 2002)

valley_nomad said:


> Now TiVo itself IS indeed a STB which will be replaced by the gateway box in FCC's plan. So will future TiVo become just a service and a couple of downloadable applications running on the gateway box? Not sure that is what TiVo wants to see...


As I understand it, the gateway box would only decode channels and provide two-way communication for functions like PPV. Applications would have to run on a separate box that connects to the gateway.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

andyw715 said:


> All this stuff would work it self out if the gov't already enforced anti-monopoly laws.


I suspect (since it is so incredibly common online) that you're seeming "monopoly" where there isn't any. It's a favorite refrain of consumers who simply want more choices than the revenue that they offer is worth.



andyw715 said:


> The lack of competition has stifled adoption of any sort of open architectured technology.


No, it really is lack of regulation that has done that, and more specifically, the manner in which the FCC has given two of the competitors in every market special treatment, allowing them to opt-out of every single effort to set up industry-wide standards for these devices.



andyw715 said:


> Not to mention the number of cable card devices "rentals" is so low that its insignificant.


I give credit where credit is due: While the FCC screws up by not imposing adequate regulation on satellite services, they do a good job of fostering multi-vendor support via CableCARD by ensuring that the rates for CableCARD are very affordable.



jmpage2 said:


> Where's Bicker, this should be good for a laugh when he starts to go into his protectionist monopoly rant telling us how the cable co's do no harm.


Get over yourself. Just because you don't understand business law, or cannot stomach the fact that you can't control the world by your own fiat, doesn't mean that business law doesn't still shape the reality you're going to experience. Denial only makes you frustrated and disappointed. If that's what you like, then I suppose it makes sense for you to live in denial. If you would rather not be dissatisfied, then perhaps you should take your blinders off and grow up and start understanding, and accepting, the reality of business law.


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

valley_nomad said:


> Now TiVo itself IS indeed a STB which will be replaced by the gateway box in FCC's plan. So will future TiVo become just a service and a couple of downloadable applications running on the gateway box? Not sure that is what TiVo wants to see...


The gateway will have requirements but I doubt many limits. So if a cable co wanted to take a DVR and turn it into a gateway with a TiVo UI and could render that UI remotely to a TV, then I doubt anyone would complain. As long as it met the standard gateway requirements.

In addition the current TiVos can continue to use CableCARDs and might just use the gateway for VOD. Just because there is a new alternative doesn't mean the old system goes away. Who knows, maybe a TiVo will be able to use two of its own tuners and two tuners from the gateway.

Bottom line is there are lots of ways this could shake out and it'll be at least a year before we have any idea exactly what it'll look like.


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

ac3dd said:


> But there were such monopolistic agreements when the cable companies were digging up the ground to lay down their wiring, and those agreements remained for several years after that, allowing them to recoup most or all of their investment.
> 
> New competitors to the market don't have that kind of protection, so most of the existing cable companies are able to keep their monopolies.


The same problem exists with the telcos. I believe there should be a law that limits these deals. So if a company wants to lay wire in my property at some point (maybe 10 years or more) that line belongs to me. This would include any wire or equipment installed on public property.

This way another company could build a CO next to the existing company's and have access to the same infrastructure, but only after the first company had enough time to recoup its initial investment.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

bdraw said:


> This way another company could build a CO next to the existing company's and have access to the same infrastructure, but only after the first company had enough time to recoup its initial investment.


With interest commensurate with what the company could have made by taking that capital and investing it some other way, in the best financial investment available for that money.

Which goes back to the point that if people really want to own the lines, then people should pay for the lines, directly and completely, all the way back to the CO. If consumers don't want to lay out that kind of money (and the government doesn't want to lay out that kind of tax money), then those consumers should be able to opt-out, leaving ownership of the lines in the hands of the company that installed the lines. Which brings us right back to the way things are today. That's because the way things are today is the way things *should *be. The call for you owning the lines on your property is merit-less, because too-few consumers are willing to do what is fair and equitable to legitimately earn ownership of those lines.


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

bicker said:


> Get over yourself. Just because you don't understand business law, or cannot stomach the fact that you can't control the world by your own fiat, doesn't mean that business law doesn't still shape the reality you're going to experience. Denial only makes you frustrated and disappointed. If that's what you like, then I suppose it makes sense for you to live in denial. If you would rather not be dissatisfied, then perhaps you should take your blinders off and grow up and start understanding, and accepting, the reality of business law.


You've done a lot of things over your time presiding here as the resident rapscallion but demonstrating that you are a lawyer or intimately familiar with business law is not on your list of achievements.

By your logic and rationale the huge timber, railroad and mining monopolies of the 19th century should *never have been broken up*. Imagine now a nation in which 75% of everyone worked for one of about 20 magnates of industry.

Having worked in the telecom industry for over 15 years I have to call you out on your telco bologna too. Breakup of AT&T was *good for us*. There are more vendors building more equipment and more carriers competing. You have internet voip providers that never could have even existed under the old system. How much would we all be paying for a 1FB line into our homes if AT&T was the sole provider? $85 a month for basic services and extra charges for features? $.15 a minute for long distance? Seriously, you are out of touch with reality here.

It must cause you massive chest pain when you can't get your laissez faire Fox News fix 24/7 and take the time to post here, but the reality is that consumer protection has improved things for everyone other than the owners and stockholders of those monopolies.

Final point. Cable companies have in fact negotiated sweetheart deals and monopoly charters in the states or communities in which they operate, in most cases though these deals are for specific periods of time. If the local or state regulator determines that the cable company has more than recouped their costs and that it would benefit competition to force them to open up some of their infrastructure to other parties that's their right as *they* granted that charter and the local operator almost definitely got massive tax breaks and other perks in conjunction (not to mention a guaranteed massive profit to be turned since no one was allowed to compete with them).

This will be my final post on the subject. We all know you have to get the last word in any event, so rail away. Nice job digging up and responding to old threads of mine too, bravo for the crazy factor.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

jmpage2 said:


> You've done a lot of things over your time presiding here as the resident rapscallion but demonstrating that you are a lawyer or intimately familiar with business law is not on your list of achievements.


On the contrary. I've consistently been correct about the way things are, and about the way things will be. And others have _*complained *_about the fact that they've been wrong. Imagine that.



jmpage2 said:


> By your logic and rationale the huge timber, railroad and mining monopolies of the 19th century should never have been broken up.


I'll stick to the topic rather than letting you despoil the thread with such a diversion.



jmpage2 said:


> Having worked in the telecom industry for over 15 years


So you're saying that *you* weren't in the industry in the 1980s... okay just to be clear.



jmpage2 said:


> I have to call you out on your telco bologna too. Breakup of AT&T was good for us.


Good for some, bad for others. It was both good and bad, for me personally. Of course, this is 2010, not 1984, so this is just another try by you to distract attention away from what is being discussed in this thread.



jmpage2 said:


> Seriously, you are out of touch with reality here.


Hardly. Remember, you're complaining about the reality, while I'm explaining it.



jmpage2 said:


> It must cause you massive chest pain when you can't get your laissez faire Fox News fix 24/7 and take the time to post here, but the reality is that consumer protection has improved things for everyone other than the owners and stockholders of those monopolies.


Ridiculously self-serving and therefore vacuous. First, Fox News is actually not allowed in my home. I'll be happy to outline for you in PMs the precepts of my religion that make me find Fox News to be a morally-objectionable source of information. Second, if you really think that things have been progressing in the consumers' favor, and against that of business, over the last thirty-five years, then you're far more out-of-touch with reality than I originally thought.

And just to be clear: I'm not necessarily in favor of the way things are. I find that I spend so much time keeping people like you honest about how things are, and what the law requires, and how markets work, and what consumer behavior is, etc., that I don't have much time to inject my personal preferred vision for the world or the future. It seems the only thing along those lines that i do inject is what's in my signature. 

Exclusive franchise agreements are against federal law. You can choose to ignore that and blame others for the failure on the part of consumers to take actions in their own best interest, but you'd still be wrong.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

ac3dd said:


> Yes, but when upgrading, they already had the various underground tunnels etc. in place, so it's not as massive an effort as the original dig. And when they upgrade, they have the advantage of already having an established customer base in the area to fund it. So even though the monopoly is no longer enforced by the government, most still have a monopoly and the root of their monopoly is the government.


Underground tunnels? Not my underground wiring. To replace cable they need to dig.

Besides, underground wiring around here is only used for subdivisions and the like. Everything else is aerial.


----------



## hengst2404 (Dec 27, 2009)

Grakthis said:


> You're still not listening to me. This is not an "agree or disagree" thing. There is no opinion here. When you say "we may agree to disagree" you are saying "I am going to keep being wrong because I do not like what you are telling me."
> 
> Your neighbors having services like internet, TV and telephone DOES benefit you. It makes them more educate, less prone to violence and crime, more likely to report violence and crime they see, it encourages informed decision making, healthier living...
> 
> All of these things are recorded and known. Society benefits when people are connected.


Reads an awful lot like an opinion to me


----------



## DocNo (Oct 10, 2001)

bdraw said:


> And Toyota's don't run away, idiots drive them that way. If you don't know how to put your car in neutral than surrender your license.


While accelerating in a Prius put it in Neutral and see how far you get.

Those cars are drive by wire. There are safety interlocks that prevent you from coming out of neutral while the engine is accelerating or under load. Oh the irony...

I'll keep my standard transmission with my hydraulic clutch, thank you.


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

DocNo said:


> While accelerating in a Prius put it in Neutral and see how far you get.
> 
> Those cars are drive by wire. There are safety interlocks that prevent you from coming out of neutral while the engine is accelerating or under load. Oh the irony...
> 
> I'll keep my standard transmission with my hydraulic clutch, thank you.


Actually you can put it in neutral, just have to know how to actually control your own car -- I know that's asking a lot, but I'm asking it none the less.

http://priuschat.com/forums/gen-ii-prius-main-forum/77458-how-stop-runaway-prius.html

And we can agree on one thing, I'll also never buy a car with an automatic transmission.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> Second, if you really think that things have been progressing in the consumers' favor, and against that of business, over the last thirty-five years, then you're far more out-of-touch with reality than I originally thought.


 correct the new FCC proposals are about generating new business in line with increased access to better broadband. Consumers look to be favored simply because it will give them more choices if the FCC actually comes through with ways to facilitate better profits from better broadband.


> Exclusive franchise agreements are against federal law. You can choose to ignore that and blame others for the failure on the part of consumers to take actions in their own best interest, but you'd still be wrong.


the new wind that blew into Washington I spoke of back during election time makes taking action have a higher chance of success. The older FCC is who put in place cable card by allowing business to just run the show while paying lip service to Congressional mandates. This new proposal will allow us insight into how the New FCC will work to deliver on the mandate from Congress. This does however come at a time it will be harder to get the budget from Congress to go with the mandate. Fun times.

BTW to others - just because it is the information superhighway - you do not get to drive cars on it


----------



## DocNo (Oct 10, 2001)

bdraw said:


> Actually you can put it in neutral, just have to know how to actually control your own car -- I know that's asking a lot, but I'm asking it none the less.
> 
> http://priuschat.com/forums/gen-ii-prius-main-forum/77458-how-stop-runaway-prius.html


Assuming whatever confused the computer into over-accelerating doesn't interfere with telling the transmission to go into Neutral.



> And we can agree on one thing, I'll also never buy a car with an automatic transmission.


I think we would have far fewer "stupid" accidents if there were more manual transmission cars on the road. It's pretty hard to do other stuff like eat, talk on a cell phone without hands free, put on makeup, read a newspaper/book, brush your teeth, shave (yes, I have seen all four!), fiddle with the radio, etc. if you are having to actually pay attention and drive.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

socrplyr said:


> ... On the consumer side of things, anyone with a PS3/Xbox360 has the hardware necessary (software awaits). Anyone owning a computer as well. ....


holy cow- it just hit me- i got the thought before but didn't really think of all the consumer electronics like the game stations that could work with this.

PS3's, xbox360s, (whatever the next thing nintendo is working on) probably all the networked tv's, all the networked blueray players. The majority of households probably has a device (or 2 or 3 or ...) that already could hook right in to a gateway.

Again if cable had a brain they would get the software so they can overlay their crap ui on all those things and they could save themselves a bundle in hardware and warehousing by needing a fraction of the 'boxes' to stick in customer homes. Work with ceton or broadcom or whoever on an actually 6 tuner m card box with an ethernet port and then just work on a way to enable different number of tuner availibility based on what people pay for.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

just out of left feild but somewhat related to the whole topic at hand. there was an article in the paper the other day about how the FCC is made up of very unorthodox appointees in this administration.

apparently one of the survivor winners who was voted people's sexiest man alive or somesuch is on one of these 'rethink' everything committes. (apparently before outwitting and out lasting and getting sexy he worked for google or MS or something).

anyway I guess the point of the article was 'this aint your daddy's FCC'- i guess we'll see what that means in the years to come....


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Raj said:


> Where do you live in NJ? I live in Wantage (Sussex County), I'm covered by Embarq/Centurylink too and you are right. However in some parts of Texas ATT and Verizon have overlapped.


I'm in flemington- like much of Hunterdon we have embarrass as out telco too.

I know about the places in texas that have overlapp (at least what I've read here  ). So I'm sure under the right conditions it makes sense to overbuild (RCN does it too under certain conditions).

But my humble opinion is VZ's behavior in your neck of the woods and mine proves that there is some amount of additional risk/cost/whatever to the non-existing carriers. It clearly is not the major impediment that the huge infrastructure costs to rebuild/overbuild/build out from scratch are. But there is something (however minor) and so sometimes that little bit is enough to stop them from bothering. There's just no logical reason that they stop laying fiber at the very address that they stop being the existing carrier. If they sometimes stretched a couple blocks into the competition it could be that they just dont want to go farther then x feet from their existing CO or something like that. But since they stop at the exact same line as their copper ends, something else is also involved.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> the new wind that blew into Washington I spoke of back during election time makes taking action have a higher chance of success.


Quite frankly, I don't think that's really the case. The FCC was remarkably anti-cable, under Kevin Martin. While the FCC is probably leaning more pro-consumer, overall, now, they were *already* leaning pro-consumer, as it pertained to cable. I suspect that the remediation regarding CableCARD you would have put in place would have been a reflection of über-consumerism, not a fair balance.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> Quite frankly, I don't think that's really the case. The FCC was remarkably anti-cable, under Kevin Martin. While the FCC is probably leaning more pro-consumer, overall, now, they were *already* leaning pro-consumer, as it pertained to cable. I suspect that the remediation regarding CableCARD you would have put in place would have been a reflection of über-consumerism, not a fair balance.


Kevin Martin allowed cable to control all things related to cable cards and set very limiting restrictions via cable labs. Anti-cable . Now they did indeed leave DBS all alone but that is a different kind of anti cable.

and you forget - I am one of the few who speaks up and says cable should be allowed its own interface to sell its VOD/PPV. I would not stop that.

to fix current cable card fiasco
- allow for simple 2 way standard so SDV works. No problem with it being DOCCIS modem in CE device and it has enough common API to switch on a SDV channel or ask for PPV/VOD
- cbale company must have signed agreement from content owner before putting copy restrictions on or passing restrictions through a channel. 
- cable company can still present their VOD/PPV on a channel9s) like many do now. Full control of the channel(s) by cable company - CE device must be able to tune/display them and must include info about those channels in their interface.

though long term I like the gateway idea much better as it makes it far easier to include DBS. Cable company wants to get me to use their STB - then make it the best choice to hang off the gateway.

Frankly - I found the old FCC stuck in the old ideas of let Business do whatever they can, even if it means they thwart a better market for their own selfish gain. I think we need a middle ground between free market and consumerism. That middle ground though is about pushing markets to provide the maximum oppurtunities for all businesses be they old and established or new and innovative or even old and innovative.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Kevin Martin allowed cable to control all things related to cable cards and set very limiting restrictions via cable labs. Anti-cable . Now they did indeed leave DBS all alone but that is a different kind of anti cable.
> 
> and you forget - I am one of the few who speaks up and says cable should be allowed its own interface to sell its VOD/PPV. I would not stop that.
> 
> ...


I agree with a lot if this. When the phone was broken up and they defined the demarcation point as the box on the side of the house vesus your phone, business really started to flourish. Can you believe we had to use acoustic modems and the restriction on perfection they created because of monopolistic attitudes.

Doing the same thing for video content is the way to go and would certainly unleash the business market.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Kevin Martin allowed cable to control all things related to cable cards and set very limiting restrictions via cable labs. Anti-cable .


Wow, stickin' out y' tung ... real ma-tour! 

Seriously, my point was that what he did in that regard was actually uncharacteristically (for him) balanced even though it didn't represent significant comparative benefit to consumers -- indeed, balance means something doesn't represent significant comparative benefit to either side.



ZeoTiVo said:


> Now they did indeed leave DBS all alone but that is a different kind of anti cable.


Sorry, but imposing costly mandates on some competitors and not others is anti- toward the competitors so encumbered.



ZeoTiVo said:


> and you forget - I am one of the few who speaks up and says cable should be allowed its own interface to sell its VOD/PPV. I would not stop that.


I respect that. 



ZeoTiVo said:


> to fix current cable card fiasco
> - allow for simple 2 way standard so SDV works.


The biggest problem with that is the too many consumers would hate it... basically it (stealing a word from the title of a recent and now-infamous thread here on TFC) "screws" all TiVo S3, TiVo HD and TiVo premiere owners, unless it also requires that there be web service that TiVo can update its software to hit, instead of requiring what you allude to here:


ZeoTiVo said:


> No problem with it being DOCCIS modem in CE device and it has enough common API to switch on a SDV channel or ask for PPV/VOD





ZeoTiVo said:


> - cbale company must have signed agreement from content owner before putting copy restrictions on or passing restrictions through a channel.


Poppycock. There is no fair basis on which to deprive distributors of the right to apply copy restriction on cable networks if they wish. None.



ZeoTiVo said:


> Frankly - I found the old FCC stuck in the old ideas of let Business do whatever they can, even if it means they thwart a better market for their own selfish gain.


Then I think you're seeing this specific issue from a biased perspective. I feel I see these things from a balanced perspective, actually being a consumer and also able to understand how a business would think of these things.



ZeoTiVo said:


> I think we need a middle ground between free market and consumerism.


However, if consumers get to unilaterally define what the middle ground is, then it isn't "middle" ground, but instead is blatant consumerist fiat.



ZeoTiVo said:


> That middle ground though is about pushing markets to provide the maximum oppurtunities for all businesses


I agree.


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> holy cow- it just hit me- i got the thought before but didn't really think of all the consumer electronics like the game stations that could work with this.
> 
> PS3's, xbox360s, (whatever the next thing nintendo is working on) probably all the networked tv's, all the networked blueray players. The majority of households probably has a device (or 2 or 3 or ...) that already could hook right in to a gateway.
> 
> Again if cable had a brain they would get the software so they can overlay their crap ui on all those things and they could save themselves a bundle in hardware and warehousing by needing a fraction of the 'boxes' to stick in customer homes. Work with ceton or broadcom or whoever on an actually 6 tuner m card box with an ethernet port and then just work on a way to enable different number of tuner availibility based on what people pay for.


The industry has actually been heading this way already, which is why it was such an obvious direction for the FCC.

DirecTV and Verizon helped form the RVU Alliance who's primary goal is to enable a more robust remote user interface protocol on top of DLNA. DirecTV has already demo'd the technology and has plans to deploy this year. It is identical to being on the real DVR (which isn't saying much as it is pretty slow).

http://hd.engadget.com/2009/08/19/directv-cisco-and-samsung-have-whole-house-dvr-plans-with-rvu-a/

At the same time Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Cox all expressed their appreciate of DLNA's new required remote user interface (based on HTML, which is why the RVU Alliance formed to create the richer RUI).

http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/comcast-time-warner-and-cox-are-excited-about-the-latest-in-dln/

All the new Samsung and Sony HDTVs that support DLNA have the hardware to support RVU and of course the required DLNA remote user interface. And Cisco joined the RVU Alliance because it intends to build consumer set-top boxes (not to be confused with the leased ones) that support DLNA and RVU.

Of course DLNA submitted comments to the FCC about how the new gateway should require it be DLNA complaint and of course DTCP-IP is already a CableLabs certified LAN protection scheme.

http://hd.engadget.com/2007/08/27/meet-the-new-boss-cable-labs-dtcp-ip/

The DirecTV solution uses MoCA instead of Ethernet to connect the DVR to the clients and with Broadcom's new SoC, it would be easy to build a DVR with built in MoCA. FiOS TV already uses MoCA to deliver VoD and EPG data to the set-top boxes as well as to bring the Internet connection into the home without running a CAT5 from the ONT. It is a very reliable home networking standard.

http://hd.engadget.com/2009/10/29/broadcoms-new-dvr-chip-could-make-all-our-dreams-come-true/

Like I said before, all the pieces are there. The UI would be there if the CE manufacture wanted to use it, but the gateway could also just offer the services if someone like TiVo wanted to provide there own interface. And before you think this is the end of tru2way, there's nothing saying that the remote UI that the gateway could render couldn't be tru2way based.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> Wow, stickin' out y' tung ... real ma-tour!
> 
> Seriously, my point was that what he did in that regard was actually uncharacteristically (for him) balanced even though it didn't represent significant comparative benefit to consumers -- indeed, balance means something doesn't represent significant comparative benefit to either side.
> 
> ...


HeHe - I feel like a teacher graded my paper 
anyhow - yeah the talking back for PPV/VOD is a little more problematic given hardware in the field. TiVo could in software send something off via IP but you get into legitimate security concerns with cable companies. However I agree that the only way to fix cable card quickly would be the IP sent to cable company.

On copy restriction - the distributor is only being denied setting copy flag without written consent of content owner. This dings the free market some as typically the content owner does not have the clout to get the distributor (cable company) to agree to such a term on its own. This is a good example however of the FCC thwarting the self interest of one company for the greater good of the market (in this case, easier innovation by 3rd party devices like TiVo and MRV). The cable company can still go for encryption waivers like they did in NYC or other methods to secure content being distributed. Frankly with streaming coming on line like Moxi has - this is just the cable company being old and in the way versus really protecting their digital outlet fees or whatnot.

So I stick with my statement that the FCC is changing direction in this by actually working to open up broadband to other business opportunities by making sure no one business can throw up roadblocks no matter how established or not the business is. In the past the FCC caved to individual business needs in the name of free market but free market by itself has been consistently shown as being the impediment to business growth latelly.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> However I agree that the only way to fix cable card quickly would be the IP sent to cable company.


And so basically you're saying that everyone would have to replace all their televisions and DVRs -- again. Who's really going to stand up and wave the banner for this? I think a lot of people will be willing to stand up and wave the banner for open access, but when the rubber hits the road and reasonable fairness is injected into the situation these advocates simply drop the ball and basically don't have the stomach to take the good with the bad.



ZeoTiVo said:


> On copy restriction - the distributor is only being denied setting copy flag without written consent of content owner. This dings the free market some as typically the content owner does not have the clout to get the distributor (cable company) to agree to such a term on its own.


I don't have the "clout" to get someone selling me a house to agree to leave the window treatments, if doing so is not part of the sales contract. The law isn't there to protect people from their own wussiness. And really it is academic, because if content owners don't have the "clout" as you assert, then they don't have the clout to refuse to include contractual provisions explicitly allowing distributors to copy protect broadcast on their (the content owners') behalf, should the distributors wish to do that.

The ability to control copying is a valid and valuable quality that the law provides to distributors, as well as content owners. Either one can invoke copy protection. Again, you've given no legitimate foundation for taking that value away from the distributors, other than personal preference.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> And so basically you're saying that everyone would have to replace all their televisions and DVRs -- again. Who's really going to stand up and wave the banner for this? I think a lot of people will be willing to stand up and wave the banner for open access, but when the rubber hits the road and reasonable fairness is injected into the situation these advocates simply drop the ball and basically don't have the stomach to take the good with the bad.


 it fixes for whatever CE devices can be fixed - in this case Moxi and TiVo. I agree Real effort would be on the gateway for 2013 and maybe the fix is not easy - that might mean then that the FCC restricts SDV for cable companies until the gateway is in place. There is definitely no fair and quick fix for cable cards.


> I don't have the "clout" to get someone selling me a house to agree to leave the window treatments, if doing so is not part of the sales contract. The law isn't there to protect people from their own wussiness. And really it is academic, because if content owners don't have the "clout" as you assert, then they don't have the clout to refuse to include contractual provisions explicitly allowing distributors to copy protect broadcast on their (the content owners') behalf, should the distributors wish to do that.
> 
> The ability to control copying is a valid and valuable quality that the law provides to distributors, as well as content owners. Either one can invoke copy protection. Again, you've given no legitimate foundation for taking that value away from the distributors, other than personal preference.


 are you reading your posts? The foundation is to stop a company like TWC from just applying the copy protection flag on all channels to stifle competition. Other companies have no need to set the flag in that way. You may recall that the broadband proposal by the FCC that started this thread was to find ways to stimulate business innovation.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> it fixes for whatever CE devices can be fixed - in this case Moxi and TiVo.


But without DOCSIS modems, that's not the case.



ZeoTiVo said:


> are you reading your posts?


Always.











ZeoTiVo said:


> The foundation is to stop a company like TWC from just applying the copy protection flag on all channels to stifle competition.


You claim it stifles competition; they say it doesn't. Stalemate.



ZeoTiVo said:


> Other companies have no need to set the flag in that way.


Need is irrelevant; this is a matter of desire. Providers' desire to ensure the value of their centralized DVR and MRV solutions is legitimate, even though you don't like it.



ZeoTiVo said:


> You may recall that the broadband proposal by the FCC that started this thread was to find ways to stimulate business innovation.


Without quashing what's fair to other businesses.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

With regards to copy protection, how does setting the CCI bit benefit the distributers? Why should they care? It's not their content anyways.
How is it unfair to the distributers that they be required to have a written agreement from a content provider to set the CCI bit? So what? They have to make a little extra effort to be sure they're following their agreements. The cost of that is negligible.
Put the content providers on notice that they are resposible for declaring how the CCI bit should bet set and on what channel. If they wish to have the distributers copy protect their content (or not), all that adds is 1 sheet of paper to the agreement.

Seems fair to me and something that should have been required long ago.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

bicker said:


> BYou claim it stifles competition; they say it doesn't. Stalemate.


What copy protection does is stifle innovation, whether in the cable arena or elsewhere. By applying the cable broadcast flag the effect is to render functionality on existing competitors useless. If the same had been done to VCR's once they had reached saturation there would have been no end to the complaints.

I think what the cable companies have done is measured and deliberate, first give 95% of people the means to record shows while making the VCR obsolete by requiring a cable box on each TV, then go after third party DVR makers by plinking away at their features. All very legal, but also anti consumer.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

steve614 said:


> With regards to copy protection, how does setting the CCI bit benefit the distributers? Why should they care?


It makes their centralized DVR service and MRV-like services more valuable.



steve614 said:


> How is it unfair to the distributers that they be required to have a written agreement from a content provider to set the CCI bit? So what?


Because they have the right to protect their service now. Their retransmission is their own, so reuse of their retransmission is theirs to determine, if they so choose.



steve614 said:


> They have to make a little extra effort to be sure they're following their agreements.


Let's turn it around: Why not just have a content owner who cares simply say, in their contracts, that they don't want copy protection applied. That's their right.

So what it all comes down to is you want to put in place a nuisance law. That's reflective of the a really nasty aspect of our litigious society. If you don't get your way fairly, try to annoy people to get your way.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> What copy protection does is stifle innovation, whether in the cable arena or elsewhere. By applying the cable broadcast flag the effect is to render functionality on existing competitors useless.


Who are you considering competitors? I think you're crossing the streams.



Stormspace said:


> If the same had been done to VCR's once they had reached saturation there would have been no end to the complaints.


There will always be people who whine about not being able to impose their own personal fiat on the world.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> It makes their centralized DVR service and MRV-like services more valuable.


TWC has no centralized DVR nor MRV


> Because they have the right to protect their service now. Their retransmission is their own, so reuse of their retransmission is theirs to determine, if they so choose.


 that is the new wind blowing in DC - simply because a company has a right to protect their service does not let them trample on innovation by others. Also the Sony ruling way back did indeed set a boundary on what the cable company could determine about reuse of their transmission, that is plain and simple precedent.


> Let's turn it around: Why not just have a content owner who cares simply say, in their contracts, that they don't want copy protection applied. That's their right.


 that would work fine as well and in fact TWC has been notified by content owners that their content was DESIGNED to be reused in schools but the copy flags being set hindered the intended purpose of the content. TWC did not relent but kept the flag in place. Clearly the rules need to be spelled out more clearly for TWC and for all distributors and content owners. The current way is broken.


> So what it all comes down to is you want to put in place a nuisance law. That's reflective of the a really nasty aspect of our litigious society. If you don't get your way fairly, try to annoy people to get your way.


what is nuisance about clarifying the rules around copy protection - it is meant to secure content for the content owners - not be used to lock down distribution of the content. Cable labs clearly overstepped their bounds with this and the language in the new proposal that notes the licensing should be around hardware and no harm to transmission network and NOT software is clearly trying to pull cable labs back to what it was intended to do in the first place. This is not a personal fiat but part of the new proposal from the FCC, the new wind if you will.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

bicker said:


> Let's turn it around: Why not just have a content owner who cares simply say, in their contracts, that they don't want copy protection applied. That's their right.


And look how that worked out for Mark Cuban. 


> So what it all comes down to is you want to put in place a nuisance law. That's reflective of the a really nasty aspect of our litigious society. If you don't get your way fairly, try to annoy people to get your way.


So what's another nuisance law. Not like we don't have 1000's of them already.


----------



## valley_nomad (Dec 21, 2004)

bdraw said:


> The industry has actually been heading this way already, which is why it was such an obvious direction for the FCC.
> .....


The challenge is to convince every one (content providers, operators and CE makers etc) to agree on using a set of standards on the local side of home gateway box, especially for content formats, user interface and DRM. Although some pieces may exist, there will be still a long way to go...


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bdraw said:


> The industry has actually been heading this way already, which is why it was such an obvious direction for the FCC.
> 
> DirecTV and Verizon helped form the RVU Alliance who's primary goal is to enable a more robust remote user interface protocol on top of DLNA. DirecTV has already demo'd the technology and has plans to deploy this year. It is identical to being on the real DVR (which isn't saying much as it is pretty slow).
> 
> ...


wow- i hadn't realized that all that was going on in the background while tivo was banging their heads on the wall.

thanks for the summary.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> TWC has no centralized DVR nor MRV


*Yet.*



ZeoTiVo said:


> that is the new wind blowing in DC - simply because a company has a right to protect their service does not let them trample on innovation by others.


There is no trampling going on.



ZeoTiVo said:


> Also the Sony ruling way back did indeed set a boundary on what the cable company could determine about reuse of their transmission, that is plain and simple precedent.


Are you questioning that the regulations explicitly allow TWC to apply the Copy Once byte? If you are, then you're wrong, plain-and-simple.



ZeoTiVo said:


> that would work fine as well and in fact TWC has been notified by content owners that their content was DESIGNED to be reused in schools but the copy flags being set hindered the intended purpose of the content.


Then fix that (when the agree not to apply the CCI flag and do anyway. I have no problem with that. Fix what's broken. Don't fix what is not broken, because it is to your personal benefit.



ZeoTiVo said:


> what is nuisance about clarifying the rules around copy protection


There is no need for clarification. The rules are clear. They just need to be enforced. That's not "clarifying" as you claim. Instead, you're apparently looking to abuse "clarifying" to include "changing" and "biasing toward viewers and against distributors".



ZeoTiVo said:


> it is meant to secure content for the content owners - not be used to lock down distribution of the content.


Wrong. It is meant to secure content for content owners and/or distributors. You're simply wrong about the intent.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

steve614 said:


> And look how that worked out for Mark Cuban.


Yup, great example. It shows that content owners shouldn't have the right to do as Zeo suggests, because it gives them power that is not warranted. Again, it abuses "clarifying" to instead pervert the law to the viewers' benefit and to the detriment of business. That's not fairness. That's bias.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> There is no need for clarification. The rules are clear.


ah so the FCC is going through all this because the rules are clear and working oh so well already. You know the FCC does not have the budget to enforce the rules properly - so why bait me with that?


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

The problem with MRV and Copy Once isn't as much the content creators fault as it is TiVo's. Verizon, Media Center and DirecTV all make MRV work without requiring files to be "copied." If TiVo would simply stream the shows between units the Copy Once flag wouldn't come into play in regards to MRV.

But the real problem with Copy Once is its meaning is too restrictive. The concept was created before modern DRM schemes that supported what some call domains. Just about every studio allows a a movie or TV show to be played on up to 5 computers and their attached devices via iTunes or the Zune marketplace. The 0x01 byte needs to be redefined so that the restrictions are modeled after iTunes etc. In fact I believe it is in a cable provider's best interest for this to happen as it levels the playing field between cable and internet sources. I believe that this is something that CableLabs is considering changing, lets just hope I'm right.


----------



## socrplyr (Jul 19, 2006)

I do have some personal views on copy protection. Note, I am not trying to argue with anyone here. Others have made a lot of valid points, but I don't necessarily agree with them. I feel that many others have skirted around this topic without hitting the real issue. First off Tivo's method for MRV is a poor implementation, so I look at this more as for TTG instead. 

I think we have to look at what business the cable companies are in. There are two main businesses of interest (ignoring those who own studios); distribution and display. These are most definitely different. In the old days the cable operators only did the distribution part (I am ignoring scrambled channels as I view them a separate premium service). When the operators started transitioning to digital, they chose to get themselves in the display business. This is because they wanted to encrypt channels to more easily manage them (no more filters). Now in general the video distribution industry, there are very few players and thus I think they should to some extent be regulated (Note: I don't say how much). The issue I see is that they use their position in the distribution industry to attempt to vertically integrate the display industry. I feel the FCC's CableCard requirements show they view the two (distribution and display) as separate industries.

Now, the move to digital as has been a rough one from the view of many content providers. They are afraid that perfect digital copies will be use in effect for unintended/illegal distribution from their viewpoint. Thus, copy protection was born. 

I believe that content owners should be able to use copy protections, but should cable companies be able to as well? For PPV and VOD, I definitely think so due to the nature of those services. For premium content it gets a little bit trickier, but that is not the focus so I will leave that as it is. How about regular linear channels? I think the obvious answer is no. 

It comes down to the idea that distribution and display are two different industries. I believe the use of copy protection by the distribution arm of the cable company can only benefit the distributor's display business. Thus it is abusing its status as the distributor to gain an unfair advantage over the competition in the display business, as there is no direct advantage to the distribution business. Thus, I think the FCC screwed up when they explicitly gave the industry that ability to set the copy protections, as they clearly should have explicitly forbidden their use by distributors.

I think the key here is that those that believe the distributors should have the rights to set copy protections must make think harder about their beliefs. I think it implies also that there is no need for the 3rd party display industry. If that is the case, I ask why are you on the Tivo Community Forums?

Note: I used a lot of I think/believe's in order to get across the idea that I know this is my own thoughts and others are able to carry their own opinions as well. I hope that whether or not you agree with me you at least follow the argument.

Edit:
I forgot to mention another thing. Where I live right now the cable company is a monopoly. I cannot get satellite service, my apartment doesn't face the right direction. Also, the telephone company does not provide video services. I am also too far from a city to receive OTA. I would say that probably 50&#37; of the 80,000 residents of the city are in a similar situation. Thus, I truly believe the cable company is abusing its position as a monopoly in this instance. If I lived where FiOS was offered, I would definitely switch if for nothing more than the principle of the matter.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

bdraw said:


> The problem with MRV and Copy Once isn't as much the content creators fault as it is TiVo's. Verizon, Media Center and DirecTV all make MRV work without requiring files to be "copied." If TiVo would simply stream the shows between units the Copy Once flag wouldn't come into play in regards to MRV.
> 
> But the real problem with Copy Once is its meaning is too restrictive. The concept was created before modern DRM schemes that supported what some call domains. Just about every studio allows a a movie or TV show to be played on up to 5 computers and their attached devices via iTunes or the Zune marketplace. The 0x01 byte needs to be redefined so that the restrictions are modeled after iTunes etc. In fact I believe it is in a cable provider's best interest for this to happen as it levels the playing field between cable and internet sources. I believe that this is something that CableLabs is considering changing, lets just hope I'm right.


TiVo MRV has been in use longer than the CCI byte for restricting use. So while TiVo is partly responsible for not creating a workaround, the Cable companies are to blame for apply it in the first place into an environment they knew would break. They are now proactively going after analog recorders by introducing macrovision protection when their STB feeds another device. Macrovision would prevent VCR's from functioning as well.


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

socrplyr said:


> I believe the use of copy protection by the distribution arm of the cable company can only benefit the distributor's display business. Thus it is abusing its status as the distributor to gain an unfair advantage over the competition in the display business, as there is no direct advantage to the distribution business. Thus, I think the FCC screwed up when they explicitly gave the industry that ability to set the copy protections, as they clearly should have explicitly forbidden their use by distributors.


The risk of piracy of cable content is very, very real. Every single TV show is available via usenet or torrents with hours of its airing. This illegal distribution of content affects both the cable operators and the content industry. Some don't subscribe to cable because they can just download the few shows they want for free, while others might have watched ads on Hulu if they couldn't download the show.

So I totally understand the industry's desire to use Copy Once flags. My problem is despite the efforts the shows still show up on the internet, so like most DRM, it is only hurting the paying customers; the thieves get the content anyways.

So in other words I believe the FCC should evaluate the effectiveness of the current DRM and weight it against the impact on consumers to evaluate if it should be permitted.


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

Stormspace said:


> TiVo MRV has been in use longer than the CCI byte for restricting use. So while TiVo is partly responsible for not creating a workaround, the Cable companies are to blame for apply it in the first place into an environment they knew would break. They are now proactively going after analog recorders by introducing macrovision protection when their STB feeds another device. Macrovision would prevent VCR's from functioning as well.


The CCI byte was defined at part DTCP (Digital Transmission Content Protection) back in 1998. The first TiVo to natively support digital cable was the Series3 in October of 2007. So if you are saying that the CCI byte didn't apply to analog, yes, you are obviously correct.

TiVo had to make other changes to make HD streaming work which is why Series3 owners had to wait over a year for it to be added. When they did this they fully understood the implications of streaming vs copying. The problem was that the Series3 just doesn't have the power to stream HD in real time and most consumers use WiFi anyways. So there really wasn't an acceptable solution.

But this is ancient history in the world of electronics, and we all know the Premier doesn't add streaming either. We can only hope it is coming in a future update.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

bicker said:


> Yup, great example. It shows that content owners shouldn't have the right to do as Zeo suggests, because it gives them power that is not warranted. Again, it abuses "clarifying" to instead pervert the law to the viewers' benefit and to the detriment of business. That's not fairness. That's bias.


Power that is not warranted??
The content owner should have absolute power over his content. If he wishes his content to be passed without copy protection, then so be it.
The distributors shouldn't have a say in the matter.

You're saying that because it's the distributor's transmission, they have the right to treat that transmission any way they see fit, even if it's against the content owners' wishes?
How is that fair and balanced?


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

bdraw said:


> If TiVo would simply stream the shows between units the Copy Once flag wouldn't come into play in regards to MRV.


I think TiVo could also make the transfer method work.
They would just have to change the implementation.
Make the file "unavailable" while it's being transferred, and then delete the file on the originating Tivo after the file is transferred to the recieving Tivo yet still have it unavailable for TTG.
That follows the spirit of the law as to allowing only one copy of the content within the home network.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

steve614 said:


> Power that is not warranted??
> The content owner should have absolute power over his content.


No sorry. This has been tested in the courts, namely the Betamax case. The courts have ruled that there is such a thing as fair use.


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

steve614 said:


> I think TiVo could also make the transfer method work.
> They would just have to change the implementation.
> Make the file "unavailable" while it's being transferred, and then delete the file on the originating Tivo after the file is transferred to the recieving Tivo yet still have it unavailable for TTG.
> That follows the spirit of the law as to allowing only one copy of the content within the home network.


You are correct, CableLabs has told me that a move is permissible, but I think TiVo and others (Media Center doesn't support moves either) don't think it is a very user friendly experience. Either that or there is some technical reason for not offering it.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> ah so the FCC is going through all this because the rules are clear and working oh so well already.


The FCC is going though "all this" because of people seeking to apply political pressure to get their own way, without legitimate foundation.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

socrplyr said:


> I forgot to mention another thing. Where I live right now the cable company is a monopoly. I cannot get satellite service, my apartment doesn't face the right direction.


The word "monopoly" refers to the condition of a market, not an apartment.  You've made personal choices that have limited your ability to make other choices. Those limitations are therefore strictly your own responsibility.



socrplyr said:


> Thus, I truly believe the cable company is abusing its position as a monopoly in this instance.


You are incorrect.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

steve614 said:


> Power that is not warranted??
> The content owner should have absolute power over his content.


They do. Nothing I've said is inconsistent with that.

Don't try to make it sound like anything I said was.



steve614 said:


> If he wishes his content to be passed without copy protection, then so be it.


Agreed.



steve614 said:


> The distributors shouldn't have a say in the matter.


Incorrect. If the content owner doesn't explicitly impose a limitation in the contract with the distributor, then the distributor does and should have a say in the matter.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> The FCC is going though "all this" because of people seeking to apply political pressure to get their own way, without legitimate foundation.


so wait - cable companies have legitimate foundation to set copy protection anyway they want on content they are broadcasting simply for their own selfish business needs
They can make cable cards only halfway work for their own selfish business needs

but no one else has the legitimate foundation to change any of that?


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> The FCC is going though "all this" because of people seeking to apply political pressure to get their own way, without legitimate foundation.


Explain why it is "without legitimate foundation."


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> so wait - cable companies have legitimate foundation to set copy protection anyway they want on content they are broadcasting simply for their own selfish business needs
> They can make cable cards only halfway work for their own selfish business needs
> 
> but no one else has the legitimate foundation to change any of that?


Not according to bicker. Cable is always RIGHT (tm).


----------



## socrplyr (Jul 19, 2006)

bicker said:


> The word "monopoly" refers to the condition of a market, not an apartment.  You've made personal choices that have limited your ability to make other choices. Those limitations are therefore strictly your own responsibility.
> 
> You are incorrect.


I noticed that you didn't disagree with the actual premise of the post. I'm not sure what personal choice you think I could have made... I shouldn't have to move to get a service provider that doesn't abuse its position. Oh wait I can't move and to get that, they all do it. This is about competition in the set top box market, something the FCC says should be there. They all either use copy protection, charge too much for a CC, don't support third party boxes at all, use SDV, use CCI, etc. They are purposefully killing competition in the space. They are using their combined dominance of the market to do it as well. The video distribution industry is definitely at the mercy of antitrust laws since there are so few companies that control so much. So despite the fact that you dismissed the situation that I probably share with 50+ million others in the US (yes I made that number up, and OTA is not an equivalent service to cable/satellite). I agree that monopoly may not be the best word for the condition of the marketplace. I can't remember the appropriate term right now, but there is a clear lack of competition in a lot of places.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

Raj said:


> No sorry. This has been tested in the courts, namely the Betamax case. The courts have ruled that there is such a thing as fair use.


I don't think "fair use" applies to what we're talking about here. I'm contending that content distributors are abusing their power over content owners by applying copy protection despite what the content owner intends.
If content owners wish that their content be protected, so be it. They notify the distributor and the distributor complies.
Same goes the other way. If the content owner wishes that their channel be free of copy protection, then the distributor should honor that.
Point is, content owners should have to declare "yes" or "no" on copy protection, and distributors shouldn't have any say in the matter.



bicker said:


> You've made personal choices that have limited your ability to make other choices. Those limitations are therefore strictly your own responsibility.


In other words... 
If you want more choices, you have to move.

Ya know what? Most people don't have a choice to move, so something needs to be done to allow consumers a choice without having to upset their lives.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

steve614 said:


> I think TiVo could also make the transfer method work.
> They would just have to change the implementation.
> Make the file "unavailable" while it's being transferred, and then delete the file on the originating Tivo after the file is transferred to the recieving Tivo yet still have it unavailable for TTG.
> That follows the spirit of the law as to allowing only one copy of the content within the home network.


it's actually not a law but rather a cablelabs specifications ( that tivo has to abide by to have access to cablecards. The FCC regulations says if tivo want's to hook to a digital cable system then tivo has to use cablecards. (hmm actually I guess cablelabs standards do have the power of law after all- since the fcc was given the power in the law to regulate the situation and they regulated that everyone has to follow cable labs)



bdraw said:


> You are correct, CableLabs has told me that a move is permissible, but I think TiVo and others (Media Center doesn't support moves either) don't think it is a very user friendly experience. Either that or there is some technical reason for not offering it.


yep- it says so clear as day in the cablecards specifications. I get that streaming is a pain to implement but I dont know why as a stop gap tivo doesn't allow a MOVE. I guess they figure it's a UI mess as you would have to plan in advance to move something to where you want it to be later on.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> so wait - cable companies have legitimate foundation to set copy protection anyway they want on content they are broadcasting simply for their own selfish business needs


"Selfish" business needs? Thank you for showing your myopic consumerist bias so blatantly.

Corporations exist to make money for their owners.

So basically you're peddling an anti-capitalist perspective. How droll. And how myopic.



ZeoTiVo said:


> They can make cable cards only halfway work for their own selfish business needs


And stop peddling that baseless categorical nonsense. I've had two service providers now provide me CableCARDs. My S3 has been a happy camper for years.



ZeoTiVo said:


> but no one else has the legitimate foundation to change any of that?


You can vote for socialists, too, if you want.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Raj said:


> Explain why it is "without legitimate foundation."


Those words should be read literally. There is no legitimate foundation, nothing in the canon that says that it must be as you want it to be. You just want it to be to your personal benefit. Everyone wants everything to be to their own personal benefit. So that's why instead we have the balance between what you want and what others want, instead of everything just being your way all the time.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Raj said:


> Not according to bicker. Cable is always RIGHT (tm).


No, cable is not always right. I won't point out the times that I've pointed out where cable was wrong, but generally those were cases where it was a dispute with a broadcaster and the broadcaster was right. What you're noting, instead is that generally *whiny, self-centered* consumerists are wrong. They fail to understand and factor into their consideration how the economy, which they take great benefit from, is fostered by the economic activity of business. They cry to their representative to impose onerous and motive-crushing government regulation and otherwise prompt market manipulations that often scuttle the very economic activity that these consumerists actually benefit from in terms of their jobs, in terms of the retirement accounts, etc. And this type of consumer tends to feed of each other, sending each other essentially into a never-ending death-spiral of disaffection, which prompts even more whiny, self-centered consumerism.

When I was young (I hate that phrase, but there's nothing to be done for it), our nation valued production, not consumption. Our standard of living has for the first time in history declined instead of been raised. Our children face an uncertain, but almost surely *lesser *future than we enjoyed. This is a reflection of how we've become a nation of selfish consumers instead of industrious, hard-working, productive people, because we've changed our focus from what can we achieve into what can we consume.

I'm card-carrying Democrat, so this isn't political, and I belong to one of the most liberal, compassionate, people-loving faiths in our nation, so it isn't Nietzschean either. However, neither my political party nor my religion extol the virtues of consumption. They _both _ground their liberalism in optimistic industriousness. The extent to which the best parts of our country are being undermined by maniacal focus on consumption is shocking.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

socrplyr said:


> I noticed that you didn't disagree with the actual premise of the post.


As you can see, I have a lot of irons in this fire. I think I've said my piece sufficiently with regard to the other issues. Surely there wasn't anything else in your message that was a *factual *error, like your comments about monopoly was.



socrplyr said:


> I'm not sure what personal choice you think I could have made...


Ask yourself why you can't get satellite.



socrplyr said:


> I shouldn't have to move


According to what law? You're just making that up. You don't want to take responsibility for having made the choice where to live having affect your choices for subscription television. Again; that choice was yours. You made it. It affect what other choices you have available to you. That's on you.

Besides, it isn't a matter of moving: It is a matter of when you choose somewhere to live choosing somewhere that best fits your needs. Television is, *as it should be*, such a small priority that reasonable people don't allow it to drive the choice about where to live. However, read that again: It is a small priority -- that doesn't mean you make your choice and later complain about the second-order consequences that weren't significant enough to drive your choice. Rather, you make your choice and *accept responsibility* for the second-order consequences of the choice you yourself made -- you don't blame others for those second-order consequences.



socrplyr said:


> This is about competition in the set top box market, something the FCC says should be there.


Yup. So get them to get companies to issue CableCARDs. Oh wait! They do. 



socrplyr said:


> They all either use copy protection,


They're entitle to control access to their service.


socrplyr said:


> charge too much for a CC,


Bull: The rates are reasonable. You just want to pay less because you don't like spending money. That's human nature, but that doesn't trump reason. The rates are reasonable.


socrplyr said:


> don't support third party boxes at all, use SDV, use CCI, etc.


All legit and fair, even though you don't like them.

You essentially want to be king. You're not. Live with it.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

steve614 said:


> Most people don't have a choice to move, so something needs to be done to allow consumers a choice without having to upset their lives.


Wrong. Something has been done. There are multiple choices in every market in the nation. Every single one. People who think of themselves as a market are clearly thinking way too much of themselves.  No one is a market-unto-themselves.

If you make a choice, you take responsibility for that choice -- all of that choice, not just the parts of the choice you made that benefit you. Don't insist that something be done to make up for limitations you imposed on yourself by the earlier choice you made.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

bicker said:


> When I was young (I hate that phrase, but there's nothing to be done for it), our nation valued production, not consumption. Our standard of living has for the first time in history declined instead of been raised. Our children face an uncertain, but almost surely *lesser *future than we enjoyed. This is a reflection of how we've become a nation of selfish consumers instead of industrious, hard-working, productive people, because we've changed our focus from what can we achieve into what can we consume.
> 
> I'm card-carrying Democrat, so this isn't political, and I belong to one of the most liberal, compassionate, people-loving faiths in our nation, so it isn't Nietzschean either. However, neither my political party nor my religion extol the virtues of consumption. They _both _ground their liberalism in optimistic industriousness. The extent to which the best parts of our country are being undermined by maniacal focus on consumption is shocking.


Now you are talking. When I read recently that in US 14 million employed in production and 74 million employed in service related industries I wanted to cry. We sell Chinese goods to each other and pretend that 66% of national product being retail sales is normal. After our financial system almost crushed under the weight of nothing down mortgage loans we are giving down payment to people who don't have a dime to their name to buy homes and cars knowing very well that a year from now most of them will default on the loans again. We invest in dot.coms and companies like TiVo that haven't made a dime of profit in years and are happy to see our money to grow on pure speculation not realizing that one day our paper worth will blow up.
You can not run the country on greed and consumption and expect prosperity in a future.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

I see how you conveniently omitted responding to this question.



steve614 said:


> You're saying that because it's the distributor's transmission, they have the right to treat that transmission any way they see fit, even if it's against the content owners' wishes?
> How is that fair and balanced?


----------



## socrplyr (Jul 19, 2006)

bicker said:


> Yup. So get them to get companies to issue CableCARDs. Oh wait! They do.
> 
> They're entitle to control access to their service.Bull: The rates are reasonable. You just want to pay less because you don't like spending money. That's human nature, but that doesn't trump reason. The rates are reasonable. All legit and fair, even though you don't like them.
> 
> You essentially want to be king. You're not. Live with it.


I think you lose site of the fact that moving doesn't fix competition in the set top box market, so your argument is completely moot and a waste of breath.

They do issue CableCards, but they all handicap the service. This makes CableCards a failure. I think you missed the whole point again. You agreed with the rest of my statement, which said that copy control has no purpose for the distributor. I agree with their ability to control access and that is exactly what encryption does, but after they decide what device gets it they should be done as it adds no value to them as a distributor.

As for the rest, I didn't mean that all providers did each. Even my Cable company overcharges ($3, when their box w/ card is only $5). My cable co also forces me to rent a box from them, but then forces me to rent a separate card from them for my Tivo (the box sits in my closet). CableLabs did not standardize two way access as they should have years ago (we all know tru2way is a joke, good for a TV, but horrible for a third party cable box). A box not from a cable manufacturer that has two way connectivity would fail CableLabs testing, seems fair to me. Instead we are left with a nonstandard, poorly supported POS that is the tuning adapter. Not only does it not function well (freezes and reboots), it also is nothing more than a cable modem (but 3 times one's size). It doesn't work with ALL CC devices either. I have to pay to install my own CableCard as the cable company refuses to properly train techs, but requires them to be there. However, their own CC devices can be picked up at the store for free. Techs have showed up without a CableCard, which was on their order for because they don't carry them in their truck like they do ALL the rest of the equipment they need. I have been threatened with having to pay for damage if I tried to take the CableCard from their box and use it (despite the door being placed there just for that purpose). And of course using the copy protection only helps support their own boxes, but doesn't support their distribution system.

Now I will say that many of those complaints are minor, but I think they are pretty much across the board with most of the cable providers. Many on here to attest to these policies. As a whole the complains show a complete disdain and lack of support for CCs. It shows an active discrimination against their use in third party boxes, so in reality CCs have not provided the open market. This is due to cable's overall policies that make the unusable.


----------



## socrplyr (Jul 19, 2006)

bicker said:


> Wrong. Something has been done. There are multiple choices in every market in the nation. Every single one. People who think of themselves as a market are clearly thinking way too much of themselves.  No one is a market-unto-themselves.
> 
> If you make a choice, you take responsibility for that choice -- all of that choice, not just the parts of the choice you made that benefit you. Don't insist that something be done to make up for limitations you imposed on yourself by the earlier choice you made.


Actually you completely miss the point. There is zero choice in the market place. None. Nada. Zilch. There is not a single video distributor that allows ALL of the services (which is what you are actually paying them for) to be used on a third party box. You also miss the fact that it is asinine to even need the box at every TV in the first place. TVs should be allowed to have an interface that accesses at least all the linear channels (including nonlinear SDV) without a set top box for all providers (sat/fios/cable/uverse included). This needs to be standardized.

I am ignoring whether or not moving is even reasonable, but it doesn't fix the problem. So could you try again with a meaningful argument that does address the problem?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> "Selfish" business needs? Thank you for showing your myopic consumerist bias so blatantly.


 the FCC does not see it as myopic consumerism but cable companies that are limiting a market for _other businesses_ while pursuing their own selfish business needs. This means cable is indeed not evil but doing what cable should do, also DBS is doing what DBS should do - thus the need for the FCC to step in and continue to regulate in order to open a market and make room for business growth and diversity. It really is just that simple despite all your slings and arrows trying to duck this basic reality.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

steve614 said:


> I see how you conveniently omitted responding to this question.


No I didn't. I replied very directly to that question. Are you not paying attention, or are you just trying to despoil the discussion by not telling the truth about what I'm posting?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

socrplyr said:


> I think you lose site...


If you've read my messages for a while, you'll know that I practically never lose sight of anything. Whenever you get the feeling that that may be the case, step back and think about what I've written from the standpoint of someone who perhaps fundamentally disagrees with your perspective. That helps cut down on the back-and-forth silliness.



socrplyr said:


> ... of the fact that moving doesn't fix competition in the set top box market, so your argument is completely moot and a waste of breath.


I was replying to the message posted by the previous poster. Your beef, therefore, is with him, for bringing up the fact that he couldn't get satellite service, and his vacuous assertion that therefore the cable company had a "monopoly".

Also mentioned prominently as part of this discussion was the fact that the FCC has been unfair in granting waivers (of the requirements for separable security) to satellite service providers. So I had that base covered.



socrplyr said:


> They do issue CableCards, but they all handicap the service.


You don't like what they do to the service. Tough. Get over your personal frustration and look at it fairly, like the FCC did. They're not perfect, as I pointed out earlier with regard to the waivers, but in this case they weighed the various priorities and set forth a reasonable standard that was fair. It didn't give everyone everything they wanted: Fair decision practically never do.



socrplyr said:


> This makes CableCards a failure.


And again, some of that is the FCC's fault, for not requiring all service providers to have separable security. Beyond that, citizens are too cheap to give the FCC enough tax money to have them engineer a common solution, which would make things better for everyone, so the only real blame for even your frustration in this regard rests solely with the American citizens themselves.



socrplyr said:


> I think you missed the whole point again.


See above.



socrplyr said:


> You agreed with the rest of my statement, which said that copy control has no purpose for the distributor.


Distributors definitely have a reason to apply redistribution control. Again, see my earlier messages.



socrplyr said:


> I agree with their ability to control access and that is exactly what encryption does, but after they decide what device gets it they should be done as it adds no value to them as a distributor.


Again, I think you're wrong. It isnt' because I don't "get it" -- it is because I actually think you're wrong... I disagree with you.



socrplyr said:


> As for the rest, I didn't mean that all providers did each. Even my Cable company overcharges ($3, when their box w/ card is only $5).


Very reasonable prices. I think your assumption that $3 is "overcharging" is ridiculous. Maybe you don't "get it"? However, out of respect, I'll assume simply that you disagree.



socrplyr said:


> Now I will say that many of those complaints are minor, but I think they are pretty much across the board with most of the cable providers. Many on here to attest to these policies.


Wow... consumers being consumerist... not a big surprise, really.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

socrplyr said:


> Actually you completely miss the point.


Again, you're wrong about that.



socrplyr said:


> There is zero choice in the market place. None. Nada. Zilch.


You're wrong about that too. And if you were right, you'd be able to get the Congress to agree with you. They don't agree with you, not because of the ridiculous conspiracy theories that raving consumerists try to peddle, but because they actually have to be fair -- they actually have to balance conflicting priorities. See above.



socrplyr said:


> There is not a single video distributor that allows ALL of the services (which is what you are actually paying them for) to be used on a third party box.


That's a criterion that you made up. Even if true (and I'm not disagreeing about that) it doesn't mean what you are claiming it means. It doesn't imply lack of choice in the marketplace. It doesn't justify the criticisms of the industry that you're making. It's like complaining about the fast food industry, that there is no restaurant you can go to where you can get a Big Mac and your friend can get a Whopper.



socrplyr said:


> You also miss the fact


Again, you're wrong about that.



socrplyr said:


> that it is asinine to even need the box at every TV in the first place.


That's nothing other than you trying to present your personal preference, heavily consumerist biased, as something more than what it is, as justification for your criticisms. Why can't you just say that you're sad about something, instead of trying to blame someone else for your sadness, for the fact that allowed yourself to develop unreasonable expectations and an unfounded sense of entitlement?



socrplyr said:


> TVs should be allowed to have an interface that accesses at least all the linear channels (including nonlinear SDV) without a set top box for all providers (sat/fios/cable/uverse included). This needs to be standardized.


You want these things. I respect that. Now the question is whether you're willing to live in the reality and work towards getting those things in a reasonable, fair, and justifiable manner. How? How do you get industry to give you something you want? Make it the best possible use for the dollars of investment capital that would be needed to provide you those things. Make it the most profitable possible means of offering service. If *consumers fail* to do their part to motivate business to serve specific needs, then consumers are saying very clearly that those needs are simply not important.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> the FCC does not see it as myopic consumerism but cable companies that are limiting a market for _other businesses_ while pursuing their own selfish business needs.


Some people in the FCC are saying that they feel that way. They've even gotten some statements made to that effect. Now watch the action. You know as well as I do that in the political arena often they pay lip-service to shut curmudgeons up, but then go forward and do something different -- do what they feel is actually right.

You wanna bet whether there will be gateways deployed in a majority of communities by 2013? We've got new expenses on the horizon, and this will be a great way for me to make a good bit of cash, payable on 12/31/13.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Wow. 5 pages of discussion about something that almost certainly won't happen. Interesting.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

nrc said:


> I can't predict when new laws or regulations will actually arrive, but sometime in the next six months the FCC will present a plan to congress that will include new steps aimed at creating an open market for retail navigation devices.
> 
> At that point you'll privately rupture a spleen and likely go on medication for depression. Here on the forum you'll put on a brave face, say that it proves cable isn't a monopoly, and use the Chewbacca Defense to claim that I should eat my words.


Good to see that there are some things that we can still count on.


----------



## socrplyr (Jul 19, 2006)

In reply to bicker:

What choice do you have in the market place. There is none. If you go with satellite, you must use their box. If you go with FiOS, you can't access content you are paying for (VOD). If you go with Cable, you can't access most of the content you are paying for (SDV and VOD). How do you have a choice?

The providers are using their dominant market position in the distribution industry to rule the box industry. That is pretty much the definition of the abuse needed to charge them with antitrust violations. Cable companies do not support CableCards as intended by the FCC rules. They purposely oppose the creation of standards, which would require them to open up their systems. 

Again, in reality what you are actually arguing is that there should be no box industry. That's fine, but have the balls to actually make the statement instead of tiptoeing around it. Repeat after me, "I, bicker, believe that Tivo, Moxi, and other similar third party set top box companies should not exists. Their existence threatens the profitability of the set top box rental arm of the cable companies. I also believe that Microsoft should be able to restrict the usage of third party browsers on Microsoft operating systems. Their use threatens the profitability of the internet advertising arm of Microsoft. Furthermore, only Windows based PCs should be allowed to connect to the internet." 

My question for you is this. Do you really believe that only telephones provided by your phone company should be able to access all phone services? Should Verizon/ATT be able to block caller ID to Panasonic phones? How about call waiting? Cable/Sat's blocking of services are equivalent. You pay them to deliver the services to your home, not for them to choose how and in what way you use them. They are separate industries. The only way to fix the market place is actually to forbid cable operators from supplying set top boxes. Now I think that is going too far, but we are getting closer and closer to that being the only way to get them to wake up and make a standard.


----------



## socrplyr (Jul 19, 2006)

LoadStar said:


> Wow. 5 pages of discussion about something that almost certainly won't happen. Interesting.


While I agree with you, that it isn't likely to happen, it should. I think most of the proposals are along the right lines. I view that the video distribution industry's purpose is to get the video to my house. After that it is a different industry the either records or displays it. The proposal for a gateway would split the markets clearly. The gateway is a part of the distribution system and must output some sort of standardized signal to set top box/tvs. This is what the telephone industry already does (although there is no need for a gateway in your home for phone service). Personally, I don't necessarily believe in the need for an actual gateway to be present at all, just as long as a standard method for transmission can be agreed upon. Two way communications can be required for it, again, just as long as it is standardized.


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

socrplyr said:


> In reply to bicker:
> 
> What choice do you have in the market place. There is none. If you go with satellite, you must use their box. If you go with FiOS, you can't access content you are paying for (VOD). If you go with Cable, you can't access most of the content you are paying for (SDV and VOD). How do you have a choice?
> 
> ...


Bicker is a monopolist. That much is clear. AT&T never should have been broken up. Any company that can leverage their position, get local deals and crush any and all competition deserves to be rewarded, not challenged.

This is a frightening position to take, but fortunately one that has largely gone by the way side in this country. If anything it harkens back to people who cried and wept at the end of the railroad and timber barons of the 19th century.

Those people also cried that we were going to ruin our economy, when in fact forced competition did exactly the opposite, increasing the GDP and bringing wealth (and jobs) to millions who didn't have a dime.

Companies should be rewarded for success, but they should not be allowed to thrive in a vacuum that they and they alone can profit from.

They should also not be allowed to rig the system, as providers have done in the cable set top box game.

If we consumers had lost that fight with AT&T then we would all be renting our telephones from AT&T at $75 a month (in addition to line charges). You would not be allowed to connect your own phone/modem/fax to the public telephone network because they had not tested and certified your box to interop with their network. Never mind that they had no interest in testing your box and weren't going to do it anyways.


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

LoadStar said:


> Wow. 5 pages of discussion about something that almost certainly won't happen. Interesting.


What makes you so sure? The FCC has already been given the power to enforce this in the Telcom Act of 1996 -- unlike most of the rest of the Broadband Plan.

Unless the cable industry really comes out kicking and screaming I see this happening. And based on the support of this concept by DirecTV, AT&T and Verizon and a little support already expressed by Comcast, Time Warner and Cox. I see no reason why this won't happen in time. I refrenced all the signs of support in this post.

What reasons do you see that this won't happen?

I was thinking about going back and reading the comments submited by the various providers in response to the FCC's request for comments, but I haven't yet. I did try to read one and it was very hard to interpret the bottom line.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> Some people in the FCC are saying that they feel that way. They've even gotten some statements made to that effect. Now watch the action. You know as well as I do that in the political arena often they pay lip-service to shut curmudgeons up, but then go forward and do something different -- do what they feel is actually right.
> 
> You wanna bet whether there will be gateways deployed in a majority of communities by 2013? We've got new expenses on the horizon, and this will be a great way for me to make a good bit of cash, payable on 12/31/13.


sure in the past they paid lip service to Cable card to show how they were tackling the problem - then handed control of how cable cards work over to Cable labs which of course was run by the cable companies.

I have no idea on the timeline cause the ones they note are pretty agrresive but they have specifically noted the problems with cable cards and noted that cable labs cert should be about hardware and not software (read CCI flags).

I do expect to see cable card improvements and a gateway down the road - just no idea on time line since funding will not be there for an aggressive approach.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

jmpage2 said:


> Bicker is a monopolist.


ROFLMAO

* note - my laugh is due to Bicker fighting anyone using the word monopoly and now it gets applied to him directly. Quite amusing.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

The proper word for the video and internet markets is oligopoly, not monopoly.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

slowbiscuit said:


> The proper word for the video and internet markets is oligopoly, not monopoly.


Yes, but nobody made a board game using that word (yet).


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

socrplyr said:


> In reply to bicker: What choice do you have in the market place.


Our market, here, has five choices. Your market has at least three.



socrplyr said:


> There is none.


Incorrect. Generally when people make that error, they're myopically considering only their own personal situation, and they typically refuse to acknowledge that they themselves have, either, due to previous choices they themselves have made, or due to personal preferences regarding technology or usability aspects, have placed their own limitations on the choices available in their market.



socrplyr said:


> If you go with satellite, you must use their box.


Unfair: Job #1 -- fix that. Then we can begin considering some of your other concerns.



socrplyr said:


> The providers are using their dominant market position in the distribution industry to rule the box industry.


You're using legal words ("dominant market position", just like "monopoly"), so prove it in a court; until you do, you're basically blowing smoke. You *want *it to be such. I want Peace on Earth. It's nice to want.



socrplyr said:


> That is pretty much the definition of the abuse needed to charge them with antitrust violations.


It's the words... what you're missing is the facts. Again; Put up or shut up. You're making a legal claim, so do it in the courts, and then come back here and push my nose in it.



socrplyr said:


> Again, in reality what you are actually arguing is that there should be no box industry.


No I'm not. What I'm arguing is that you should be honest and accurate, and not pervert your frustration into justification for casting reckless aspersions on service providers.



socrplyr said:


> That's fine, but have the balls to actually make the statement instead of tiptoeing around it.


Look who's claiming who doesn't have balls. Get off you butt and prove your contentions in court.

You're just whining because you don't get everything the way you want it. Nothing more than that.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

jmpage2 said:


> Bicker is a monopolist.


I'm a capitalist, not a monopolist. I'm also a realist, and I don't put up with cry-babies claiming grievance when there is no legitimate foundation, as in the case here.

You can also take "put up or shut up" to heart. Why you people think that your legal pronouncements should hold any water, given that they directly contradict the reality that we all experience, is beyond me. It's like a collective mania... so totally out of touch with what is actual; what the laws actually mean; what reasonable expectations on business in our society really are.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

slowbiscuit said:


> The proper word for the video and internet markets is oligopoly, not monopoly.


But but but we must not confuse them with facts, right?


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

bicker said:


> I'm a capitalist, not a monopolist. I'm also a realist, and I don't put up with cry-babies claiming grievance when there is no legitimate foundation, as in the case here.
> 
> You can also take "put up or shut up" to heart. Why you people think that your legal pronouncements should hold any water, given that they directly contradict the reality that we all experience, is beyond me. It's like a collective mania... so totally out of touch with what is actual; what the laws actually mean; what reasonable expectations on business in our society really are.


Bicker, if you were such an expert on the legality of all of this then AT&T never would have been broken up as you've repeatedly insisted that they either weren't a monopoly or "deserved" to be in their monopoly position.

Hard to take you seriously when you claim you're a legal expert and you can't see clearly that AT&T was a monopoly or that Cable is a virtual monopoly in many areas of the country.

Cable is used to deliver not only TV service, for which there are other alternatives (dish, etc) but also high speed broadband, for which there are often no alternatives for subs. There are many areas of the country which can't even get DSL so Cable is the only option. In such a scenario it is absolutely the prerogative of the FCC to make sure Cable is as "open" as possible and that alternative hardware, etc, is available to subscribers so that down the line the Cable operators don't abuse a complete monopoly position to charge outrageous leasing fees for their boxes... which of course would be the only way to get programming once OTA and analog are dead.

P.S. Calling people cry babies because they don't have your claimed omniscience in the area of business law is pretty questionable too I might add.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

jmpage2 said:


> Bicker, if you were such an expert on the legality of all of this then AT&T never would have been broken up as you've repeatedly insisted that they either weren't a monopoly or "deserved" to be in their monopoly position.


AT&T was a different situation. I know; I was there. We had no competition worthy of the name. None. Judge Greene was a bozo in many ways, but he had loads more foundation for his actions than you have for your lame attacks on cable companies. There are at least three subscription television competitors in every market in the country.

Every single market.

All of them.



jmpage2 said:


> Hard to take you seriously when you claim you're a legal expert and you can't see clearly that AT&T was a monopoly or that Cable is a virtual monopoly in many areas of the country.


No, it is hard for you to take me seriously because I am providing facts that you personally hate and wish you could bury.



jmpage2 said:


> Cable is used to deliver not only TV service, for which there are other alternatives (dish, etc) but also high speed broadband, for which there are often no alternatives for subs.


High speed broadband is not the only means of accessing the Internet.

You don't seem to know what a market is, nor what a commodity is. You'd probably consider a Big Mac a commodity, and accuse McDonald's of being a monopoly. 



jmpage2 said:


> P.S. Calling people cry babies because they don't have your claimed omniscience in the area of business law is pretty questionable too I might add.


I'm a mirror. Treat my comments with respect, and I'll treat yours with respect, even while disagreeing with them. Show me that you want our discussion to be rife with disrespect, I'll oblige your penchant.


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

I'd say that in fact I can read as well as the next person. I might not be a lawyer by trade (I'm an engineer actually) but it isn't hard to find plenty of information that describes market leverage and demonstrates that Cable is a perfect example;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_power



> In economics, market power is the ability of a firm to alter the market price of a good *or service*





> A firm with market power can raise prices without losing its customers to competitors. Market participants that have market power are therefore sometimes referred to as "price makers," while those without are sometimes called "price takers."





> A firm usually has market power by virtue of controlling a large portion of the market. In extreme cases - monopoly and monopsony - the firm controls the entire market. *However, market size alone is not the only indicator of market power*.


Funny, I don't see any reference that a product must be a commodity for a monopoly condition to exist. It is true that in some areas of the US Cable is not in a monopoly position as strictly defined. However, they have extreme market power in many markets (most I'd wager) especially if you factor broadband access into the equation. In some markets, Cable does effectively have a monopoly if you want access to anything other than OTA programming (and in some markets, OTA programming isn't very reliable due to poor reception location, etc).


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Keep tilting at windmills, bud. Keep denying reality and whining about service providers because you expect the world to be handed to you on a platter, because you expect that the law is written to serve your own personal avarice. Reality will pay no attention to your ridiculous rambling.


----------



## JimParks (May 24, 2007)

Without reading all of the 200+ posts. We will never see this happen in my lifetime. By the time the cable companies put their spin doctors on the politicians, this will die a rather quiet death.
Just my $0.02 worth.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

bicker said:


> Keep tilting at windmills, bud. Keep denying reality and whining about service providers because you expect the world to be handed to you on a platter, because you expect that the law is written to serve your own personal avarice. Reality will pay no attention to your ridiculous rambling.


The reality is the FCC's position that there is still not sufficient competition for either broadband services or set top boxes. That's directly in tune with the "whining" here and exactly opposite your cable lobbyist rambling.


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

bicker said:


> Keep tilting at windmills, bud. Keep denying reality and whining about service providers because you expect the world to be handed to you on a platter, because you expect that the law is written to serve your own personal avarice. Reality will pay no attention to your ridiculous rambling.


Wow, that's your best when confronted with actual facts. 

It would appear that _you_ are the one who is not worth the bother since you're only interested in pushing your agenda on people who don't know any better.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

nrc said:


> The reality is the FCC's position that there is still not sufficient competition for either broadband services or set top boxes. That's directly in tune with the "whining" here and exactly opposite your cable lobbyist rambling.


Time will tell: The FCC, like all governmental agencies, regularly pays lip-service to shut whiners up, and then proceed to go about their business constructively rather than actually placating such destructive aspects.



jmpage2 said:


> Wow, that's your best when confronted with actual facts.  It would appear that _you_ are the one who is not worth the bother since you're only interested in pushing your agenda on people who don't know any better.


That would make sense if you actually had some facts that your perspective was correct. Instead all you have is bravado and empty claims. I outlined your challenge: Make it happen for real instead of in your own head. We can go around in circles forever saying, as we have, "you're wrong", "no you're wrong"... Is that really what everyone in this thread wants? I don't think so.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

bicker said:


> That would make sense if you actually had some facts that your perspective was correct. Instead all you have is bravado and empty claims. I outlined your challenge: Make it happen for real instead of in your own head. We can go around in circles forever saying, as we have, "you're wrong", "no you're wrong"... Is that really what everyone in this thread wants? I don't think so.


I find conversations end (thankfully) when facts are provided contrary to the antagonists views. Unless of course the antagonist is strictly trolling.


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

orangeboy said:


> I find conversations end (thankfully) when facts are provided contrary to the antagonists views. Unless of course the antagonist is strictly trolling.


Wow, my own personal stalker. Nice.

I provided plenty of facts that demonstrate that in fact Cable is in a position of extreme market power and that they are abusing or in a position to abuse that position.

This is why the FCC has pushed for standards that make it easier for 3rd party devices to get access to cable programming.

Sorry if you don't like these facts, but they are facts.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

jmpage2 said:


> Wow, my own personal stalker. Nice.


Wow dude. Over-exaggerated ego much? The reply was to _bicker_.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

jmpage2 said:


> I provided plenty of facts that demonstrate that in fact Cable is in a position of extreme market power and that they are abusing or in a position to abuse that position..


In all fairness to biker, you did not provide any facts. Wikipedia definition of the "market power" does not make cable companies monopolies. Your interpretation of wikipedia article does not matter, you are not qualified to interpret the law.
Don't you think that if it was a slightest chance that cable companies could be classified as monopolies the real lawyers would be standing in line to file class action lawsuits?


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

samo said:


> In all fairness to biker, you did not provide any facts. Wikipedia definition of the "market power" does not make cable companies monopolies. Your interpretation of wikipedia article does not matter, you are not qualified to interpret the law.
> Don't you think that if it was a slightest chance that cable companies could be classified as monopolies the real lawyers would be standing in line to file class action lawsuits?


What above says monopoly? The point that I get from limited reading is that while there might be a different legal definition between a monopoly and an oligopoly the situation is in many ways the same. When only a few sellers, or a pair of sellers or a single seller provide a service, they are overwhelmingly advantaged from the lack of competition.

Also, as I pointed out, in many areas of the US Cable does in fact have a monopoly on broadband internet services because subscribers don't have access to DSL.

Saying that dialup is a viable alternative to broadband in this day and age as Bicker suggests is a laughable position.

The ultimate question here, and the reason the FCC seems to be involved, is does the Cable Co's extreme market position and restriction of 3rd party equipment access to programming give them an unfair advantage in the market place.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

jmpage2 said:


> I provided plenty of facts that demonstrate that in fact Cable is in a position of extreme market power and that they are abusing or in a position to abuse that position.


No you didn't. You presented *opinions*, your own opinions and that of others. You refuse to take up the challenge to prove those opinions in court, where findings of fact in our society are made. Instead you place yourself as god, and declare by fiat that certain opinions are true. How frakking self-centered!

Put up or shut up time: Get the courts to agree with you, or accept that you're just blowing smoke.


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

bicker said:


> No you didn't. You presented *opinions*, your own opinions and that of others. You refuse to take up the challenge to prove those opinions in court, where findings of fact in our society are made. Instead you place yourself as god, and declare by fiat that certain opinions are true. How frakking self-centered!
> 
> Put up or shut up time: Get the courts to agree with you, or accept that you're just blowing smoke.


It's okay bicker, I know you're upset. FCC agrees with the whiners like myself and not the legal eagles like you. You seem to forget that the Bell System existed in a complete Monopoly for over a decade before a single legal action was brought against them and another 6-7 years before the feds filed a suit against them.

This was for a company that controlled 100% of the American telephone long distance system at one time.

And yes, we *all know* you were there.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

jmpage2 said:


> It's okay bicker, I know you're upset. FCC agrees with the whiners like myself and not the legal eagles like you.


Indeed, the FCC snows people "like you" over with lip-service, while their actions, and judges (when issues make it to the courts), agree with people "like me".


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> Indeed, the FCC snows people "like you" over with lip-service, while their actions, and judges (when issues make it to the courts), agree with people "like me".


so who can find out what kind of budget goes with this new proposal from the FCC - those are the numbers that will determine reality.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Well, until pretty recently the FCC seemed only to really care that you didn't say certain words or have certain clothing malfunctions on the airwaves. It's simply nice to be mostly past that absurd behavior, at least.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> so who can find out what kind of budget goes with this new proposal from the FCC - those are the numbers that will determine reality.


Absolutely true.

And I bet you'll be very disappointed with those numbers, should we ever learn what they are.


----------



## billyecho (Sep 17, 2001)

By Nate Anderson | Last updated about 14 hours ago

The FCC's new National Broadband Plan made it clear that the agency has had it with CableCARD's failings and wants to try something else. Specifically, the FCC wants a new "gateway" device that would apply to all TV providers (cable, satellite, IPTV). Like a broadband modem, the gateway device would take its inputs from the different TV systems, but output a signal in a standard format that can be used by DVRs, TVs, and set-top boxes.

The changes start this month. The FCC has just announced plans for its April meeting, and they include these two juicy items:

* Network Gateway NOI: A Notice of Inquiry seeking comment on best approaches to assure the commercial availability of smart video devices and other equipment used to access the services of multi-channel video programming distributors.
* CableCARD NPRM: A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposes changes to the CableCARD rules for set-top boxes used with cable services, to improve the operation of that framework pending the development of a successor framework.

The network gateway will get a "notice of inquiry," which is just asking for public comment on how the agency should move forward. The CableCARD proceeding, though, gets a "notice of proposed rulemaking" and we'll get to see exactly what the FCC has in mind to patch the existing program.

CableCARD was an attempt by the FCC to create competition in the market for set-top boxes and DVRs by making it easy for third-party devices to access cable's video streams, even those that were encrypted. In this, it failed. We've noted for years that almost no one used the devices and that nearly all CableCARDs actually ended up in cable's own set-top boxes instead of in competing third-party products.
Source: FCC presentation

Last year, the FCC admitted to "limited success" (that is, total failure) with the CableCARD program. At one meeting, agency engineers showed a chart pointing out that only 14 nonleased set-top boxes were on the market in the US, compared to nearly 900 devices in the mobile wireless space.

What the FCC wanted was innovation of the kind seen in other video products like the TiVo, the Roku box, the AppleTV, the Xbox 360, and the PS3. All were essentially "set-top boxes" that did all manner of cool things, including access video content over the Internet from sites like Netflix. The problem is that none of them can integrate content from cable companies, which would have made them even more innovative and far more useful.

So, even as the industry kicks off its "tru2way" platform, the FCC has decided to wade in once more, patch the CableCARD program, and get to work on something to replace it.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/fcc-to-improve-cablecard-rules-this-month.ars


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Suggestions for improvements:

1. Ban pre-installation of cards in STBs -- all equipment, whether customer- or cableco-provided, should require the same installation procedures. This is essential to making the program work, although it's admittedly a pain in the ass.

2. Ban pairing -- let customers rent cards and freely move them among devices. They probably won't go for this.

3. Ban CCI != 0. They definitely won't go for this.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

you know using this gateway for video to the house - would breathe significant new life into open source DVR solutions like Sage - since it could well mean they finally get legit access to encrypted digital content.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

The FCC is going to unveil a Notice for Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) at the April 21 meeting:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297268A1.pdf

This is good.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

billyecho said:


> So, even as the industry kicks off its "tru2way" platform, the FCC has decided to wade in once more, patch the CableCARD program, and get to work on something to replace it.
> 
> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/fcc-to-improve-cablecard-rules-this-month.ars


I don't know where people are getting the idea that Tru2Way is a replacement for CableCARD. It's not. Tru2Way is simply a set of technologies that will most likely include CableCARD as well, but most notably add a middleware component allowing operators to run their apps on your hardware. And the last part I'm not sure I'm that enthusiastic about. The whole reason I want a CableCARD device is to get away from the cable company's terrible software.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I predict that many people will be grievously disappointed with what FCC actually ends up doing, or not doing.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

bicker said:


> I predict that many people will be grievously disappointed with what FCC actually ends up doing, or not doing.


Well, at least one. 

Straight from the Broadband plan, the steps below would get us about a quarter of the way to where the Telecom Act directed the FCC to take us. All but the first item could be implemented in a very short time (fall).

To accomplish the first item the FCC should tap an appropriate standards body who will commit to an aggressive timeline to provide a standard by fall 2010. With a standard available in the fall, cable companies could be required to comply by summer 2011.

Part of the standard should be a diagnostic cycle. Any cable customer should be able to put their device into a diagnostic cycle that will test the cable company head end for compliance with the standard. Failures could be reported directly to the FCC via IP.

➤➤ Ensure equal access to linear channels for retail and
operator-leased CableCARD devices in cable systems with
SDV by allowing retail devices to receive and transmit outof-
band communications with the cable headend over IP.129
➤➤ Establish transparent pricing for CableCARDs and operator-
leased set-top boxes. Consumers should see the
appropriate CableCARD charge, whether they purchase a
retail device or lease one from the operator, and they should
receive a comparable discount off packages that include
the operator-leased set-top box if they choose to purchase
one instead.130
➤➤ Standardize installation policies for retail and operatorleased
CableCARD devices to ensure consumers buying
CableCARD-enabled devices at retail do not face materially
different provisioning hurdles than those using operatorleased
set-top boxes.131
➤➤ Streamline and accelerate the certification process for retail
CableCARD devices.132 For example, the rules could restrict
the certification process to cover hardware only, similar to
the certification required for cable-ready TVs, to ensure retail
CableCARD devices do not harm a cable operators network.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

You do understand the meaning of the word "plan" -- right? That it isn't a reality, but rather a statement of alleged intention... Watch what happens... it doesn't take a lot of work to realize that the ground is littered with similar government "plans" that were, as I've said before, nothing but lip-service. What drives change in our society? Money. We don't have to like it, but in order to free ourselves from the never-ending, self-imposed, death-spiral of dissatisfaction we do need to accept it. 

The real question is whether folks are going to get themselves invested in the hopes that the plan would tend to foster: Everyone should ask themselves whether they are going to let themselves be snowed-over yet again, raising your own expectations without benefit of any firm promise to satisfy those expectations, and then come back X months from now stewing in a pot of disappointment and frustration. Yet again. Or will folks decide to follow the path of reason and therefore reasonable expectation instead. 

We'll see who follows which path.


----------



## billyecho (Sep 17, 2001)

Plan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

For other uses, and for specific types of plans, see Plan (disambiguation).

A plan is typically any procedure used to achieve an objective. It is a set of intended actions, through which one expects to achieve a goal.

Plans can be formal or informal:

* Structured and formal plans, used by multiple people, are more likely to occur in projects, diplomacy, careers, economic development, military campaigns, combat, or in the conduct of other business. In most cases, the absence of a well-laid plan can have adverse effects: For example, a non-robust project plan can cost the organization time and money[1].
* Informal or ad-hoc plans are created by individuals in all of their pursuits.

The most popular ways to describe plans are by their breadth, time frame, and specificity; however, these planning classifications are not independent of one another. For instance, there is a close relationship between the short-and long-term categories and the strategic and operational categories.

It is common for less formal plans to be created as abstract ideas, and remain in that form as they are maintained and put to use. More formal plans as used for business and military purposes, while initially created with and as an abstract thought, are likely to be written down, drawn up or otherwise stored in a form that is accessible to multiple people across time and space. This allows more reliable collaboration in the execution of the plan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

bicker said:


> You do understand the meaning of the word "plan" -- right?


You do understand "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking," -- right? The FCC could turn the items above into regulations in as little as four months. They've given every indication that they intend to move forward on these proposals quickly. They could have tabled this when their congressional hearing was postponed, but instead they appear to be moving ahead full speed.

Will every proposal make it through as posed above? Maybe not. But the plan proposes moving toward greater competition that would benefit innovators and consumers and disappoint cable industry players who depend on limited competition for their profits. And their fans.



> The real question is whether folks are going to get themselves invested in the hopes that the plan would tend to foster: Everyone should ask themselves whether they are going to let themselves be snowed-over yet again, raising your own expectations without benefit of any firm promise to satisfy those expectations, and then come back X months from now stewing in a pot of disappointment and frustration. Yet again. Or will folks decide to follow the path of reason and therefore reasonable expectation instead.
> 
> We'll see who follows which path.


You're nothing if not predictable. You're trying to set the stage for declaring victory if every aspect of the plan doesn't go through. No dice. The only expectation that I have is for progress toward a fully competitive market for set top boxes, broadband, and programming services. Unless the FCC fails to implement any of the new rules that they are set to propose I think I'm safe in that regard.

I do have hope (hope being different than expectation) that we'll see substantial progress on these fronts based on the fact that the FCC has bundled this effort in with a much larger objective on broadband. The FCC has declared that there's a problem with a much larger scope than housewives not being able to watch the Soap network. The cable industry is going to have a hard time selling their position that things are fine the way that they are or that they should be allowed to stall progress in hopes that a more friendly regime may come to power in a few years.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

billyecho said:


> Plan
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Oh gosh you're setting yourself up for major disappointment.



nrc said:


> You do understand "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking," -- right? The FCC could turn the items above into regulations in as little as four months.


Or not.



nrc said:


> Will every proposal make it through as posed above? Maybe not.


At least you're not going to be as horribly disappointed as Billy.



nrc said:


> You're nothing if not predictable. You're trying to set the stage for declaring victory if every aspect of the plan doesn't go through.


Read how invested Billy is in having happen exactly what he thinks should happen. I'm talking about the difference between satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Unreasonable expectations are running rampant because people, like Billy, aren't being reasonable. *That*, unfortunately, is what is predictable.

Did everyone catch the future of TiVo, this week, i.e., its adoption by RCN as their preferred leased DVR.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

i cant think of single customer or CE manufacturer who wouldn't want this. Thats significant amount, and if i never watched comcast vod again, i wouldnt care.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

If the world was just made up of customers and CE manufacturers, then it would be a done deal, in reality.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

Videodrome said:


> i cant think of single customer or CE manufacturer who wouldn't want this. Thats significant amount, and if i never watched comcast vod again, i wouldnt care.


If all you want is a single customer - you got one. I do not want any part of it. I don't want FCC to force satellite or cable providers to implement the gateway to make TiVo happy and pass the costs to me. I'm perfectly happy with a way things are now.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

samo said:


> I don't want FCC to force satellite or cable providers to implement the gateway to make TiVo happy and pass the costs to me. I'm perfectly happy with a way things are now.


Satellite providers were granted special concessions in the past. Why should they get a free ride forever?
It's time to pay back that "loan"... with interest.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

samo said:


> If all you want is a single customer - you got one. I do not want any part of it. I don't want FCC to force satellite or cable providers to implement the gateway to make TiVo happy and pass the costs to me. I'm perfectly happy with a way things are now.


So already there charge for a cablecard, and or a cablebox. With this proposal they could only charge you for a gateway. So it looks kinda of like a draw. Plus if Satellite providers dont charge, it would make it harder for cable.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

samo said:


> If all you want is a single customer - you got one. I do not want any part of it. I don't want FCC to force satellite or cable providers to implement the gateway to make TiVo happy and pass the costs to me. I'm perfectly happy with a way things are now.


I was happy with renting a telephone from the phone company too.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

Yes, I'm old enough to remember it too. My phone bill went up by factor of 3 after they broke up the AT&T. And I had to buy the phone I already had. Boy, was I pissed. Of course it open for me choices of long distance that I hardly ever use and allowed me to buy cheap Chinese telephones but my bill never went down yet from that hike. Great deal. You want your your cable bill to go up by factor of 3 and wait for competition to step in? Support the new proposal then.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

And the point is that all this talk about what makes specific individuals or portions of a sector happy is missing the point -- that our society has to consider what is fair to, and good for, everyone. And fairness _trumps_ goodness. So no matter how great it would be for us, or for CE manufacturers, to do things that would be unfair to service providers, that does not justify doing those things to service providers. Indeed, if you want to see what happens when service providers are made slaves to society, check out your 1960s and 1970s Soviet history.


----------



## socrplyr (Jul 19, 2006)

bicker said:


> And the point is that all this talk about what makes specific individuals or portions of a sector happy is missing the point -- that our society has to consider what is fair to, and good for, everyone. And fairness _trumps_ goodness. So no matter how great it would be for us, or for CE manufacturers, to do things that would be unfair to service providers, that does not justify doing those things to service providers. Indeed, if you want to see what happens when service providers are made slaves to society, check out your 1960s and 1970s Soviet history.


Wow... bicker, I clearly don't agree with you and that showed earlier in the thread, but really? You are going to say that making providers use a standard interface will turn us into a totalitarian society. That is a bit deluded my friend.

Here are a couple of things you should ponder:
Fact: I used to be able to get ALL the channels I paid for with only the use of a television.
Thought: Why shouldn't I be able to do this now?
Thought: Aren't cable boxes an unnecessary waste of resources (electricity and manufacturing) if the TV is capable of tuning everything?
Fact: Back in the analog days the FCC said that providers couldn't charge an additional outlet fee to prevent abuse.
Thought: Why should digital be any different?
Thought: Isn't paying for a cable box at every TV is an outlet fee in disguise?
Fact: Cable providers are already getting a sweetheart deal from the government, which is the ability to run lines through my yard without paying me. They could not realistically exists without this right of way.
Thought: If they get to use my land, shouldn't I be able to get what I want?
Fact: Cable companies are given franchises to provide television service to the home. There is nothing in these agreements that gives them a monopoly on the boxes that can be used to access that service.
Thought: Once the signal is in your home, what gives them the right to block devices from using that service?
Opinion: There is no reason why all 2-way cable services cannot be standardized enough to allow 3rd party boxes to use them. Yet the cable companies block this standardization process and prevents me from using all the services that I am subscribed.

In reality I think you just fail to grasp that the consumer electronics industry is not the same as the television distribution industry. Forcing the use of a cable company's box is vertically integrating two different industries. You can argue all you want, but in general the television distribution industry is not all that competitive for many millions of people in this country. Now lets ignore that thought, but instead look at it from another perspective. The government on behalf of its citizens has granted cable companies these franchises. The cable companies couldn't exist without these franchises. Now the government must also look after its agreements to make sure that they are not failing in mission to provide services for its citizens. If they allowed cable companies to do whatever they wanted, then obviously the cable company is abusing the authority granted in the franchise. If the government doesn't do something to correct this, then the government fails to protect its citizens rights (as they granted rights to the cable companies for private property use, etc.).

My last question for you is:
What is unfair about forcing service providers to use a standard method for distributing signals once it is within my home? How is that unfair to them?


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

Actually I think the cable industry will be behind the changes proposed by this Fall, and instead choose to focus their efforts on getting their interests required in the gateway (a required UI and not raw video services). What I mean is that by agreeing to the CableCARD changes, they can argue that these fixes will help the FCC achieve its goals to set-top box inovation without a new IP gateway requirement. 

Samo and Bicker; question.
Do you believe that set-top boxes are as innovative as mobile phones or game consoles? If not, what changes do you propose that would help spur inovation?


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

wmcbrine said:


> Suggestions for improvements:
> 
> 1. Ban pre-installation of cards in STBs -- all equipment, whether customer- or cableco-provided, should require the same installation procedures. This is essential to making the program work, although it's admittedly a pain in the ass.


I agree with having to do that. While it will be a pain in the ass at first, cable will be driven to make it as smooth for them, and hopefully what they would do will apply to 3rd party boxes as well.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

socrplyr said:


> Wow... bicker, I clearly don't agree with you and that showed earlier in the thread, but really? You are going to say that making providers use a standard interface will turn us into a totalitarian society. That is a bit deluded my friend.


Good thing I didn't say that then.

Don't try to argue against *what I haven't said* -- if you're going to argue with me, argue only with what I have said. Don't pervert it into something easier to argue against, because you really cannot effectively refute what I did say. Your laziness and slothfulness in this regard demonstrates the lack of merit in your argument.



socrplyr said:


> Here are a couple of things you should ponder:


Keep in mind that nothing you've written is news to anyone, least of all me. Nor does any of it constitute anything of unequivocal consequence in this discussion.



socrplyr said:


> In reality I think you just fail to grasp that the consumer electronics industry is not the same as the television distribution industry.


Get over yourself. The reality is that I grasp the industry very well. Perhaps the problem is the reality that I'm outlining for you just scares you so much that you're grasping at straws to try to justify your baseless aspersions.



socrplyr said:


> If the government doesn't do something to correct this, then the government fails to protect its citizens rights


The people who own interest in service providers are citizens. They have rights. Your *wanting* doesn't trump their property *rights*.



socrplyr said:


> My last question for you is:
> What is unfair about forcing service providers to use a standard method for distributing signals once it is within my home? How is that unfair to them?


It's *their *business. That's why. They're not your slaves.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

bdraw said:


> Do you believe that set-top boxes are as innovative as mobile phones or game consoles? If not, what changes do you propose that would help spur inovation?


The best way to motivate innovation is to make it the most profitable approach, instead of regulating all motivation out of the system.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> The best way to motivate innovation is to make it the most profitable approach, instead of regulating all motivation out of the system.


But when you are the only choice, or close to it, profit will come regardless of what you do or how innovative you are.

After all, that's how public employee unions can negotiate 4% raises in a recession and the taxpayers have no choice but to pay the increased taxes.

The cable industry, with few exceptions, hasn't shown that they want to give the customer the state of the art. They only do so when faced with competition. Satellite pushed ahead digital cable. FiOS and UVerse pushed cable companies to deliver more HD channels and faster broadband speeds with DOCSIS3. Satellite pushed cable companies to deliver DVRs, because cable customers were leaving cable for DirecTV and Dish network where they could get DVRs for one monthly rental fee.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

bicker said:


> The best way to motivate innovation is to make it the most profitable approach, instead of regulating all motivation out of the system.


you mean the way it is now ? without the gateway approach ?


----------



## RealityCheck (Feb 15, 2007)

The FCC will back the proposal of the party who's willing to spend the most. That's how politics work in Capitalism. The majority of people will keep paying for TV out of habit, or inability to receive signals otherwise. Customers only matter in relation to how much revenue can be squeezed from us.

"Addressable Pole Traps" would be great, or a system where a single provisioning/decryption point is established per household. Beyond that, the signal can be sent in "Clear" QAM256 and MPEG2 or h.264. This would work well for most, but certainly not for MVPDs. I know this will never happen as it's too "pro consumer/CEA".


----------



## socrplyr (Jul 19, 2006)

bicker said:


> Good thing I didn't say that then.
> 
> 1. Don't try to argue against *what I haven't said* -- if you're going to argue with me, argue only with what I have said. Don't pervert it into something easier to argue against, because you really cannot effectively refute what I did say. Your laziness and slothfulness in this regard demonstrates the lack of merit in your argument.
> 
> ...


1. If you weren't making the argument that it will turn us into a totalitarian society like the Soviet society, why did you bring up the Soviets? You used it to say we aren't like the Soviet, which implies that if we do this we are like the Soviets... You shouldn't bring in a comparison that is not valid. I don't know how it makes me lazy for pointing out that you made a bonehead move in making the comparison to the Soviets. You were the one who made an argument that you only partially thought through. I guess that makes you the lazy one... I don't really mean that, but why the personal attack?

2. I know it is not news and you seem intelligent so I figured you would have thought about it. However, you have not read into the full ramifications of it. When cable started they made them open it up so that you would not need special equipment. This was done in return for the franchises and right of ways. Then times change and cable companies started using digital instead of analog. Under the intent of the original rules, you still shouldn't need special equipment as a condition for the franchise and right of way. Obviously that didn't happen. Again, why the personal attack?

3. So you state that you understand there is a difference between the video distribution industry and the consumer electronics industry. I am not sure how my views show that I am stuck on myself?

4. When have I said anything that would step on the rights of the video service providers? All I have asked for is that they hold up their end of their original bargaining that they did in order to receive franchises. That deal was made on my behalf by the government and they aren't being held to it. Thus why I ask the FCC to do so. What property rights do they have? They don't own the content. The only right they have is to transmit it to me, as given to them by the content providers. They have no "property" rights inside my home, because they have no property inside my home.

5. Umm, when have I suggested making anyone my slave. In reality, I want less control over how they deliver it to my house. Once it is in my house however it should be how I want it. They did not create the content nor do they have any right to do anything with it other than transmit it to my house. Thus they should have no say over how I view it.

5. Actually according to #3 you said you grasp the market very well. So how are cable boxes their business? Their business is providing a signal to my house.

In reality, I don't really blame the cable industry for what has happened here. I blame the FCC who has failed keep up with the current state of technology and foresee the ramifications of not updating the rules to include such technologies. Now I don't necessarily believe in the full proposal here, but I do agree that there should be an available standard to push video around your house which would allow your own devices to view ANY of the content you are paying for.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

Raj said:


> The cable industry, with few exceptions, hasn't shown that they want to give the customer the state of the art. They only do so when faced with competition. Satellite pushed ahead digital cable. FiOS and UVerse pushed cable companies to deliver more HD channels and faster broadband speeds with DOCSIS3. Satellite pushed cable companies to deliver DVRs, because cable customers were leaving cable for DirecTV and Dish network where they could get DVRs for one monthly rental fee.


Here you go. You just found a perfect argument against any gateway. Competition already exists and drives innovation without any FCC help.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

samo said:


> Here you go. You just found a perfect argument against any gateway. Competition already exists and drives innovation without any FCC help.


No it has nothing to do with the gateway, it has to do with common protocol, which does not exist. A new tv should work across platforms, regardless if it satellite or cable, or Internet, that is the proposal. Basically you are saying you are against advancement. This is similar to how GSM was brought about, there was 5 incompatible cellular networks, then GSM was the required standard. The result was a thousands of handsets, and much competition. Not having a standard protocol across systems will just slow innovation more.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

Videodrome said:


> The result was a thousands of handsets, and much competition. Not having a standard protocol across systems will just slow innovation more.


This is why un-locked phones are so popular today. Right? Do you know anybody who has un-locked phone?


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

samo said:


> This is why un-locked phones are so popular today. Right? Do you know anybody who has un-locked phone?


Actually lots of people have unlocked handsets. They are the norm in many countries outside of the US (and in some it is against the law for carriers to lock handsets in many countries) I've had two unlocked handsets myself.

So, you look a bit foolish claiming that this is a bad comparison.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

samo said:


> Here you go. You just found a perfect argument against any gateway. Competition already exists and drives innovation without any FCC help.


Competition is not universal. In many places here the only way to watch TV is the cable company.

Satellite is not an option for those living in the valley or blocked by trees (trees that in many cases they do not have permission to cut down). OTA reception is extremely difficult here and impossible for some people. The only option is cable.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

samo said:


> This is why un-locked phones are so popular today. Right? Do you know anybody who has un-locked phone?


You're right. Nobody jailbreaks and unlocks their phones. Nobody.


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

bicker said:


> The best way to motivate innovation is to make it the most profitable approach, instead of regulating all motivation out of the system.


I doubt many would disagree with that, but I was really asking what types of proposals that you think would make a "profitable approach." So specifically what should be done to spur inovation. After all that is what we are really talking about here.


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

samo said:


> This is why un-locked phones are so popular today. Right? Do you know anybody who has un-locked phone?


People don't have a problem with contracts, but we're not really talking about that. The cell phone equivalent would be like every AT&T cell phone being the free phone and if Apple wanted to make a phone it would have to have the same UI as the free phone does or go without caller ID, voice mail and other features that are included with the free phone.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

bdraw said:


> People don't have a problem with contracts, but we're not really talking about that. The cell phone equivalent would be like every AT&T cell phone being the free phone and if Apple wanted to make a phone it would have to have the same UI as the free phone does or go without caller ID, voice mail and other features that are included with the free phone.


No, it would be like if Apple iPhone only worked with AT&T. Imagine how ridiculous it would be?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Raj said:


> But when you are the only choice, or close to it, profit will come regardless of what you do or how innovative you are.


Tell that to the millions of people who have DirecTV or Dish Network. 

Regardless, your argument actually advocates to remove the waiver that DirecTV and Dish Network have. *Think about why the FCC hasn't done that* despite the arguments you've made, or read and agreed with, regarding open-access. If you really think it is fair to do anything substantial with regard to CableCARD *before forcing DirecTV and Dish Network to comply with separable security* in the first place, then I can only conclude that you're totally blinding by your own personal preferences and simply are incapable of seeing anything that integrates an understanding of reality outside of what affects you personally.

Again: STOP. Think. If all this hubbub about fairness and cable was really something the FCC was going to pursue, then why haven't they done even the minimal amount to satellite providers? ... much less apply the whole set of regulations on the satellite providers that they've already imposed on cable providers (even though you don't like how it doesn't force the cable providers to bend over for you).



Raj said:


> [Political comment deleted.]





Raj said:


> The cable industry, with few exceptions, hasn't shown that they want to give the customer the state of the art. They only do so when faced with competition.


Wrong: They only do so, as it should be, when it is the most profitable approach.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Videodrome said:


> you mean the way it is now ?


The best way to motivate innovation is to make it the most profitable approach, instead of regulating all motivation out of the system.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

RealityCheck said:


> The FCC will back the proposal of the party who's willing to spend the most. That's how politics work in Capitalism. The majority of people will keep paying for TV out of habit, or inability to receive signals otherwise. Customers only matter in relation to how much revenue can be squeezed from us.
> 
> "Addressable Pole Traps" would be great, or a system where a single provisioning/decryption point is established per household. Beyond that, the signal can be sent in "Clear" QAM256 and MPEG2 or h.264. This would work well for most, but certainly not for MVPDs. I know this will never happen as it's too "pro consumer/CEA".


A voice of reason in this cacophony if myopic consumerist silliness.


----------



## socrplyr (Jul 19, 2006)

bicker said:


> If you really think it is fair to do anything substantial with regard to CableCARD *before forcing DirecTV and Dish Network to comply with separable security* in the first place, ...
> Again: STOP. Think. If all this hubbub about fairness and cable was really something the FCC was going to pursue, then why haven't they done even the minimal amount to satellite providers? ... much less apply the whole set of regulations on the satellite providers that they've already imposed on cable providers (even though you don't like how it doesn't force the cable providers to bend over for you).


I agree with you that the FCC shouldn't make major changes to CableCard without requiring satellite to have similar rules. I actually view the satellite waver issue as what has really prevented TV and other box makers from attempting to use CableCard in their products. For example, I think if the FCC had enforced a single standard separable security method from the get go, there would be many TVs that would be available right now for use with both satellite and cable. Further I think this would have pushed cable into more quickly creating a reasonable 2-way solution as well as impacted the deployment of SDV. (SDV is a good tech and long overdue in the cable industry and will give them an indefinite advantage over satellite providers.) Overall, I hope they push a software based separable security down the road as it will be more flexible and allow fewer problems hopefully. This would also make it easier for cable companies to use one method and satellite another, or for either to quickly change methods.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

socrplyr said:


> 1. If you weren't making the argument that it will turn us into a totalitarian society like the Soviet society, why did you bring up the Soviets?


I wrote what *I* wrote. Not what you wish I wrote. The aspect of Soviet society that I referred to is what I wrote about. It was the entirety of what I wrote about. Nothing beyond that aspect. 
Try reading *for comprehension*, okay?

Again: Don't try to argue against what I haven't said -- if you're going to argue with me, argue only with what I have said. Don't pervert it into something easier to argue against, because you really cannot effectively refute what I did say. Your laziness and slothfulness in this regard demonstrates the lack of merit in your argument.

Skipping down to the new material in your message...



socrplyr said:


> All I have asked for is that they hold up their end of their original bargaining that they did in order to receive franchises.


They are. You simply want to impose your own personal demands on top of what they agreed to.



socrplyr said:


> That deal was made on my behalf by the government and they aren't being held to it.


Yes they are. You simply want more than what they agreed to.



socrplyr said:


> What property rights do they have?


The right to determine what services they shall and shall not offer, and at what price.



socrplyr said:


> Once it is in my house however it should be how I want it.


No it shouldn't. It should be provided as they promised, not how you want it. That's your problem. You're blinded by your own personal wanting.



socrplyr said:


> Their business is providing a signal to my house.


Wrong. Their business is providing a service to your house.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Videodrome said:


> No it has nothing to do with the gateway, it has to do with common protocol, which does not exist. A new tv should work across platforms, regardless if it satellite or cable, or Internet, that is the proposal.


By "should" you mean "Videodrome wants". That's the issue. Going back to what I said before, if you want industry to do something, give them more incentive - more money - to do it. Instead, the raving consumerists here in this thread are making it very clear that they want more but aren't willing to pay the extra amount that it is worth.



Videodrome said:


> Basically you are saying you are against advancement.


I'm sure he isn't saying that, and again, only blind consumerism would lead you to that conclusion. It would be like me saying *you* are against capitalism, against America.



Videodrome said:


> This is similar to how GSM was brought about...


GSM was brought about because people were willing to put their money where their mouths were - willing to spend tax money on engineering. American consumers are too stingy, too self-centered, for that.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

bdraw said:


> I doubt many would disagree with that, but I was really asking what types of proposals that you think would make a "profitable approach."


I often write (and probably did earlier in this thread) that there may not be any profitable approach to some things... that the best decision may still be a bad decision.

However, the GSM discussion, above, just brought up a good idea:

Have the government fund, with enough funding, a project that is a co-op among industry associations (product and service, together), with a goal of coming up with something that is better *for everyone*, not just consumers and CE manufacturers.

The American taxpayers won't put up with it, though, for the reasons outlined above.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

socrplyr said:


> I agree with you that the FCC shouldn't make major changes to CableCard without requiring satellite to have similar rules. I actually view the satellite waver issue as what has really prevented TV and other box makers from attempting to use CableCard in their products.


I'm glad we agree on something.


----------



## socrplyr (Jul 19, 2006)

RealityCheck said:


> This would work well for most, but certainly not for MVPDs.


Can you explain why this doesn't work well for them?
I see it as working well for an MVPD. MVPD stands for Multichannel Video Programming Distributor. I see them as gaining a lot of freedom in how they transmit those video signals. For example, if this was the method for transmissions, tomorrow a cable company could switch all channels to MPEG4 and not have to worry about it. As long as their "gateways" could convert to the appropriate standard.

Side note: I do hope that if a proposal like the one given here were to go through, for the sake of the cable companies and bandwidth concerns MPEG4 would be allowed as an output method from the "gateway." Personally, I wouldn't see a bit of difference in my house, but for the cable operators it would allow a large bandwidth savings.

Now I do see that MVPDs rent cable boxes and that they will see increased competition, but box rentals are not their main business nor is it really the arm of the MVPDs that the FCCs regulate. The FCC regulates the distribution arm, not the box arm. They say the distribution arm must use separable security, which effects the box arm. However, it isn't intended as a direct regulation on the box arm.

In reality, I don't think cable companies have much to worry about under these types of rules. It is the satellite companies that do. Satellite's model of forcing contracts would have to change. Currently, in order to add a TV to your house you must first pay a fee, which pretty much covers the production cost of the box, then you must sign a 2 year agreement and on top of that pay extra monthly. (Warning Personal Opinion: I think this is crazy and I feel sorry for those that can only get satellite and don't want a long term commitment just to add a single TV.) Now the reason why I see this as worrisome for the satellite companies is they will actually have to compete and not just rope customers in indefinitely every time they need to make small equipment change.


----------



## socrplyr (Jul 19, 2006)

bicker said:


> I'm glad we agree on something.


I think that we agree on a lot more than you do. I believe that we both think that the MVPDs should have a lot of freedom in what they do. The difference between us is where we think the MVPD ends. I believe they only are able to exist due to the rights granted from the franchises (or spectrum rights in the case of satellite), which grants them abilities to distribute the signals without paying fees (or only one time fees). Thus, I believe that after distribution is complete (aka it is at my home) that I should have a good amount of control over what I do with it (which I also believe was the intention in granting the franchise). From my understanding you believe that MVPDs extend farther through display or at least have the rights to make the signal incompatible until that point. I think that we both agree that at somewhere the signal must become compatible to a standard. The way you argue it seems like it should be after the box with an HDMI/Component/etc signal. I think it should be before that. I don't necessarily believe it should be IP based like the proposed rule says, but lets imagine something similar to the QAM based approach we have now with MoCA for 2-way communication.

Finally, you believe that the proposal would affect MVPDs, but I believe that it would only affect the companies that own the MVPDs. For example, Time Warner Cable isn't an MVPD, it is an MVPD, box rental, ISP, and telco. I also believe that the use of a "gateway" wouldn't necessarily be negative for TWC as it will give them a lot more freedom to use the transmission lines how they see fit. I don't see TWC having to stop renting boxes, nor do I see a mass exodus of people from their boxes. Lets be honest, most people are lazy or avoid upfront costs. It wouldn't be until TV manufacturers integrate the ability to tune the output of a gateway that we would see much change in the industry at all.

I do have a question for you however. What are your thoughts on the original intentions of CableCards? I view these proposed rules as no different than the original intentions (satellite companies included) of CableCards, but updated to reflect the current technologies and to address some of the failures of CableCards. Now CableCards were neutered and so I bet these will be as well, but that doesn't mean I am not hopeful


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> Wrong: They only do so, as it should be, when it is the most profitable approach.


Wrong, we are dealing with regulated public utilities here. (And if you don't believe that cable TV is a public utility, take it up with the states that regulate it under their public utility commission.)

Since they are given concessions such as access to public and private land and the use of radio frequencies, they are regulated so that the interests of those who granted them those privileges are met.

If they had negotiated everything from scratch and all agreements between them and land owners were done without Government intervention to forcibly seize easement rights, and had not used public airwaves (like satellite companies do) then maybe they could operate unfettered and improve only when they wish to.

But as it is, they were granted resources core to their business which they would not have otherwise gotten had it not been for the Government forcibly seizing land rights and giving access to RF spectrum. In exchange for this they have an obligation, and they are not meeting it. This is where the FCC intends to correct the imbalance.



> Tell that to the millions of people who have DirecTV or Dish Network.


Tell that to the millions who can't get it for whatever reason.

As I said, competition isn't universal. You ignore that to its face because it doesn't suit your agenda. When you let go of the ignorance and view the whole argument maybe then we can have a discussion. As it is you're a broken record that's not playing the right tune.



> Regardless, your argument actually advocates to remove the waiver that DirecTV and Dish Network have.


I think we agree that the waiver should be removed.



> Think about why the FCC hasn't done that despite the arguments you've made, or read and agreed with, regarding open-access. If you really think it is fair to do anything substantial with regard to CableCARD before forcing DirecTV and Dish Network to comply with separable security in the first place, then I can only conclude that you're totally blinding by your own personal preferences and simply are incapable of seeing anything that integrates an understanding of reality outside of what affects you personally.


Actually it *is* fair to fix CableCARD before the solution that encompasses all MVPDs is developed.

Remember that the cable industry *agreed* to CableCARD and basically set the terms by which they would comply with the provisions of the telecom act. The FCC didn't just come up with the standard out of thin air.

Now we are seeing that they've used it to stifle innovation and control the market. The problem has been identified by third party manufacturers (i.e. TiVo and others) and the fix is to put everyone on level ground - the ban on pre-provisioning would be a HUGE step. If cable companies are forced to provision CableCARDs in the field for every piece of equipment that decodes and decrypt TV signals then they would be forced to fix their systems that are broken and preventing customer owned equipment from working properly.

And this doesn't let satellite off the hook either. It is simply fixing an existing problem while working on the larger one.


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

bicker said:


> I often write (and probably did earlier in this thread) that there may not be any profitable approach to some things... that the best decision may still be a bad decision.
> 
> However, the GSM discussion, above, just brought up a good idea:
> 
> ...


So basically you are saying you don't have any constructive recommendations to spur set-top box competition.


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

samo said:


> No, it would be like if Apple iPhone only worked with AT&T. Imagine how ridiculous it would be?


I'm not sure what your problem is, but it isn't the same. The fact is I can choose to pay a premium for an iPhone to get a better experience without sacrificing features of the service. This is NOT something I can currently do with cable TV or satellite.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

socrplyr said:


> I believe they only are able to exist due to the rights granted from the franchises (or spectrum rights in the case of satellite), which grants them abilities to distribute the signals without paying fees (or only one time fees). Thus, I believe that after distribution is complete (aka it is at my home) that I should have a good amount of control over what I do with it (which I also believe was the intention in granting the franchise).


You must be using the word "*Thus*" in a manner totally inconsistent with its definition. Nothing you wrote before "Thus" implies what you wrote after "Thus". Everything you wrote after "Thus" is just a reflection of your own personal preference, not any rights, expressed or implied.

They are distributing a *service *to you. Not a signal. If you want signals, you're going to have to launch your own satellite, and create your own distribution service provider. Otherwise, you contract with an existing service provider to bring *their* service into your home, i.e., what they offer, how they offer it. You can choose between several, as long as you haven't made prior personal decisions that effectively have limited your personal available choices. The fact that none of the providers offer what you personally want offered to you is a reflection of the fact that what you want isn't *worth *providing. Since they're not charities, what they offer must be worth providing, the best possible return for their investment, or they shouldn't be offering it.



socrplyr said:


> From my understanding you believe that MVPDs extend farther through display or at least have the rights to make the signal incompatible until that point.


Given what I wrote above, this is non-sequitur.



socrplyr said:


> I think that we both agree that at somewhere the signal must become compatible to a standard. The way you argue it seems like it should be after the box with an HDMI/Component/etc signal. I think it should be before that.


Let's go back to basic principles: Where does it say that things need to be the way you want them to be? Nowhere. So let's at least start with the crux of the issue, that what you've been presenting at "should" are really just what you want.

Beyond that, my main point is that we should not even be discussing these comparative trivialities until *after *they fix the inequity between the rules imposed on cable versus satellite providers. After they've done that, then let's have a chat about the impact of what you want on the industry, because until you've done that, these issues that you and I disagree about are nothing more than *noise *by comparison to the humongous inequity that the DBS waiver of separable security represents.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Raj said:


> Wrong, we are dealing with regulated public utilities here. (And if you don't believe that cable TV is a public utility, take it up with the states that regulate it under their public utility commission.)


Wrong! The Cable Act of 1992 removed any and all regulatory authority on the upper tier services provided by cable television providers.

They are only a public utility with regard to provision of local over-the-air broadcast channels. And *unremarkably* they provide them in-the-clear.

... or were you unaware of that?



Raj said:


> Tell that to the millions who can't get it for whatever reason.


I just did. "Whatever reason" is a personal choice that those people made for themselves. The law is fair and just, not laser-beam focused only on what's good for Raj.



Raj said:


> As I said, competition isn't universal.


Competition is present in every market in the country.



Raj said:


> You ignore that to its face because it doesn't suit your agenda.


I ignore your irrelevancies because they're irrelevant. The law doesn't provide for you to make whatever choice you want to make for yourself and the forces everyone else to change what they're doing because you make such a personal choice for yourself. Your thinking that it should ludicrous and myopic.



Raj said:


> When you let go of the ignorance and view the whole argument maybe then we can have a discussion.


Son, I'm a consumer and a businessman. I see both sides, while you clearly only see things as a consumer. We can have a discussion as I school you about the realities of the world, or not; your choice.



Raj said:


> As it is you're a broken record that's not playing the right tune.


In other words, I'm not letting you have an unrebutted soap-box to peddle your uber-consumerist wet-dream. Stop posting such self-motivated perspectives and I'll then be able to stop correcting you.



Raj said:


> I think we agree that the waiver should be removed.


So get that done, first, since the lack of justice there is so obvious and so egregious, that we actually agree about it. Then we can pick up our discussion about items for which we are not in concert, after that.



Raj said:


> Actually it *is* fair to fix CableCARD before the solution that encompasses all MVPDs is developed.


Not it isn't.



Raj said:


> Remember that the cable industry *agreed* to CableCARD and basically set the terms by which they would comply with the provisions of the telecom act.


And they're complying. And providing far more open access than DBS. No further movement on the cable front is defensible until DBS is at least close to being as open as cable.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

bdraw said:


> So basically you are saying you don't have any constructive recommendations to spur set-top box competition.


Did you even read the messages you replied to?


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> Wrong! The Cable Act of 1992 removed any and all regulatory authority on the upper tier services provided by cable television providers.


That doesn't appear to be true, given the FCC's authority to deal with decryption equipment such as CableCARD.



> They are only a public utility with regard to provision of local over-the-air broadcast channels. And *unremarkably* they provide them in-the-clear.


Not everywhere. Not in some cities.



> And they're complying. And providing far more open access than DBS. No further movement on the cable front is defensible until DBS is at least close to being as open as cable.


Cable never lived up to the intent of the CableCARD mandate, so they still haven't fully complied.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

You guys write lots of words.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

bicker said:


> I often write (and probably did earlier in this thread) that there may not be any profitable approach to some things... that the best decision may still be a bad decision.
> 
> However, the GSM discussion, above, just brought up a good idea:
> 
> ...


let see, in europe, the operators had a financial incentive to adopt gsm. because it facilitated roaming. So they would benefit greatly. The only stipulation was that if you used 900mhz it had to be GSM.

Now i think consumer and CE manufactures are everyone, you see, that cablecard thing worked out so well, the cable companies demonstrated there true attitude towards the consumer. So basicaly your saying cable wants cash to provide something it already does. Lets go full internet cable!


----------



## socrplyr (Jul 19, 2006)

bicker said:


> You must be using the word "*Thus*" in a manner totally inconsistent with its definition. Nothing you wrote before "Thus" implies what you wrote after "Thus". Everything you wrote after "Thus" is just a reflection of your own personal preference, not any rights, expressed or implied.


Umm? Alright moving on...



bicker said:


> They are distributing a *service *to you. Not a signal. If you want signals, you're going to have to launch your own satellite, and create your own distribution service provider. Otherwise, you contract with an existing service provider to bring *their* service into your home, i.e., what they offer, how they offer it. You can choose between several, as long as you haven't made prior personal decisions that effectively have limited your personal available choices. The fact that none of the providers offer what you personally want offered to you is a reflection of the fact that what you want isn't *worth *providing. Since they're not charities, what they offer must be worth providing, the best possible return for their investment, or they shouldn't be offering it.


Actually this a good statement for you, it helps me use your own terminology to phrase my discuss. I view the MVPD's service as providing the television to your house and nothing else. Renting a box is a separate service, otherwise it would have been free. You state that it is a "fact that what you want is not worth providing." However, that is clearly an opinion as I feel that it might not be as profitable, but definitely still worth providing. Obviously, there are always things that companies could do to be more profitable, but that is why the regulations are there to keep them reasonable when they utilize property they don't own themselves. When anyone talks on here in a discussion like this everything that is said is opinions, but that doesn't mean they should be completely dismissed.



bicker said:


> Let's go back to basic principles: Where does it say that things need to be the way you want them to be? Nowhere. So let's at least start with the crux of the issue, that what you've been presenting at "should" are really just what you want.


Where does it say things need to be the way you want them to be? (Which to be honest I am not sure what you want.)



bicker said:


> Beyond that, my main point is that we should not even be discussing these comparative trivialities until *after *they fix the inequity between the rules imposed on cable versus satellite providers. After they've done that, then let's have a chat about the impact of what you want on the industry, because until you've done that, these issues that you and I disagree about are nothing more than *noise *by comparison to the humongous inequity that the DBS waiver of separable security represents.


I absolutely agree with the part about the DBS waiver being a much more important issue. That is why I think the idea for the "gateway" has merit. Satellite providers really have no excuse to get a waiver from that type of device.

Now you never answered my question from the previous thread, so I will rephrase it here. Ignoring past/current/future implementations, do you feel that you should be able to use your own device (Tivo, Moxi, TV, computer, etc.) to receive television services from all MVPDs? 
I consider this the original idea behind the now neutered CableCard.


----------



## socrplyr (Jul 19, 2006)

Raj said:


> Cable never lived up to the intent of the CableCARD mandate, so they still haven't fully complied.


Watch out Raj! Bicker is about to refute you on the basis that that is an opinion, but not mention that it is only his opinion that they have.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Raj said:


> > The Cable Act of 1992 removed any and all regulatory authority on the upper tier services provided by cable television providers.
> 
> 
> That doesn't appear to be true, given the FCC's authority to deal with decryption equipment such as CableCARD.


It not only appears to be true, but it is true. As a matter of fact, in this case, apparently you simply replied without reading what you were replying to.



Raj said:


> Not everywhere. Not in some cities.


There has been only one waiver, for a part of one city. Check your facts before posting next time.

Beyond that, you should be aware that in order to get a waiver they have to show sufficient cause.



Raj said:


> Cable never lived up to the intent of the CableCARD mandate,


Yes they did. They didn't live up to your personal intent, and the intent of some folks on the FCC, but the mandate is a law, and the law's intent is the purview of the courts. If you really had any leg to stand on, you could get the courts to take action against cable companies. You can't, because, again, cable lived up to their obligations, completely.



Raj said:


> so they still haven't fully complied.


Yes they have. You just don't like how that worked out for you.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Videodrome said:


> Now i think consumer and CE manufactures are everyone


Which is, of course, ridiculous, since you're leaving out a lot of stakeholders who should be included in "everyone"



Videodrome said:


> So basicaly your saying cable wants cash to provide something it already does.


Not at all. What I'm saying is if you think that there should be some other solution, then, *like in the example you provided*, have government fund the engineering. Not cable. Not CableLabs. The government. Don't make industry pay the costs for castrating themselves.

And again, the reason why it didn't go that way and won't is that Americans don't really care about this, despite your whining about it, and so they won't want to spent their money to essentially just make things better for us TiVo owners and a few others who have too much time on our hands and so we can watch more television than we should.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

socrplyr said:


> Umm? Alright moving on...


Don't move on until you've actually understood what you're replying to. The point I was making is that you were using your own preferences as justification for your own preferences.



socrplyr said:


> I view the MVPD's service as providing the television to your house and nothing else.


The service is whatever they offer. If you don't like what they offer, you have full control to decline their offer and do without it.



socrplyr said:


> You state that it is a "fact that what you want is not worth providing." However, that is clearly an opinion as I feel that it might not be as profitable, but definitely still worth providing.


Two things. First, the implication is that it is not worth it to them to provide you what you want. Second, it isn't really an opinion. It's a self-evident fact. If it was worth it to them, then obviously they'd provide it.



socrplyr said:


> Obviously, there are always things that companies could do to be more profitable, but that is why the regulations are there to keep them reasonable when they utilize property they don't own themselves.


That doesn't apply to upper-tier services, and CableCARD generally only applies to upper-tier services. Again, the FCC will snow you under with lollipop tales, but watch what they do.



socrplyr said:


> Where does it say things need to be the way you want them to be? (Which to be honest I am not sure what you want.)


That's very astute of you. Most people totally miss the fact that I practically never inject my own personal preferences into the discussion. My premise is that our personal preferences are irrelevant. Thinking that they should hold sway over how things should be would be ridiculously self-centered.

Rather, I stick to facts and basic principles: What is the law? Why are things the way they are? Why do things work out the way they work out? How do people typically behave? What impact does that typically have?

Unlike most people posting in this thread, my objective is not to try to make people think "my way" is the best way. Instead, my objective is to ensure that as many people as possible actually develop reasonable expectations, so as to minimize the shock, surprise, disappointment, dismay, etc., that I see being fostered by the unreasonable expectations that pervasive entitlement mentality affects.



socrplyr said:


> Now you never answered my question from the previous thread, so I will rephrase it here. Ignoring past/current/future implementations, do you feel that you should be able to use your own device (Tivo, Moxi, TV, computer, etc.) to receive television services from all MVPDs?


As stated, as an absolute and unconditional requirement as you worded it, there is no such "right". Clearly if it is in the service providers' interests to provide that kind of service, then it should be provided. We're not entitled to it. We never have been, and probably never will be. The CableCARD mandate and as it has been implemented represents the entirety of what we're entitled to.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> Yes they have. You just don't like how that worked out for you.


Me personally? On the contrary. My cable provider is pretty cooperative, at least they've been cooperative with me. My CableCARD installations went off without a problem. They're more than willing to talk to me and help me fully resolve any problems I am having with my setup. They've even helped out people who needed TVGOS data by installing TVGOS inserters at the headend at their request.

Rather, I'm talking about others who have been told one or more of the following:

"CableCARDs are only for TiVos, you can't have one unless it's for a TiVo. You'll need a cable box." (when asked for a CableCARD for a moxi or media center PC)

"It's a CableCARD problem, not our problem, talk to TiVo" (even though a signal analyzer says otherwise)

"You can pick up a CableCARD at the (cable company name) store" (only to go there and be turned away and told that CableCARDs require a truck roll)

"We don't carry CableCARDs anymore because the FCC says they're obsolete"

And I can go on and on and on.

Clearly there is still some disconnect that's causing these issues.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

bicker said:


> Which is, of course, ridiculous, since you're leaving out a lot of stakeholders who should be included in "everyone"
> 
> Not at all. What I'm saying is if you think that there should be some other solution, then, *like in the example you provided*, have government fund the engineering. Not cable. Not CableLabs. The government. Don't make industry pay the costs for castrating themselves.
> 
> And again, the reason why it didn't go that way and won't is that Americans don't really care about this, despite your whining about it, and so they won't want to spent their money to essentially just make things better for us TiVo owners and a few others who have too much time on our hands and so we can watch more television than we should.


But the entire industry has to change whether cable, satellite, Ip providers, and OTA. Why are saying cable is the only one affected ? Cable hurt themselves by there lackluster support for cablecard. I can tell you a story, for example..

1. We dont have cable cards, and we dont know when there are getting them back in .

2. Its tivos fault, (5 mins on the phone with tivo operator Instructs cable rep how to provision a card)

3. Its your service plan, we need to change your plan to fix your problem, tivo was working for 2 years without a problem...

so you see, maybe Cable cant handle the responsibility, and the government has to mandate a standard.


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

bicker said:


> Did you even read the messages you replied to?


Yes I read it, I was asking you for specific recommendations that YOU think would spur innovation and you told me to have the gov't fund research. So let me ask another way. If the entity doing research asked you for specific things that could be done, what would you tell them?


----------



## socrplyr (Jul 19, 2006)

bicker said:


> Don't move on until you've actually understood what you're replying to. The point I was making is that you were using your own preferences as justification for your own preferences.


I was well aware of what you were saying, but you need to realize that you obviously are not an expert on grammar. The word thus can be used to show that the prior thought implies the next thought. It does for most, except you. Furthermore, the statement said "I believe," denoting that it was an opinion. Whether or not you agreed with the grammar, you still understood it, yet you ranted about it... Why?



bicker said:


> The service is whatever they offer. If you don't like what they offer, you have full control to decline their offer and do without it.


Your opinion, which the FCC doesn't agree with. Otherwise there would be no CableCard rules.



bicker said:


> Two things. First, the implication is that it is not worth it to them to provide you what you want. Second, it isn't really an opinion. It's a self-evident fact. If it was worth it to them, then obviously they'd provide it.


bicker's opinion equal self evident facts, anyone else's are not. Very convenient. Ah, but you forget that they are using their position as a MVPD to control the box market. You still don't see that there are two services being provided here. One is television distribution and the other is box rentals. Do you think TVs should be incompatible as well and only available through rental from an MVPD? Now for a more constructive thought. The real reason why it isn't worth it to them is that the FCC gave Satellite a waiver. I think cable would be jumping all over themselves to give Tivo access to VOD/PPV/SDV, if a Tivo could be used with Satellite and Cable interchangeably. I bet they would much rather lose the box fee and what not than lose you as a video service subscription.



bicker said:


> That doesn't apply to upper-tier services, and CableCARD generally only applies to upper-tier services. Again, the FCC will snow you under with lollipop tales, but watch what they do.


Again, your opinion that it isn't considered regulation. It is a self-evident fact that upper-tier services are regulated by the government. Otherwise they would not be covered by CableCard. Do you think that CableCard is not regulation?



bicker said:


> That's very astute of you. Most people totally miss the fact that I practically never inject my own personal preferences into the discussion. My premise is that our personal preferences are irrelevant. Thinking that they should hold sway over how things should be would be ridiculously self-centered.
> Rather, I stick to facts and basic principles: What is the law? Why are things the way they are? Why do things work out the way they work out? How do people typically behave? What impact does that typically have?
> Unlike most people posting in this thread, my objective is not to try to make people think "my way" is the best way. Instead, my objective is to ensure that as many people as possible actually develop reasonable expectations, so as to minimize the shock, surprise, disappointment, dismay, etc., that I see being fostered by the unreasonable expectations that pervasive entitlement mentality affects.


First of all the majority of what you say is only opinion. You are interpreting the little you know about the rules and laws in the way that best fits your needs. Now often you do interpret correctly, other times not. I do interject my opinion, but I do not hide that fact. I find your comments while often valid, sometimes misplaced. Other times they aren't valid or are made in an inflammatory way, which isn't necessary. To claim that you only use facts is clearly fallacy. The thought that you know how a court would decide is not rational either.



bicker said:


> As stated, as an absolute and unconditional requirement as you worded it, there is no such "right". Clearly if it is in the service providers' interests to provide that kind of service, then it should be provided. We're not entitled to it. We never have been, and probably never will be. The CableCARD mandate and as it has been implemented represents the entirety of what we're entitled to.


I find your thoughts here interesting. You are quite the fatalist. You state that we are entitled to whatever came out of CableCard, but your previous arguments are such that suggest that CableCard or at least implementing it as many feel the original rules dictate isn't a reasonable desire. You act as though we should speak devoid of desire. It is very interesting. It also seems me that if CableCard wasn't implemented, you believe it wouldn't be fair to the MVPDs to implement it.

I now have another question for you. Which of the suggested rules do you desire? I am not asking what you think will come to pass, but if you were being selfish about what you want.
A quick list of proposed rules (maybe not all inclusive):
1. Equality amongst MVPD and 3rd party devices in terms of availability (in office) and pricing (charge on both) of CableCards
2. Access to on-demand features (VOD, SDV, PPV, etc)
3. "gateway" concept for all providers
4. Requiring equivalent rules for both Satellite and Cable operators


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Videodrome said:


> But the entire industry has to change whether cable, satellite, Ip providers, and OTA. Why are saying cable is the only one affected ?


There is nothing in "fix CableCARD this year" that affects anyone other than CableCARD. However, your point is well-taken. If satellite isn't granted yet-another waiver; and if IPTV doesn't dodge compliance by saying they're not really a MVPD, then that one comment won't apply.



Videodrome said:


> Cable hurt themselves by there lackluster support for cablecard.


So you claim. You can't prove it objectively, and I cannot refute it objectively, so it's just noise.



bdraw said:


> Yes I read it, I was asking you for specific recommendations that YOU think would spur innovation and you told me to have the gov't fund research. So let me ask another way. If the entity doing research asked you for specific things that could be done, what would you tell them?


I would probably think about whether to help them or not, based on whether I want to put my family through that sort of thing, again, and if I decided to help them, I would spend a good amount of time gathering up the requirements, getting all the stakeholders to agree to prioritization, and then would come up with a set of really sound suggestions consistent with the requirements and the prioritization.

I wouldn't be an idiot and just spout whatever lame-brained idea that happens to come to mind in the moment.


----------



## socrplyr (Jul 19, 2006)

bicker said:


> So you claim. You can't prove it objectively, and I cannot refute it objectively, so it's just noise.


I agree with you that it is hard to both show and refute Cable's disdain for CableCards, but there is one very clear example that I think is hard to refute. That is SDV. Not the technology itself (it is a good tech), but the time gap between implementation and the availability of the tuning adapter. They knew full well it would kill 3rd party devices and they didn't design it from the get go as they should have.


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Well, in an aside, the Federal Courts just ruled against the FCC in their net neutrality case against Comcast.

So, hurrah for consumer rights, errr, ya.


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

so, what? that means Comcast can control what we download?

great.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I think what's most interesting is that this is the second time in less than a year that the US Court of Appeals had to smack the FCC, essentially for being bone-headed.

As much as I criticize Kevin Martin, I don't remember the agency being quite so off-the-mark about the law and its responsibilities under his leadership.


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

bicker said:


> I think what's most interesting is that this is the second time in less than a year that the US Court of Appeals had to smack the FCC, essentially for being bone-headed.
> 
> As much as I criticize Kevin Martin, I don't remember the agency being quite so off-the-mark about the law and its responsibilities under his leadership.


Let's be realistic about this. All this ruling means is that the FCCs claims that their ancillary powers to regulate how carriers provide or restrict access to internet content was denied.

Which means that it is likely that congress will have to take action to more concretely cement what the FCC can do with regards to a new medium.

Anyone that thinks that Comcast will be allowed to continue, indefinitely, to filter and drop their subscribers traffic at will is in for a rude awakening... the precedent for this has already been set in the telecom space years ago.

What Comcast is likely to do in retaliation is to put into place a tier structure that will make those with the heaviest use pay more for their "unlimited" access.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

jmpage2 said:


> Well, in an aside, the Federal Courts just ruled against the FCC in their net neutrality case against Comcast.
> 
> So, hurrah for consumer rights, errr, ya.


All this means is that we shouldn't be using laws designed in 1934 to regulate technology in 2010. Simple as that.

And before someone tells me that the constitution is older than that, yes I am aware of that. But the constitution isn't a stupid technology law.


----------



## JimboG (May 27, 2007)

jmpage2 said:


> Let's be realistic about this. All this ruling means is that the FCCs claims that their ancillary powers to regulate how carriers provide or restrict access to internet content was denied.
> 
> Which means that it is likely that congress will have to take action to more concretely cement what the FCC can do with regards to a new medium.
> 
> ...


That actually sounds quite sensible.

Comcast's current policy is to offer different speeds of "unlimited" broadband for different prices, but if you exceed 250GB in one month they may drop you as a customer. Want to pay more to get more than 250GB of data per month? Tough luck, Comcast doesn't offer it even if you want to pay more. Astounding!

What seems more problematic is when Comcast (or any other internet service provider) moves from supplying dumb bits to actively favoring their own content. Provisions such as "Comcast content doesn't count against your 250GB cap" create an uneven playing field and leverage a dominant local position as an ISP into discriminatory conduct against other content providers.

I'm not entirely sure what the right answer is for Quality of Service controls by an ISP. However, I certainly don't like the extortion / protection racket that if Google, eBay, Skype, Microsoft, etc doesn't pay the ISP to ensure QoS, the just _might_ find that their services don't work as well as Comcast's own services.

Hey Comcast, if I'm paying you for internet access, I want high reliability, low latency, and upload and download speeds close to what you advertise. I don't want you to take any additional steps to downgrade or cap services that you don't own while not discriminating against services you own. If you wanna charge on a per GB basis, do so at a reasonable price, but don't set an arbitrary absolute cap and don't charge me the same $50 if I'm on vacation and don't use my net connection the entire month.

Perhaps even bicker would admit that the internet speed we get per dollar per month in the US is a pretty lousy value proposition compared to Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, and most of Europe.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

jmpage2 said:


> Let's be realistic about this. All this ruling means is that the FCCs claims that their ancillary powers to regulate how carriers provide or restrict access to internet content was denied.


No, this ruling means something else, as well, and something both very important and very relevant to the discussing we have had in this thread:The FCC overreaches its authority, and either says things or does things that the courts have to intercede to set them straight, about.​Two examples don't establish a pattern of wrong-doing -- if it did then I think we'd see heads rolling -- but it is the beginning of a pattern. Two possibilities: (1) They do it again, and get slapped down again, and an actual pattern of wrong-doing eventually becomes clear. (2) They finally learn their lesson and stop trying to do whatever they want, and finally come to respect their responsibility to regulate with balance and integrity.



jmpage2 said:


> Which means that it is likely that congress will have to take action to more concretely cement what the FCC can do with regards to a new medium.


With 90% of one party, and 30% of the other party, against?

I think people sometimes forget that the Democrats are not a bunch of automatons that all believe the same things and do the same things. The Democrats are a big tent, and a significant minority of Democrats (as evidenced by the last Democrat who was President), are as pro-business in this regard as most Republicans are. We're not talking about something important, like health care -- and even there the Democrats had trouble getting enough votes to, effectively, do the anti-business thing.



jmpage2 said:


> Anyone that thinks that Comcast will be allowed to continue, indefinitely, to filter and drop their subscribers traffic at will is in for a rude awakening...


They aren't doing things "at will". They're doing things deliberately according to considered policy. The point is that they will be allowed to continue to enforce considered policies, until such time as the government starts subsidizing service provision enough to compensate service providers for the lost revenue opportunities. That's what they did with telephone.



jmpage2 said:


> What Comcast is likely to do in retaliation is to put into place a tier structure that will make those with the heaviest use pay more for their "unlimited" access.


Which is actually a good idea on its own merits, aside from how what they're doing helps insulate typical users from adverse impacts associated with extreme users.


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Jimbo,

I think you've hit it on the head with your comments about Comcast using their near monopoly position in many markets to try to leverage consumers into paying for additional Comcast service.

"If you download movies from the internet you will be subject to overage charges, but if you download our new internet "on demand" movies from Comcast the data charge will not go against your service cap".


----------



## socrplyr (Jul 19, 2006)

bicker,
Do you believe that the proposal rules for televisions providers will run aground on the same/similar legal decision as the broadband rules?


----------



## RealityCheck (Feb 15, 2007)

bicker said:


> The point is that they will be allowed to continue to enforce considered policies, until such time as the government starts subsidizing service provision enough to compensate service providers for the lost revenue opportunities.


I'd rather see communities engage in a non-for-profit municipal "Fiber To The Premises" program. If it can be paid for with a bond initiative, all the better. Such a proposal should be put up for a public referendum, if any additional tax would be required to pay for it. Incumbent MVPDs would fight to the hilt to prevent this (as it's in their best interest to do so).

Outside a few markets, this is mostly a pipe dream.


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

bicker said:


> No, this ruling means something else, as well, and something both very important and very relevant to the discussing we have had in this thread:The FCC overreaches its authority, and either says things or does things that the courts have to intercede to set them straight, about.​Two examples don't establish a pattern of wrong-doing -- if it did then I think we'd see heads rolling -- but it is the beginning of a pattern. Two possibilities: (1) They do it again, and get slapped down again, and an actual pattern of wrong-doing eventually becomes clear. (2) They finally learn their lesson and stop trying to do whatever they want, and finally come to respect their responsibility to regulate with balance and integrity.
> 
> With 90% of one party, and 30% of the other party, against?


I fail to see what this has to do with any given party. If you will recall the breakup of AT&T was overseen by the Reagan administration with support for both parties.

The FCC have very clearly laid out their view of broadband being a right and not a privilege and being critical for the future economic success of the US. Now all they need to do is appeal this ruling to a higher court or convince Congress to act.

This is fact and not your opinion or some opportunity to go on about the political make up of the congress at the moment.



bicker said:


> I think people sometimes forget that the Democrats are not a bunch of automatons that all believe the same things and do the same things. The Democrats are a big tent, and a significant minority of Democrats (as evidenced by the last Democrat who was President), are as pro-business in this regard as most Republicans are. We're not talking about something important, like health care -- and even there the Democrats had trouble getting enough votes to, effectively, do the anti-business thing.


More bicker political commentary that has little (if anything) to do with the matter at hand. Funny coming from someone who takes every opportunity to smack others down for doing the same thing.



bicker said:


> They aren't doing things "at will". They're doing things deliberately according to considered policy. The point is that they will be allowed to continue to enforce considered policies, until such time as the government starts subsidizing service provision enough to compensate service providers for the lost revenue opportunities. That's what they did with telephone.


This is where you are simply wrong. "considered policy"?? The policies that Comcast has adopted on dropping traffic that they deem to be a burden on the network are about as clear as mud, so maybe you would like to demonstrate where they have outlined this policy in detail for public consumption that demonstrates how they have determined that in ALL areas of the country that high data usage is resulting in a strain on the Comcast network? Oh yeah, you can't because they haven't.

The Comcast UAP is laughably vague and basically the only reason they have put the 250GB cap in place is because previously they were dropping traffic based on UDP or TCP port range, to attack specific applications such as torrent clients. Consumers were confused and outraged when they were told their "unlimited" internet was being disconnected for "excessive usage" which Comcast could not even define. In the beginning they would just use some arbitrary number or any number of BS excuses why a user was being disconnected or, even in some cases BANNED from being connected to the Comcast network.

This is the only reason that Comcast has put a number on their "unlimited" internet access, so that they have some flimsy defense to boot customers who are abusing their "unlimited" service.

In some areas of the country that have brand new infrastructure it is highly debatable if 250GB usage, even from a large number of users is causing any strain on the network at all.

I think you should admit it is likely that the usage cap has simply been put in place so that Comcast can translate it into a tiered rate structure at a later point in time. After all, what's the point of them advertising "unlimited" internet access and spending millions of dollars on advertising that show off how fast you can download a high definition movie when they have no interest in providing these services to Comcast customers who actually take advantage of them?



> Which is actually a good idea on its own merits, aside from how what they're doing helps insulate typical users from adverse impacts associated with extreme users.


I doubt you can reasonably demonstrate the service impact that data heavy users have on Comcast's infrastructure any more than Comcast could demonstrate this to the FCC.

The reality is that Comcast has some areas that are running ancient, outdated equipment and are highly susceptible to traffic spikes, but this could occur simply during peak periods of the day that have nothing to do with how much data an individual user downloads! Alternatively Comcast has many areas of the country that have extremely sophisticated networks where there is likely little to no impact being generated even by the "data hogs" that are running their connections maxed out 24/7.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

jmpage2 said:


> I fail to see what this has to do with any given party.


The sentence you replied to pretty-much said the same thing. Read what you're replying to, before replying, please. Then come back and maybe we can chat.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

jmpage2 said:


> .
> 
> The reality is that Comcast has some areas that are running ancient, outdated equipment and are highly susceptible to traffic spikes, but this could occur simply during peak periods of the day that have nothing to do with how much data an individual user downloads! Alternatively Comcast has many areas of the country that have extremely sophisticated networks where there is likely little to no impact being generated even by the "data hogs" that are running their connections maxed out 24/7.


This is because Comcast bought out a lot of smaller cable operators, something which shouldn't really have happened. IMO, Comcast is way too big, almost to the point of being too big to fail. In the US they own massive parts of the internet now, which is a really scary thing given their history of hiding their network management practices.


----------



## DCIFRTHS (Jan 6, 2000)

jmpage2 said:


> ...
> More bicker political commentary that has little (if anything) to do with the matter at hand. Funny coming from someone who takes every opportunity to smack others down for doing the same thing. ...


This is why it's best to just let background noise do what it does best - simply make noise...

As for responding to the rest of your post, the answer quoted below is a turn and run response.



bicker said:


> The sentence you replied to pretty-much said the same thing. Read what you're replying to, before replying, please. Then come back and maybe we can chat.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Not at all. I simply don't traffic in the silliness when a poster posting their myopic perspectives isn't even reading what they're replying to. The points I made in that article are simple. JM should have read them and responded to them, instead of spewing yet another rendering of his inane personal bias.

Let's be clear: 
- US Court of Appeals smacks FCC down again 
- Congress is made up of people who aren't as self-centered and anti-business as most consumerists posting in this thread are
- For profit companies are in business to make profit and very conscientiously work in that regard, and to criticize them for doing so is remarkably idiotic

No one is "turning and running". Rather, I'm presenting the actuality without allowing the ridiculous myopia of consumerist rhetoric distract from the reality. And remember why: Because the idiocy I see being posted would tend to lead a casual reader to build expectations *that are unfounded*, and therefore the posters I'm replying to in this thread are effectively working to place others on the same ridiculous death-spiral of disaffection that they've put themselves on to.

Clear enough for you?


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

RealityCheck said:


> I'd rather see communities engage in a non-for-profit municipal "Fiber To The Premises" program. If it can be paid for with a bond initiative, all the better. Such a proposal should be put up for a public referendum, if any additional tax would be required to pay for it. Incumbent MVPDs would fight to the hilt to prevent this (as it's in their best interest to do so).
> 
> Outside a few markets, this is mostly a pipe dream.


Taxes are way too high, and are only going to higher as fast as possible. This administration has ended, anything of the nature. Would you rather build a fiber network , or add more teachers ? Community fiber is done.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

Videodrome said:


> Taxes are way too high, and are only going to higher as fast as possible. This administration has ended, anything of the nature. Would you rather build a fiber network , or add more teachers ? Community fiber is done.


That's an interesting question.

With many opting for homeschooling and some schools moving to a 4 day week, as well as increased use of the internet for homework and other things, maybe a municipal fiber investment isn't such a bad idea after all.

As for more teachers, with some districts having only 15 kids per classrom and 2-3 aides, do you really think that adding more teaching staff should be a priority?


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> ..........
> - For profit companies are in business to make profit and very conscientiously work in that regard, and to criticize them for doing so is remarkably idiotic
> .........


"conscientiously" ??

From the FreeDictionary:


> 1. Guided by or in accordance with the dictates of conscience; principled: a conscientious decision to speak out about injustice.
> 2. Thorough and assiduous: a conscientious worker; a conscientious effort to comply with the regulations.


I assume you were using definition #2, correct?
Anticipating some of your antagonists here will jump on you based on their assumption you are using #1. There are too many examples where people (including business people) do not act according to this definition.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

jmpage2 said:


> The FCC have very clearly laid out their view of broadband being a right and not a privilege and being critical for the future economic success of the US. Now all they need to do is appeal this ruling to a higher court or convince Congress to act.


First of all, according to the courts, it doesn't matter what the FCC says about net neutrality. The FCC might as well come out with new guidelines for cancer screening, because they currently have just as much authority to do that as they do to influence net neutrality.

I agree that those are the two options to fix it, but they have a one in a million chance in working.

Get Congress to do the dirty work instead of the FCC? Prepare for another long drawn-out round of bickering, arguing, name calling, etc. The final bill will invariably have loopholes. If it ever comes to a vote.

And the higher court here is the Supreme Court. Take a look at who's there now, remembering that they just declared that private companies are just like people and have the same rights. Do you honestly think they will overturn this ruling? Heck, they may even overturn the new law that Congress might someday pass to address this.

Now, I don't think that ISPs will be chomping at the bit to completely block access to Bittorrent, Youtube, Netflix, or Hulu just yet. It'll probably be like the airlines -- add some small stuff here and there and gradually phase in some kind of tiered program based on usage. Which actually kind of makes sense. Why should someone who uses the Internet occasionally pay as much as someone who is constantly streaming video?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Videodrome said:


> Would you rather build a fiber network , or add more teachers ? Community fiber is done.


Since we disagree so much about so much, I thought it important to highlight something you've written that I agree with.



dlfl said:


> There are too many examples where people (including business people) do not act according to this definition.


Your point is well-taken and I agree: "Only" _the vast majority_ of business decisions made by national-tier broadband service providers are made "conscientiously", i.e., according to their principles, including the fulfillment of their obligations to the law as it is actually written (rather than as a reflection of some consumerist wet-dream), and their obligations to their shareholders.



BobCamp1 said:


> First of all, according to the courts, it doesn't matter what the FCC says about net neutrality. The FCC might as well come out with new guidelines for cancer screening, because they currently have just as much authority to do that as they do to influence net neutrality.
> 
> I agree that those are the two options to fix it, but they have a one in a million chance in working.
> 
> ...


Hark! Another voice of reason!


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

The Court rejecting FCC authority over the Internet is a good thing.


The uncomfortable &#8220;ancillary jurisdiction&#8221; is a problem in an open and democratically neutral society Ancillary jurisdiction may be great today for pro net neutrality folks, but it could just as easily be call upon tomorrow for any other regulation that the FCC thinks up. Even regulation we may not feel comfortable with regarding privacy, fair use and indirectly controlling innovations. Remember it was through court appeal the FCC's "broadcast flag" mandate was defeated. It would have given Hollywood and federal bureaucrats veto power over innovative devices and legitimate uses of recorded TV programming.

This is where Congress needs to grow a pair as we here need to be heard by them when its time.


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

BobCamp1 said:


> First of all, according to the courts, it doesn't matter what the FCC says about net neutrality. The FCC might as well come out with new guidelines for cancer screening, because they currently have just as much authority to do that as they do to influence net neutrality.
> 
> I agree that those are the two options to fix it, but they have a one in a million chance in working.
> 
> ...


The problem is that Comcast and others are not likely to reduce fees for anyone. They will simply migrate the current plans to "low bandwidth" plans and then introduce fee structures for high usage customers.

For a relatively modest outlay the bandwidth on any given aggregate pipe can be doubled. Comcast is already dutifully doing this but I suspect that the high tier plans will wind up being nothing but a high margin option for them to rake in better profits on updated networks that can easily handle high usage.

Who will compete with them and offer unlimited bandwidth at lower prices? Oh right, no one will be able to because no one else is in a position to compete with them in many markets.

Let me throw another little spin on things. Many asian countries (such as Japan and South Korea) have heavily subsidized broadband. They pay $29 a month or so for huge pipes with unlimited use. The question is whether or not this benefits society. Is it "better" for a society to have massive access to unlimited information regardless of their economic means?

If society benefits by having cheap access to unlimited blazing fast internet, not to mention the auxiliary businesses this creates (streamed video rentals, etc ad naseum) then it might well be worth it for the US Govt. to partially federalize the infrastructure and set price tiers themselves.

Alternatively we can wait while Comcast gets bigger and bigger and grows "too big to fail" at which point the government MUST intervene as failing to intervene could result in a massive service disruption to millions of people if Comcast's business ever failed.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

Joe3 said:


> This is where Congress needs to grow a pair as we here need to be heard by them when its time.


From the talk in this thread, you would think that the only thing Congress would want to do about net neutrality is to pass a law allowing ISPs to _opt out_ of it should the Supreme Court say that the FCC does have the right to enforce it somehow.

I was giving reasonably serious thought to upgrading my Earthlink DSL service to Earthlink Cable until I heard this decision - what stops Comcast (my cable provider) from telling Earthlink to take a hike, and if I want cable internet (or at least "fast" cable internet), it has to be through Comcast?

-- Don


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Joe3 said:


> This is where Congress needs to grow a pair as we here need to be heard by them when its time.


Either that or at least be honest about the reality, that they're not going to do as you suggest because they believe that it is counter-productive overall. I think, in a way, it is an injustice for them to lead some folks to think that they support one thing (consumer primacy), when in reality they support something else (consumer/business balance).


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

jmpage2 said:


> Let me throw another little spin on things.


Good because you've basically been beating a dead horse for your last few messages. 



jmpage2 said:


> Many asian countries (such as Japan and South Korea) have heavily subsidized broadband. They pay $29 a month or so for huge pipes with unlimited use. The question is whether or not this benefits society. Is it "better" for a society to have massive access to unlimited information regardless of their economic means?
> 
> If society benefits by having cheap access to unlimited blazing fast internet, not to mention the auxiliary businesses this creates (streamed video rentals, etc ad naseum) then it might well be worth it for the US Govt. to partially federalize the infrastructure and set price tiers themselves.


Without prejudice, I wish you well trying to convince a majority of your family, friends and neighbors to pay more in taxes to forge this "better" society via broadband. Note that I am not saying that you're wrong about what the impact could be, but rather am just highlighting that what you're suggesting is so far from what most people are willing to even give you a hearing regarding.

BTW, I would surely listen, and could be swayed to believe what you are asserting here, about forging a "better" society via broadband. However, I'm effectively insignificant, as is each one of us.


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

bicker said:


> Either that or at least be honest about the reality, that they're not going to do as you suggest because they believe that it is counter-productive overall. I think, in a way, it is an injustice for them to lead some folks to think that they support one thing (consumer primacy), when in reality they support something else (consumer/business balance).


Balance is fine, but we can continue to debate for years about whether the current status quo is balanced or not.

Going back to the AT&T example you like to discuss frequently, what would have happened if AT&T had been allowed to continue as they were and made the same kind of risky moves that AIG made during the recent financial crisis?

What would happen in the scenario of a liquidated AT&T that had massive service disruptions to millions of users including hospitals and other emergency service providers?

What happens when a huge portion of a nation is relying on a single privately traded company with no viable alternatives for an essential service that in some cases means the difference between life and death?

Ultimately if AT&T had failed in such a scenario the fed would have had to step in and rescue it, pumping millions if not billions of dollars in to prop up underfunded pensions, etc.

Those would be tax dollars by the way, so when you talk about consumer primacy, ultimately consumer tax dollars wind up in the pockets of many of these companies in one form or another.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

jmpage2 said:


> Balance is fine, but we can continue to debate for years about whether the current status quo is balanced or not.


So far, though, you've not demonstrated any inkling of consideration for business. I *am* a consumer.



jmpage2 said:


> Going back to the AT&T example you like to discuss frequently, what would have happened if AT&T had been allowed to continue as they were and made the same kind of risky moves that AIG made during the recent financial crisis?


Nothing, for very specific reasons. The extent to which AT&T would have been able to engage in activities that represented that type of exposure was strictly limited. It simply was not possible in the regulated company. Even after divestiture, limitations in that regard were in place for at least a decade. Later still, the impact would have been modest: Capital would have swooped in and captured the assets and consumers would have been practically unaffected. What made the AIG situation special is that they were effectively risking their "consumers'" money, something which AT&T never was in a position to do.



jmpage2 said:


> What would happen in the scenario of a liquidated AT&T that had massive service disruptions to millions of users including hospitals and other emergency service providers?


You haven't established that such a scenario was even remotely possible. You're engaging in blatant FUD.



jmpage2 said:


> What happens when a huge portion of a nation is relying on a single privately traded company with no viable alternatives for an essential service that in some cases means the difference between life and death?


In the abstract, the answer to your question is 'nationalization'. You forget that the people who run our country are pretty smart. They know how to deal with difficult situations. And when there is an especially sticky situation, we Americans are renown for creating a new resolution to whatever we face. You do all of us a gross disservice by assuming otherwise and peddling your baseless tales of doom and gloom.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

So can we get back to the Gateway ?


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

bicker said:


> Nothing, for very specific reasons. The extent to which AT&T would have been able to engage in activities that represented that type of exposure was strictly limited. It simply was not possible in the regulated company.


I imagine that we can find a record somewhere of AIG executives and spokespeople also claiming that "internal controls" would prevent them from getting into trouble too. Sometimes regulation, even over bearing regulation is required to avoid these sorts of situations.


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Videodrome said:


> So can we get back to the Gateway ?


I would love to get back to the Gateway but unfortunately the recent FCC smackdown means that nothing ever will likely come of what the FCC wants.

In other words, no gateway for you, me, or anyone.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

I would be happy if they just fixed CableCARD.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

jmpage2 said:


> Let me throw another little spin on things. Many asian countries (such as Japan and South Korea) have heavily subsidized broadband. They pay $29 a month or so for huge pipes with unlimited use. The question is whether or not this benefits society. Is it "better" for a society to have massive access to unlimited information regardless of their economic means?
> 
> If society benefits by having cheap access to unlimited blazing fast internet, not to mention the auxiliary businesses this creates (streamed video rentals, etc ad naseum) then it might well be worth it for the US Govt. to partially federalize the infrastructure and set price tiers themselves.
> 
> Alternatively we can wait while Comcast gets bigger and bigger and grows "too big to fail" at which point the government MUST intervene as failing to intervene could result in a massive service disruption to millions of people if Comcast's business ever failed.


Right. Universal medical care benefits society even more. US is the only developed country that does not have universal medical care. Look how long it took to get something that even not close passed and how much static it generated with American public. Just ask the public if they want to subsidize movie downloads or torents and see how far you will get.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

bicker said:


> *You forget that the people who run our country are pretty smart. They know how to deal with difficult situations. * And when there is an especially sticky situation, we Americans are renown for creating a new resolution to whatever we face. You do all of us a gross disservice by assuming otherwise and peddling your baseless tales of doom and gloom.


Sure about that? They do not seem all that smart to some of us.... 

Though the American citizen is rather adept at surviving and even thriving on the messes the gov creates.


----------



## RealityCheck (Feb 15, 2007)

I'd rather see municipalities launch "Fiber To The Home" initiatives, and float bonds to pay for them in part or as a whole. If people willingly pay $49.95 for 20/5mbps and below (such as I do with Optimum Online), I'm certain many would find 50/50mbps or greater quite enticing at the same price. A tax increase, or additional sales/consumption tax could also be utilized, but I would like to see a public referendum to decide. It's my opinion, that non-for-profit municipal IP utilities are the only way to truly democratize broadband access at the most affordable prices.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

jmpage2 said:


> ... but unfortunately the recent FCC smackdown means that nothing ever will likely come of what the FCC wants.


Since we disagree about so much, it is probably very important to highlight when you say something, like this, that I agree with completely.



daveak said:


> Sure about that? They do not seem all that smart to some of us....


Who's the bigger idiot? The idiot or the one who selects the idiot to run things?

They are smart. To say otherwise is ridiculous. To say that they are conspiring against you is ridiculous. To say that they are criminal is ridiculous. Generally, criticisms like this are a matter of gut-feel or blind dogmatism rather than reasoned logic. Curmudgeons are reacting to not having their personal preferences being kowtowed to. More often than not, if the individual actually understood the big picture, and would be willing to consider the needs and desires of other people as equal in importance to their own, then they'd make roughly the same decisions. It is often only myopic self-centered self-interest that is behind our criticisms of government.



RealityCheck said:


> I'd rather see municipalities launch "Fiber To The Home" initiatives, and float bonds to pay for them in part or as a whole.


That's been suggested earlier in the thread. As in those cases, we need to ... well ... do a "RealityCheck". As Samo alluded to, this is a pretty limited and trivial "need" that we're talking about. Our nation cannot even agree on how to address critical needs, and generally cannot get enough people to agree to actually spend public money on such needs. The chances are very slim of garnering enough support for doing these things for a comparatively lesser need.


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

samo said:


> Right. Universal medical care benefits society even more. US is the only developed country that does not have universal medical care. Look how long it took to get something that even not close passed and how much static it generated with American public. Just ask the public if they want to subsidize movie downloads or torents and see how far you will get.


The government spends (wastes?) billions on programs that the average American knows nearly nothing about.

The only time Americans get excited is when it's something they are 100% convinced will affect them, such as health care (and then of course millions have an idiotic knee jerk reaction to the whole thing).


----------



## BeakersBro (Feb 15, 2010)

bicker said:


> And so basically you're saying that everyone would have to replace all their televisions and DVRs -- again. Who's really going to stand up and wave the banner for this? I think a lot of people will be willing to stand up and wave the banner for open access, but when the rubber hits the road and reasonable fairness is injected into the situation these advocates simply drop the ball and basically don't have the stomach to take the good with the bad.
> 
> I don't have the "clout" to get someone selling me a house to agree to leave the window treatments, if doing so is not part of the sales contract. The law isn't there to protect people from their own wussiness. And really it is academic, because if content owners don't have the "clout" as you assert, then they don't have the clout to refuse to include contractual provisions explicitly allowing distributors to copy protect broadcast on their (the content owners') behalf, should the distributors wish to do that.
> 
> The ability to control copying is a valid and valuable quality that the law provides to distributors, as well as content owners. Either one can invoke copy protection. Again, you've given no legitimate foundation for taking that value away from the distributors, other than personal preference.


The setting of the content copy flags are set according to the agreements with the content providers and is not really under the control of the distributors.

One of the main flaws in the FCC vision right now is that the copy control flags are easily removed - we still need some other encryption mechanism to protect the content to make the content providers happy.


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

BeakersBro said:


> The setting of the content copy flags are set according to the agreements with the content providers and is not really under the control of the distributors.
> 
> One of the main flaws in the FCC vision right now is that the copy control flags are easily removed - we still need some other encryption mechanism to protect the content to make the content providers happy.


Time Warner sets the copy once flag even when a content provider has gone on record stating they would prefer that Time Warner did not do so. Time Warner is permitted to set CCI even without agreement of the provider. There are several posts in this and other threads of the FCC regulation that allows them to do so.

I have been following things here for a long time and I do not see where CCI byte restrictions are easily removed at all. Please provide backup or a link to support that statement. Encryption is also working, without an authorized cable card, you cannot get the content from the cable or satellite company that is encrypted.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

samo said:


> Right. Universal medical care benefits society even more. US is the only developed country that does not have universal medical care. Look how long it took to get something that even not close passed and how much static it generated with American public. Just ask the public if they want to subsidize movie downloads or torents and see how far you will get.


Samo, how is less people getting healthcare, with less choices, and less doctors a benefit. How is the increased unemployment helping society as a result of companies not hiring because of the tax increases. How is people not being able to choose what they want, better then a bureaucrat ? Obvious you never looked at this bill, or you love dependency. The fact that the US didnt have universal healthcare is what made it great. Now its dumbed down just like the rest of world. Watch alot of research will cease because there is no investment in it ... Nice derail as well.

The solution was and anyone with a 5th grade education could figure it out, was to simply give the uninsured vouches, and have a insurance company bid for them.. The healthcare bill has nothing to do with health or care.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

Videodrome said:


> Samo, how is less people getting healthcare, with less choices, and less doctors a benefit. How is the increased unemployment helping society as a result of companies not hiring because of the tax increases. How is people not being able to choose what they want, better then a bureaucrat ? Obvious you never looked at this bill, or you love dependency. The fact that the US didnt have universal healthcare is what made it great. Now its dumbed down just like the rest of world. Watch alot of research will cease because there is no investment in it ... Nice derail as well.
> 
> The solution was and anyone with a 5th grade education could figure it out, was to simply give the uninsured vouches, and have a insurance company bid for them.. The healthcare bill has nothing to do with health or care.


My post was not about healthcare, it was about subsidized broadband not having a chance in USA. But your post is a proof that I was right. If people don't see anything wrong with 35 million neighbors not be able to get a healthcare, why in hell they would pay for the neighbor to download movies faster?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

BeakersBro said:


> The setting of the content copy flags are set according to the agreements with the content providers and is not really under the control of the distributors.


That is actually incorrect (though perhaps not applicable to your point). US Law says explicitly that distributors can set CCI flags to Copy Once, if they choose to, without regard to any directive from the content providers, except an explicit directive prohibiting application of the flag.


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Videodrome said:


> Samo, how is less people getting healthcare, with less choices, and less doctors a benefit. How is the increased unemployment helping society as a result of companies not hiring because of the tax increases. How is people not being able to choose what they want, better then a bureaucrat ? Obvious you never looked at this bill, or you love dependency. The fact that the US didnt have universal healthcare is what made it great. Now its dumbed down just like the rest of world. Watch alot of research will cease because there is no investment in it ... Nice derail as well.
> 
> The solution was and anyone with a 5th grade education could figure it out, was to simply give the uninsured vouches, and have a insurance company bid for them.. The healthcare bill has nothing to do with health or care.


Umm... Wow. Let's keep the politics out of it shall we?

//Parting shot

You might be amazed to discover that there are millions of people who disagree with you. Many of them even have high IQs and high salaries. Many are business owners. In other words, not everyone who wanted this bill to pass is the ignorant idiot you assume they are.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

jmpage2 said:


> Umm... Wow. Let's keep the politics out of it shall we?
> 
> //Parting shot
> 
> You might be amazed to discover that there are millions of people who disagree with you. Many of them even have high IQs and high salaries. Many are business owners. In other words, not everyone who wanted this bill to pass is the ignorant idiot you assume they are.


Yes those people want to make the rich richer, and powerful more powerful. Socialism has nothing to do with helping people. Its all about power. watch as middle and low class taxes arrive. IQ and High salaries have nothing to do with morality , or greediness.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

samo said:


> My post was not about healthcare, it was about subsidized broadband not having a chance in USA. But your post is a proof that I was right. If people don't see anything wrong with 35 million neighbors not be able to get a healthcare, why in hell they would pay for the neighbor to download movies faster?


Got it....


----------



## BeakersBro (Feb 15, 2010)

bicker said:


> That is actually incorrect (though perhaps not applicable to your point). US Law says explicitly that distributors can set CCI flags to Copy Once, if they choose to, without regard to any directive from the content providers, except an explicit directive prohibiting application of the flag.


Weird - I work for a competing cable company in operations and we explicitly force the settings to match the input side. Why would anyone want to further restrict live content recording?


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

BeakersBro said:


> Weird - I work for a competing cable company in operations and we explicitly force the settings to match the input side. Why would anyone want to further restrict live content recording?


Because they are not restricted from doing so. Your way is the "right" way in my opinion, but TWCs way is legal, and according to Bicker it is not "wrong". Many of us are still unhappy that TWC does this, it is enough though to keep me subscribed with DTV rather than switching to TWC.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

(But *not-enough* people are unhappy enough for this to affect their decision regarding service provider.)


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

bicker said:


> (But *not-enough* people are unhappy enough for this to affect their decision regarding service provider.)


Because customers are locked in due to the unique feature set cable offers over satellite. Most people aren't willing to have multiple dishes and the associated costs to support 4 to 5 TV's in the house, have line of site issues, or home owner association issues, and may need or want the ability to record using a TiVo, among other things. TWC also does a pretty good job of hiding the CCI byte issue from it's customers by not offering services on their own equipment that would bring the issue to light. TWC isn't going to have a service that points out their downfalls. All of this might change however once every set in the home has to have a box attached to it to even receive lifeline basic service. We are only seeing the tip of this iceberg because TiVo owners are at the top of the adoption curve.

I am hopeful however that IPTV will take off in the next few years and force cable to allow copying to keep people subscribing just to remain competitive. The only hurdle to this I see is cable's apparent right at present to prioritize traffic and count services not it's own against some cap while letting their own services flourish.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

bicker said:


> Who's the bigger idiot? The idiot or the one who selects the idiot to run things?
> 
> They are smart. To say otherwise is ridiculous. To say that they are conspiring against you is ridiculous. To say that they are criminal is ridiculous. Generally, criticisms like this are a matter of gut-feel or blind dogmatism rather than reasoned logic. Curmudgeons are reacting to not having their personal preferences being kowtowed to. More often than not, if the individual actually understood the big picture, and would be willing to consider the needs and desires of other people as equal in importance to their own, then they'd make roughly the same decisions. It is often only myopic self-centered self-interest that is behind our criticisms of government.


Then maybe we are all idiots together...  Maybe I should have used the word wise? Certainly one can make the assumption that merely based upon their ability to lead us and/ or get elected then they must be smart. The inference you seem to be making that a less than average intelligent person will not be able to achieve leadership in a democracy is easy to agree with (though I am sure someone can find an example somewhere that conflicts with this). To generally assess the government or the nation is not on the smartest or wisest course, either in a particular situation or general policy, is merely an opinion after all.

Of course I did not say anything about conspiracy or criminality, just to be clear. To infer I may be a curmudgeon, merely reacting to not having the government react or kowtow to my preferences, is a bit of reach from such a short comment.

As for understanding the 'big picture' - we live in a society that clearly has different views of what the 'big picture' really is and what we should do about it. Even with how (or even if, for some) the gov should proceed with a national broadband plan. Whether or not it is really healthy for our democratic-republic (that is another argument) differing factions exist that have different ideas on how to proceed. So you cannot say that people looking at the same information will roughly (though we could argue on the scope the word roughly actually implies) come to the same decisions, that is an assumption that we all think the same and have the same bias and viewpoints. Even smart people will come to different conclusions when examining the same information, this is why it is not common for any legislation or regulation to be unanimously agreed to during its inception.

To say, "It is often only myopic self-centered self-interest that is behind our criticisms of government," may often be true (and we can argue on the percentage often really implies) or not. It is just as likely those who are elected leaders are acting on the same myopic self-centered self-interest that is behind their decisions. To imply they are smarter and even better people because they hold elected (or otherwise) office is elitist and assumes those who choose not to be in government leadership positions are less smart and maybe not as good people.


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> (But *not-enough* people are unhappy enough for this to affect their decision regarding service provider.)


I have no argument with you about that. Most people could not care less about this detail of their service.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> Because customers are locked in due to the unique feature set cable offers over satellite.


Not locked in, no. Many consumers do recognize some significant competitive advantages. Of course, folks who want Sunday Ticket see things the other way around.



Stormspace said:


> We are only seeing the tip of this iceberg because TiVo owners are at the top of the adoption curve.


This is a good point: Until something affects a significant number of people, it is generally not worthy of concern by regulators. The only way to overcome that reality is for the issue to be a matter of health, safety, security, or something weighty like that.



Stormspace said:


> I am hopeful however that IPTV will take off in the next few years and force cable to allow copying to keep people subscribing just to remain competitive. The only hurdle to this I see is cable's apparent right at present to prioritize traffic and count services not it's own against some cap while letting their own services flourish.


IPTV wouldn't be affected, if native to the broadband distributor. If it is foreign service, then your idea sucks really bad, since it is essentially forcing broadband to try to support a virtual DVR in the sky. You may love the idea, but only if you refuse to acknowledge the cost of the waste inherent in such a system. I think World Peace is more readily achievable than affordable and profitable (or taxpayer-provided) unlimited, fat broadband for everyone everywhere.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

daveak said:


> Then maybe we are all idiots together...  Maybe I should have used the word wise?


I think the words you should have used are, "myopically consumer-biased". They aren't _that_. And surely shouldn't be.



daveak said:


> The inference you seem to be making that a less than average intelligent person will not be able to achieve leadership in a democracy is easy to agree with


No, it is simpler than that: Rather, the implication is that much of the whining is simply indefensible. Too-many Americans have become self-entitled cry-babies, immediately jumping to the conclusion that anytime they don't feel ecstasy then that necessarily means that someone else must have done them wrong. The capacity/willingness of such people to consider issues from a perspective beyond just their own personal self-interest is at an all-time low, AFAIC, and declining sharply.

As a result, when one of these too-many Americans see someone making a decision that actually represents a fair balance of many opposing viewpoints, they perceive it as either a stupid decision, or one that is personally biased toward the decision-maker. Neither of which is impossible, of course, but the point is that these self-entitled people, due to their own myopia, couldn't tell the difference between when a decision is "fair and good" versus when a decision is either unfair, stupid, or both.



daveak said:


> To generally assess the government or the nation is not on the smartest or wisest course, either in a particular situation or general policy, is merely an opinion after all.


No, it is more than that. It is akin to shooting a tracer round into the grandstands in a crowded stadium. It serves no constructive purpose and holds the promise of sending a lot of other people down a bad path. Contrast that with well-thought-out perspectives that factor-in the concerns of all significant stakeholders, and represent a fair balancing, where no one really gets what they want, but the relative impacts on everyone are balanced. That fosters progress by expanding understanding, instead of hinders progress by unnecessarily fostering conflict.



daveak said:


> As for understanding the 'big picture' - we live in a society that clearly has different views of what the 'big picture' really is and what we should do about it.


Read that sentence you wrote a few times. I think you'll see that it doesn't hold together. I think you meant something akin to what I alluded to above, that our society is made of people who among them hold vastly different, and often diametrically-oppositional perspectives. That is very true. Forgive me if I interpreted what you wrote incorrectly, and let me know what you really meant.

If I did guess incorrectly, then some of my later comments might be non-sequitur, of course.



daveak said:


> So you cannot say that people looking at the same information will roughly (though we could argue on the scope the word roughly actually implies) come to the same decisions, that is an assumption that we all think the same and have the same bias and viewpoints.


Reasonable and intelligent people should have no trouble seeing two answers for every question: their own personal conclusion, and a conclusion reflective of a fair balancing of the perspectives of all major stakeholders. Outside the ballot box, the latter is the only perspective that is worthy of merit. Very often in these threads I neglect to outline my own personal perspective, and often refer to it as irrelevant, meaningless, without any significant impact on what the reality should be. To think that one's own personal perspective should naturally and without limitation *prevail over *that of others is a transgression against basic principles of morality, IMHO. Not that we shouldn't have personal perspectives; just that they shouldn't ever be expected to prevail (except by coincidence).



daveak said:


> Even smart people will come to different conclusions when examining the same information, this is why it is not common for any legislation or regulation to be unanimously agreed to during its inception.


Yes, and good point: Reasonable and intelligent people can *even *come to different conclusions regarding what is a "fair and good" balancing of the perspectives of all the significant stakeholders. No question about that. The point is that many people never ever consider the idea that their own personal perspective shouldn't necessarily prevail. They assume that imposing their own perspective is a righteous goal, when what is righteous is to inject one's own personal perspective into the process of coming to a "fair and good" balance.

I know a lot of folks will jump right in and claim that what they're advocating for is that "fair and good" balance. In a nutshell, in many cases, I simply think they're not being honest about that. Labeling one's own personal perspective as a "fair and good" balance is one of many tactics to make one's personal perspective sound more important or objectively better than it really is. When you see a perspective presented, ask how it adequately factors in the wishes of stakeholders *other than* the kind of stakeholder than the person putting forward the perspective. More specifically, when a consumer says something ask how it respects and honors the needs of suppliers, and vice versa.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

bicker said:


> No, it is simpler than that: Rather, the implication is that much of the whining is simply indefensible. Too-many Americans have become self-entitled cry-babies, immediately jumping to the conclusion that anytime they don't feel ecstasy then that necessarily means that someone else must have done them wrong. The capacity/willingness of such people to consider issues from a perspective beyond just their own personal self-interest is at an all-time low, AFAIC, and declining sharply.
> 
> As a result, when one of these too-many Americans see someone making a decision that actually represents a fair balance of many opposing viewpoints, they perceive it as either a stupid decision, or one that is personally biased toward the decision-maker. Neither of which is impossible, of course, but the point is that these self-entitled people, due to their own myopia, couldn't tell the difference between when a decision is "fair and good" versus when a decision is either unfair, stupid, or both.


While I generally agree with your statement (not that we both do not have our own biases, I know we are above that...  ), I still am quite certain that no one is without some form or at least an inclination of bias. To say that any of us are quite able to _usually_ act despite are own biases or our own sense of right and wrong is a stretch. Decisions among groups of people are based upon more than the facts at hand, they are also based upon personal political beliefs and other built in philosophies that likely color every decision they make. I would say we all suffer from some level of myopia, it is just more severe for some. The worst are those who have no idea they even have any degree of bias.



bicker said:


> No, it is more than that. It is akin to shooting a tracer round into the grandstands in a crowded stadium. It serves no constructive purpose and holds the promise of sending a lot of other people down a bad path. Contrast that with well-thought-out perspectives that factor-in the concerns of all significant stakeholders, and represent a fair balancing, where no one really gets what they want, but the relative impacts on everyone are balanced. That fosters progress by expanding understanding, instead of hinders progress by unnecessarily fostering conflict.
> 
> Read that sentence you wrote a few times. I think you'll see that it doesn't hold together. I think you meant something akin to what I alluded to above, that our society is made of people who among them hold vastly different, and often diametrically-oppositional perspectives. That is very true. Forgive me if I interpreted what you wrote incorrectly, and let me know what you really meant.
> 
> If I did guess incorrectly, then some of my later comments might be non-sequitur, of course.


We may be more alike than I may want to admit, not that there is anything wrong with that. I certainly agree that groups, when not too infected by the (sometimes) scourge of immovable factions, can come to conclusions based upon differing viewpoints that are actually beneficial to the majority. It happens, and sometimes any given majority can be wrong. However, this is a democracy and we sometimes we are stuck with a wrong headed, but popular, approach.

When a decision comes from a group of people who have differing opinions and philosophies (and that is the key), you are more likely to get a reasonable and thought out result. With small group or an individual making the decision, the result is more likely to be colored by the self bias of the individual(s). Certainly on this forum, posts are being made by individuals and the resulting biases that creates the back and forth responses are evident. It may be that if all these forum participants were placed in a room together, they would hammer out a reasonable approach to the question at hand. It might even be the case that one of us all ready has a reasonable approach that a majority would agree to, but then again we know the majority is not always right (though it may seem to be to most of us in the short term).



bicker said:


> Reasonable and intelligent people should have no trouble seeing two answers for every question: their own personal conclusion, and a conclusion reflective of a fair balancing of the perspectives of all major stakeholders. Outside the ballot box, the latter is the only perspective that is worthy of merit. Very often in these threads I neglect to outline my own personal perspective, and often refer to it as irrelevant, meaningless, without any significant impact on what the reality should be. To think that one's own personal perspective should naturally and without limitation *prevail over *that of others is a transgression against basic principles of morality, IMHO. Not that we shouldn't have personal perspectives; just that they shouldn't ever be expected to prevail (except by coincidence).


Yes. Though even being reasonable and intelligent and seeing both answers, sometimes people still go for what they want or think is right - and insist on their answer being the only correct one. A personal perspective is formed from the beginning of our lives to the present day and while I would resist someone forcing me to live by their perspective, I understand that they also believe they are right in the responses they give. Many times I am forced to examine what I think is the right response and sometimes moderate or even change my conclusion, based upon the different interpretation of the facts presented. Sadly, I am not always right (at least initially  ).



bicker said:


> Yes, and good point: Reasonable and intelligent people can *even *come to different conclusions regarding what is a "fair and good" balancing of the perspectives of all the significant stakeholders. No question about that. The point is that many people never ever consider the idea that their own personal perspective shouldn't necessarily prevail. They assume that imposing their own perspective is a righteous goal, when what is righteous is to inject one's own personal perspective into the process of coming to a "fair and good" balance.
> 
> I know a lot of folks will jump right in and claim that what they're advocating for is that "fair and good" balance. In a nutshell, in many cases, I simply think they're not being honest about that. Labeling one's own personal perspective as a "fair and good" balance is one of many tactics to make one's personal perspective sound more important or objectively better than it really is. When you see a perspective presented, ask how it adequately factors in the wishes of stakeholders *other than* the kind of stakeholder than the person putting forward the perspective. More specifically, when a consumer says something ask how it respects and honors the needs of suppliers, and vice versa.


My only comment here is the self-righteousness of many in the process of reaching a conclusion. I think many do not even realize when they are being self righteous, which is what makes it so tough to counter or prevail against. I certainly like to think that my responses are always 'fair and good' and maybe ,based upon my own personal beliefs, they sometimes are. However, based upon prevailing thought and beliefs, they may be something else entirely and in my own mind I may not even realize how blind I have become. The is why frank discussion of different approaches is so valuable - providing people involved have the ability to agree from time to time or even change their mind on a point being contended.

Fair and balanced is truly in the eye of the beholder. Used as a slogan for Fox News, there are certainly strong viewpoints on the accuracy of that statement. Many times something is only considered fair and balanced if _we ourselves_ can agree with it. The thought being, how can it be fair and good if my own view (that no one else has) is not taken in consideration and used for the conclusion?

As you seem to suggest, the goal of being 'fair and good' would truly be hard for the individual to reach. With the goal having a good chance of being reached by a group of well informed and reasonable people - who have a plurality of viewpoints. And though it is a good assumption those in power may be able to reach this plateau, I do not believe it is always the case. Sometimes a particular faction can win control and there is little to no compromise in the result, with the dissent representing two or more sides of an issue that would have led to a more moderate result. Though the result, even here of being 'fair and balanced' - might still be debated by reasonable people.

We can assume the the broadband plan is being thought out by reasonable and intelligent people, but it does not garuantee a good solution or even a popular one.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

daveak said:


> Fair and balanced is truly in the eye of the beholder. Used as a slogan for Fox News, there are certainly strong viewpoints on the accuracy of that statement. Many times something is only considered fair and balanced if _we ourselves_ can agree with it. The thought being, how can it be fair and good if my own view (that no one else has) is not taken in consideration and used for the conclusion?
> 
> As you seem to suggest, the goal of being 'fair and good' would truly be hard for the individual to reach. With the goal having a good chance of being reached by a group of well informed and reasonable people - who have a plurality of viewpoints. And though it is a good assumption those in power may be able to reach this plateau, I do not believe it is always the case. Sometimes a particular faction can win control and there is little to no compromise in the result, with the dissent representing two or more sides of an issue that would have led to a more moderate result. Though the result, even here of being 'fair and balanced' - might still be debated by reasonable people.
> 
> We can assume the the broadband plan is being thought out by reasonable and intelligent people, but it does not guarantee a good solution or even a popular one.


Very good observation. Even Supreme Court that by definition supposed to be "Fair and balanced" has been split 5-4 on the major decisions lately.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

daveak said:


> .............
> We can assume the the broadband plan is being thought out by reasonable and intelligent people, but it does not garuantee a good solution or even a popular one.


Right! I agree with the famous (or should-be-famous) statement by the late Wm. F. Buckley Jr. that he would rather be governed by the first 500 people in the Boston phone directory than by the faculty of Harvard. In the case in point, the role of the "first 500" will be played by the Congress, who must approve and fund the broadband plan. (And who probably embody neither more nor less combined wisdom and judgement than the first 500.)

I hope you and bicker will allow this small bit of philosophy sandwiched between your lengthy bloviations.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> As a result, when one of these too-many Americans see someone making a decision that actually represents a fair balance of many opposing viewpoints, they perceive it as either a stupid decision, or one that is personally biased toward the decision-maker. Neither of which is impossible, of course, but the point is that these self-entitled people, due to their own myopia, couldn't tell the difference between when a decision is "fair and good" versus when a decision is either unfair, stupid, or both.


WTF does any of that have to do with the mandate from Congress to the FCC to open up media consumption to the innovation and diversity of 3rd party companies?

The mandate is simple - make it as easy for a 3rd party device to hook up to broadcast networks as it is for the broadcaster to hook up their own equipment. Once that is done then the suppliers and demanders can figure out what has value with the likely scenario of more revenue for more companies and more jobs that pay taxes, etc..

Making the details as fair as possible to all is indeed the hard part but the mandate should not be trampled while attempting to make it fair. Opening up some 3rd party markets is the greater good for most everyone involved.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

Actual relevant news:



> The House Communications Subcommittee wants to kick the tires on the FCC's proposal for a new set-top "gateway" device that could drive broadband adoption by turning TV sets into monitors for computer video (TV sets have 99% penetration versus 75% or so for computers).
> 
> The committee said Thursday (Apr. 8) it would hold a hearing Apr. 15 at 10 a.m. on "The National Broadband Plan: Competitive Availability of Navigation Devices."


http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ar...Competitive_Ability_of_New_Set_Top_Device.php


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

from the article NRC linked


> In the wake of the initial announcement of the gateway proposal as part of the broadband plan, McSlarrow had reiterated the association's position--which has been registered in comments at the FCC--that multichannel video providers need the freedom to innovate to meet different consumer demands and needs. He said proposals to "disaggregate" a service purchased by a customer "would undercut the very premise of innovation we should want, and are likely to fail."


can anyone tell me why cable companies can not make a settop box/DVR that will work with the gateway and continue to sell the whole home package from one stop/one place.

oh and the gateway should include DBS - that is a no brainer


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

nrc said:


> Actual relevant news:
> 
> http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ar...Competitive_Ability_of_New_Set_Top_Device.php


This would also make it easier for the Govt to grab broadcast spectrum, by making all TVs PC compatible they can move video delivery to IP and have less justification for having OTA broadcasts.

Or so it seems _in theory._


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> from the article NRC linked
> 
> can anyone tell me why cable companies can not make a settop box/DVR that will work with the gateway and continue to sell the whole home package from one stop/one place.
> 
> oh and the gateway should include DBS - that is a no brainer


Wouldn't such a device simply be creating an unencrypted head end for each home user for distro in the home? Would seem to be a power hog, and expensive. Unencrypting 1000+ channels at the same time? Doesn't seem efficient to me.

I can see underground coax cables being run between homes throughout all suburban developments now.....

Cheers!
-Doug


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> WTF does any of that have to do with the mandate from Congress to the FCC to open up media consumption to the innovation and diversity of 3rd party companies?


A whole lot. You say something is closed. Someone else says something is open. It can't be both.



ZeoTiVo said:


> The mandate is simple


Bull. No law is "simple". You want to interpret it simply, and biased very narrowly to serve your own personal best interest or point of advocacy. That's the problem I was pointing out.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

dstoffa said:


> Wouldn't such a device simply be creating an unencrypted head end for each home user for distro in the home?


Not necessarily. The channels may still be encrypted, just with a standard protocol the STBs can link to and process.


> Would seem to be a power hog, and expensive. Unencrypting 1000+ channels at the same time? Doesn't seem efficient to me.


The gateway won't decrypt all the channels at once, just the ones requested by the STBs in ones home. It seems 4 to 6 channels at a time per gateway is probable.
The gateway might draw 20-40 watts, a basic STB likely around 10 watts in use. Compared to the consumption of 4 to 6 STBs (20 to 30W apiece), that saves power.


> I can see underground coax cables being run between homes throughout all suburban developments now.....
> 
> Cheers!
> -Doug


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> from the article NRC linked
> 
> 
> > In the wake of the initial announcement of the gateway proposal as part of the broadband plan, McSlarrow had reiterated the association's position--which has been registered in comments at the FCC--that multichannel video providers need the freedom to innovate to meet different consumer demands and needs. He said proposals to "disaggregate" a service purchased by a customer "would undercut the very premise of innovation we should want, and are likely to fail."
> ...


They want to have control of the set top boxes so that they can present interactive advertising and do audience research and measurement. A third party set top box doesn't need to do that for them, or even do it at all. If the set top box is a TiVo DVR it could do both, but using TiVo's method, not cable's.

Another reason they want to control the set top boxes is so that they can present their VOD and PPV using their own UI and trick play. Third party set tops could choose to not show their offerings and instead offer NetFlix or Amazon on Demand.

Basically disaggregation cuts cable out of a slice of the money pie they have now.

They could offer their own box of course that would have these features they way they want them, but now that box would be forced to compete against other companies offerings on a much more even playing field than the one that they have now.


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

dstoffa said:


> Wouldn't such a device simply be creating an unencrypted head end for each home user for distro in the home?


No the outputs would still be encrypted going to the set top boxes, probably using DTCP-IP or something similar.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> Bull. No law is "simple". You want to interpret it simply, and biased very narrowly to serve your own personal best interest or point of advocacy. That's the problem I was pointing out.


I said the mandate is simple - you did not quote the part where I said delivering fairly on that mandate will be a lot harder. Heck cable card as it is now speaks volumes to that. However I submit that a large reason cable card is such a failure is that the FCC abrogated its responsibility to act fairly for all to the cable companies who labored under no such constraint.

This time the FCC needs to keep its responsibility and also bring DBS into the end solution.



CuriousMark said:


> They want to have control of the set top boxes so that they can present interactive advertising and do audience research and measurement. A third party set top box doesn't need to do that for them, or even do it at all. If the set top box is a TiVo DVR it could do both, but using TiVo's method, not cable's.
> 
> Another reason they want to control the set top boxes is so that they can present their VOD and PPV using their own UI and trick play. Third party set tops could choose to not show their offerings and instead offer NetFlix or Amazon on Demand.


The solution I see can make use of Cable cards though. Put them in the access unit to control how many digital streams the end user has access to. The cable company can still collect fees based on useage. The neighbors splitting cable bill can be dealt with via the specific knowledge of how many feeds and perhaps pairing to the specific access point. Cable can display its own interface on any unit including TiVo DVRs via selecting a specific channel, the access poiny uses whatever it wants to to create the interface and then sends it out as another channel to tune. Cable could even sell a whole house DVR setup that might literally blow TiVo and Moxi out of the water. really the common access point for any broadcast to the house is simply the way to go to give a level playing field from which more companies can start to compete.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

samo said:


> Yes, I'm old enough to remember it too. My phone bill went up by factor of 3 after they broke up the AT&T. And I had to buy the phone I already had. Boy, was I pissed. Of course it open for me choices of long distance that I hardly ever use and allowed me to buy cheap Chinese telephones but my bill never went down yet from that hike. Great deal. You want your your cable bill to go up by factor of 3 and wait for competition to step in? Support the new proposal then.


what planet are you on that your bill hasn't gone down? You need to shop around. (I guess you might be some outlier condition way way way way out on the edge of the bell curve- but for the vast vast majority of people phone service is cheaper now a days then it was on the last day of ATT's empire.

The discussion one would need to have is has the price dropped more, less, or the same as it would have if there was still an AT&T regulated monopoly. I'm not sure the price dropped more than ATT would have got to over time. But as a whole phone service is way cheaper.

(years back I saw a paper that ATT did in it's last days- between the 'breakup' and before the baby bell bought them up- and they basically thought the price of a call dropped in a linear fashion from like the early 1900's till present- the breakup was a blip lower on their graph but essentially it was linear. )


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> I predict that many people will be grievously disappointed with what FCC actually ends up doing, or not doing.


unfortunately i have to agree with the Big B on this one.

Allthough (I think- but am not sure) he and I disagree on the merits of a gateway- I dont trust the FCC to move forward with anything in a timely manner (on what I beleive to be a constuctive manner). I just think it's the government and like most of the government it sucks and does nothing well.


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> what planet are you on that your bill hasn't gone down? You need to shop around. (I guess you might be some outlier condition way way way way out on the edge of the bell curve- but for the vast vast majority of people phone service is cheaper now a days then it was on the last day of ATT's empire.
> 
> The discussion one would need to have is has the price dropped more, less, or the same as it would have if there was still an AT&T regulated monopoly. I'm not sure the price dropped more than ATT would have got to over time. But as a whole phone service is way cheaper.
> 
> (years back I saw a paper that ATT did in it's last days- between the 'breakup' and before the baby bell bought them up- and they basically thought the price of a call dropped in a linear fashion from like the early 1900's till present- the breakup was a blip lower on their graph but essentially it was linear. )


He's obviously just delusional if he wants to argue that his phone bill hasn't gone down.

I clearly remember the phone bills that my mother was paying in the early 1980's which of course included the required rental fee of a telephone.

It was around $30-$40 a month for service, and that was with a tiny amount of long distance service at ten cents a minute.

Convert that into today's dollars and it's laughable to argue phone service has not gotten cheaper as a result of divestiture.

I have an Ooma home phone system with unlimited local and long distance minutes that carries no monthly cost (only a $11 a year federal excise tax). It has voicemail, call waiting with caller-ID, simul-ring to my cell phone, call logs, call blacklisting and about 30 other features. I get a 2nd line thrown in with some other goodies for $99 a year.

The quality has been outstanding.

If mom was still renting her AT&T corded wall phone at $7.99 a month then she would have spent about $3,000 since divestiture just renting a $20 telephone that you can get at Target or Wal-Mart.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> I think what's most interesting is that this is the second time in less than a year that the US Court of Appeals had to smack the FCC, essentially for being bone-headed.
> 
> As much as I criticize Kevin Martin, I don't remember the agency being quite so off-the-mark about the law and its responsibilities under his leadership.


Wasn't it kevin martin's FCC that got smacked down by the courts for trying to force the broadcast flag on everyone?

(I'm not certain of the timeframes but i think it was)


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

jmpage2 said:


> I would love to get back to the Gateway but unfortunately the recent FCC smackdown means that nothing ever will likely come of what the FCC wants.
> 
> In other words, no gateway for you, me, or anyone.


why does it mean the end- congress specifically gave the FCC the power to do what it deems is necessary to ensure the commerical availilility of 3rd party devices. (or some such wording). The FCC made cablecards as a result. The FCC than forced cablecards down cable's throught for ALL boxes- something plenty of people BESIDES cable complained about. The courts never ruled that was overstepping the FCC's power.

what's the difference between the 'gateway' and cablecards in this regard? cablecards are a failure (for whatever reason) at getting 3rd party devices readily availible. Gateways would just be another attempt (which may or may not work)


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> why does it mean the end- congress specifically gave the FCC the power to do what it deems is necessary to ensure the commerical availilility of 3rd party devices. (or some such wording). The FCC made cablecards as a result. The FCC than forced cablecards down cable's throught for ALL boxes- something plenty of people BESIDES cable complained about. The courts never ruled that was overstepping the FCC's power.
> 
> what's the difference between the 'gateway' and cablecards in this regard? cablecards are a failure (for whatever reason) at getting 3rd party devices readily availible. Gateways would just be another attempt (which may or may not work)


We haven't seen any kind of ruling on the hypothetical gateway box that might or might not ever exist.

Certainly the cable industry has zero incentive to do this on their own, for all the reasons previously pointed out. Their potential lost revenue from advertising spots alone on their own STBs is enough to keep them pumping money at their lobby in Washington.

The FCC specifically got smacked down about trying to force net neutrality, which is a bigger issue with larger ramifications than cablecards and gateways.

However, when FCC ancillary powers are seen as being to vague to mandate standards for internet related technologies it does not bode well with trying to mandate things like IP based access gateways.

If the congress tells the FCC to go do something and FCC tries to do it but gets smacked down in court, there are only two options. Congress can pass laws giving FCC specific legal leeway to do what they want, or FCC can continue appealing this in hopes of getting a more favorable ruling.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> why does it mean the end- congress specifically gave the FCC the power to do what it deems is necessary to ensure the commerical availilility of 3rd party devices. (or some such wording). The FCC made cablecards as a result. The FCC than forced cablecards down cable's throught for ALL boxes- something plenty of people BESIDES cable complained about. The courts never ruled that was overstepping the FCC's power.
> 
> what's the difference between the 'gateway' and cablecards in this regard? cablecards are a failure (for whatever reason) at getting 3rd party devices readily availible. Gateways would just be another attempt (which may or may not work)


As TiVo CEO Rogers said in his interview, the cable card experience still has some "wrinkles". Paired with the Tuning Adapter experience, "wrinkles" is a ludicrous understatement for many unfortunate TiVo users. This results from trying to force something on a business when it goes against their interest -- you get technical compliance but without the business incentive to make it work well no one takes ownership of working out the "wrinkles". Only massive enforcement (way beyond the resources of the FCC) can make water run uphill like they wanted.



bicker said:


> I predict that many people will be grievously disappointed with what FCC actually ends up doing, or not doing.


Anything else would surprise me too. Neither congress nor the FCC has the power and resources to make that water run uphill. And that may be a good thing in some cases.

Strange, since they are doing so well at healing our ailing economy while not running up crushing deficits.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

jmpage2 said:


> We haven't seen any kind of ruling on the hypothetical gateway box that might or might not ever exist.
> 
> ...
> The FCC specifically got smacked down about trying to force net neutrality, which is a bigger issue with larger ramifications than cablecards and gateways.
> ...


hopefully someone that KNOWS the facts can hope in. But my layman's understanding (while admittantly paying little attention of late)- is that phone is regulated as a "telecommunication service" and that is undisputed. But recently (in the past few years) - the FCC changed internet access from being called a "telecommunication service" to being defined as an "information service". The courts ruled that since broadband is now an information service the FCC's powers are limited. I've seen people argue that the FCC could just redefine broadband under it's original classifcation and then they could regulate.

Assuming my understanding is correct- is cable tv a telecommuncation service or an information service. I suspect cable tv is in the "telecommunations territory" (please exuse my ignorance if I'm using the wrong terms).

If my limited understanding and assumpting that cabletv is in the phone class is correct than the ruling is totally unrelated to cable tv.

it seems pretty clear to me that no one thinks the FCC is overstepping it's powers in implementing cablecard for cable tv. The regulations have been in place for 10+ years and become more and more a pain in cable's side as time has progressed but no one has sued to overturn them that I have seen. (if they have sued than clearly cable lost and so it's done). The latest cablecard regulation that forced cable to put it in every box was opposed by more than cable and was argued to have huge monetary costs. If no one sued the FCC then (or sued and won) then logically it seems no one thought it was worth the money to file. Considering cable thinks that mandate was going to cost them a bundle even a small chance of winning would have been worth trying.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

anyone find anything about the congressional hearing that was supposed to happen on tax day?

All i can find is this:

http://benton.org/node/34101

which impleies the hearing was cancelled.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

I thought it was supposed to be the 21st?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

dlfl said:


> As TiVo CEO Rogers said in his interview, the cable card experience still has some "wrinkles". Paired with the Tuning Adapter experience, "wrinkles" is a ludicrous understatement for many unfortunate TiVo users. This results from trying to force something on a business when it goes against their interest -- you get technical compliance but without the business incentive to make it work well no one takes ownership of working out the "wrinkles". Only massive enforcement (way beyond the resources of the FCC) can make water run uphill like they wanted....


that very well may be true- but thats completely different from the courts stepping in to stop new regulations from forcing gateways.

I'd need to sit down and think but i think well crafted regulations with a certain amount of enforcement (that wouldn't require tons of time, money, or effort)can force that water to run up hill. There's plenty of scumbags violating the canspam rules- but you dont see the likes of comcast, timewarner, or any other reasonably sized legitimate american company blowing that off.

take for example the suggestion above that cable not be allowed to treat their cablecards different then ones put in tivos. Forcing customers/installers to call in and pair their cablecards in leased STB's just like tivo's would quickly force the systems to get updated to be more end user friendly. Wouldn't take tons of enforcement to force comcast and the other big providers to follow that. Forcing them to eat their own dogfood would do wonders for 3rd parties. (if that's what the government wanted)


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

innocentfreak said:


> I thought it was supposed to be the 21st?


moved to the 21st from the original 15th? the article posted way above and the link I posted both said the 15th.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> ...........it seems pretty clear to me that no one thinks the FCC is overstepping it's powers in implementing cablecard for cable tv. The regulations have been in place for 10+ years and become more and more a pain in cable's side as time has progressed but no one has sued to overturn them that I have seen. (if they have sued than clearly cable lost and so it's done). The latest cablecard regulation that forced cable to put it in every box was opposed by more than cable and was argued to have huge monetary costs. If no one sued the FCC then (or sued and won) then logically it seems no one thought it was worth the money to file. Considering cable thinks that mandate was going to cost them a bundle even a small chance of winning would have been worth trying.


I don't think either CableCARDs or the Integration Ban have bothered Cable Cos enough to make it worth suing about.

A quote from this NCTA web page:


> Since the "integration ban" went into effect on July 1, 2007, those 10 companies have already deployed more than 2,255,000 operator-supplied set-top boxes with CableCARDs. In less than six months, cable operators have deployed more than seven times as many CableCARD-enabled devices than the total number of CableCARDs requested by customers in the last four years.


They may find money spent lobbying better spent than money spent in court.

Would you find it strange that there are fewer problems related to CableCARDs installed in Cable Co. STB's and DVR's than in Tivo's? (I don't). Remember the business incentive to take ownership applies to their equipment.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> that very well may be true- but thats completely different from the courts stepping in to stop new regulations from forcing gateways.
> 
> I'd need to sit down and think but i think well crafted regulations with a certain amount of enforcement (that wouldn't require tons of time, money, or effort)can force that water to run up hill. There's plenty of scumbags violating the canspam rules- but you dont see the likes of comcast, timewarner, or any other reasonably sized legitimate american company blowing that off.
> 
> take for example the suggestion above that cable not be allowed to treat their cablecards different then ones put in tivos. Forcing customers/installers to call in and pair their cablecards in leased STB's just like tivo's would quickly force the systems to get updated to be more end user friendly. Wouldn't take tons of enforcement to force comcast and the other big providers to follow that. Forcing them to eat their own dogfood would do wonders for 3rd parties. (if that's what the government wanted)


Getting somewhat into semantics here but IMO "well crafted" legislation or rulings means those that don't try to make water run uphill, i.e., as bicker has emphasized, those that respect the interests of ALL involved parties.

Your example isn't convincing to me -- I think the Cable Cos. could find a way to technically satisfy the ruling without guaranteeing the result you (and I) want.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

dlfl said:


> I don't think either CableCARDs or the Integration Ban have bothered Cable Cos enough to make it worth suing about.
> 
> A quote from this NCTA web page:
> 
> ...


so you figure there is no significant monetary cost to deploy 2.25 million cablecards? That doesn't seem to be the general consensus from anything I've seen.

Assuming a box with cablecard only costs them 10 bucks more than an integrated box- that's 22 million bucks and counting. Ignoring all the other costs that cable incurred over the years futzing with cablecard- wouldn't it seem to make sense that the the NCTA would take a few hundred grand and pay a law firm to try and stop that multi-million dollar expense. Clearly their lobbying to stop cablecard and these other related regulations isn't stopping it entirely. A court ruling that the FCC doesn't have the right to enforce such things would have stopped the whole "nightmare" for cable 12-12 years ago, saving them tens if not hundreds of millions of dolllars in expenses.

Comcast through down about internet regulation early on and won- now that whole "nightmare" is gone. The FCC can't regulate net neutrality.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

dlfl said:


> Getting somewhat into semantics here but IMO "well crafted" legislation or rulings means those that don't try to make water run uphill, i.e., as bicker has emphasized, those that respect the interests of ALL involved parties.
> 
> Your example isn't convincing to me -- I think the Cable Cos. could find a way to technically satisfy the ruling without guaranteeing the result you (and I) want.


we can all argue the merits of regulating cable. Clearly it's up for debate. I think grownups can have legitimate opposing veiwpoints there.

But to imply that NO legislation (laws) or Regulations (rules created by agencies that congress has giving specific power to regulate) have merit is silly. (sorry if I'm misunderstanding your posts)

anyway- i dont want to get into a debate over what the regulations should or shouldn't be- bicker and others handle that just fine.

I merely popped in the thread to discuss the current facts about the court ruling and congressional hearing.

What does the current court ruling REALLY MEAN- I dont know- that's why I brought it up- not to have a discussion if my winkie is longer than yours or if my piss can go up hill. I specifically have attempted to avoid stoking that fire- just trying to get at what the current court rulling really means.

And I'd like to learn about the reality of if the gateway really has a snowballs chance in seeing the light of day (I'll let you and others argue if it's a good idea or not)- I'd just like to see what the reality is if it could happen or not.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> so you figure there is no significant monetary cost to deploy 2.25 million cablecards? ..........


No that's not what I said. But maybe taken in the context of their total cash flow it wasn't worth going to court about. I actually don't know that one or more Cable Cos didn't sue about it. I suspect they assessed their probability of winning in court as slim.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

dlfl said:


> .... I suspect they assessed their probability of winning in court as slim.


that's basically what i said about 10 posts ago- sorry if i wasn't clear. That's exactly my point. (Bicker I beleive has pointed out that nothing is a certainty ever until it's been completely litagated in the courts- and even then only for that immediate time period- so nothing is 100% given)

So if they dont think they could win against cablecard- then what LEGALLY would be different about a whole home gateway? that's a QUESTION- not a statement. By my quick thinking (not spending days mulling it over) - if the FCC were to mandate gateways- it's basically forcing water to run uphill the same as cablecards did. And if cable didn't argue against it then, what new argument would they make against gateways?


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> we can all argue the merits of regulating cable. Clearly it's up for debate. I think grownups can have legitimate opposing veiwpoints there.


Of course!



MichaelK said:


> But to imply that NO legislation (laws) or Regulations (rules created by agencies that congress has giving specific power to regulate) have merit is silly. (sorry if I'm misunderstanding your posts)


I agree, and I accept your apology (since I didn't imply that). My point is we shouldn't have unrealistic expectations of what laws or regulations can do.



MichaelK said:


> What does the current court ruling REALLY MEAN- I dont know- that's why I brought it up- not to have a discussion if my winkie is longer than yours or if my piss can go up hill. I specifically have attempted to avoid stoking that fire- just trying to get at what the current court rulling really means.


"my winkie is longer than yours"  That doesn't sound like grownups talking and doesn't apply to anything I've said.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> anyone find anything about the congressional hearing that was supposed to happen on tax day?
> 
> All i can find is this:
> 
> ...


I believe this is the webpage for the committee and it's not on the schedule anymore:
http://energycommerce.house.gov/ind...temid=54&extmode=cat&cat_id=7&date=2010-05-01

who knows what it means- could be someone got sick, someone didn't want to get yelled at walking to work on tax day, or that someone got taken to lunch by comcast or best buy's lobbyists. I guess time will tell. Would have liked to see some reporting on what congress was thinking about the whole gateway issue.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> ........So if they dont think they could win against cablecard- then what LEGALLY would be different about a whole home gateway? that's a QUESTION- not a statement. By my quick thinking (not spending days mulling it over) - if the FCC were to mandate gateways- it's basically forcing water to run uphill the same as cablecards did. And if cable didn't argue against it then, what new argument would they make against gateways?


I follow your logic here except I think you meant to say "if cable didn't sue about it then" (since as you stated they did argue against it). Sorry I don't know the answer. I presume the analogy between gateways and CableCARDs is far from perfect, so there could be a good answer.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

MichaelK said:


> moved to the 21st from the original 15th? the article posted way above and the link I posted both said the 15th.


I don't know. I got the date from somewhere, maybe a podcast.

I found this http://benton.org/node/33297


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

dlfl said:


> Of course!
> 
> I agree, and I accept your apology (since I didn't imply that). ....
> 
> "my winkie is longer than yours"  That doesn't sound like grownups talking and doesn't apply to anything I've said.





dlfl said:


> Of course!
> 
> sorry i misinterpreted you then.
> 
> ...


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

dlfl said:


> I follow your logic here except I think you meant to say "if cable didn't sue about it then" (since as you stated they did argue against it). Sorry I don't know the answer. I presume the analogy between gateways and CableCARDs is far from perfect, so there could be a good answer.


yep- argue should be sue.

(I'm busy being distracted by my lack of firefox on this machine so i have no spellcheck and I'm amazed how poorly I spell without it- laughing- so my posts must be a complete mess today)

Yep- I'd like to know why some thing that gateways are different from Cablecards. I presently dont see the difference from a policy, regulatory, legal perspecitve. It's sort of like making a "whole house cablecard". But maybe I'm missing something- as above I've made planty of mistakes in life.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

innocentfreak said:


> I don't know. I got the date from somewhere, maybe a podcast.
> 
> I found this http://benton.org/node/33297


*thats it!*

thanks

EDIT: WHOOPS- that's the FCC hearing not the congressional one that was supposed to happen on the 15th.


----------



## RealityCheck (Feb 15, 2007)

MichaelK said:


> Allthough (I think- but am not sure) he and I disagree on the merits of a gateway- I dont trust the FCC to move forward with anything in a timely manner (on what I beleive to be a constuctive manner). I just think it's the government and like most of the government it sucks and does nothing well.


Our Government is a reflection of the people. We have only ourselves to blame for allowing the incumbent two party system to remain in power. Why "lobbying" where monetary or service exchange is not considered bribery is beyond me. But I digress.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> ...............
> totally agree- I posted above how I agree with bicker that I think many will be disappointed.
> 
> But I will disagree (like a grownup- laughin) that laws and regulations can't make water flow uphill. Laws and regulations severaly damage and DESTROY whole businesses all the time. What do you think the do not call list did to the telemarketing firms? What do you think the can-spam act did to the spamming firms? How do you think the people are feeling right about now that used to work for the banks that used to make student loans- the goverment just put piles of people out of work. how about the people that work working for NASA on the constellation program? If the government wants to reck your life and your business then they can and will. Plain and simple.
> ...


Even worse, the government can wreck your life and your business without even wanting to, just like an elephant accidentally stepping on a mouse! (In grown up language: unintended consequences.) That's why businesses and other interests have to lobby -- in self defense!

In the case of CableCARDs and Tuning Adapters, when something doesn't work right, there is no clear cut way available to the average consumer to assign responsibility (i.e., diagnose the problem) among the system components (Cable Co, TiVo, Cable card or TA). Cable Co support is generally clueless on such problems as is TiVo support. No one takes ownership of getting the customer a good result. The government is clearly unable to enforce any improvement in this. "Carefully crafted" law must prevent such situations -- it's not easy.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> unfortunately i have to agree with the Big B on this one.


And the earth shook -- just a little bit.



MichaelK said:


> Allthough (I think- but am not sure) he and I disagree on the merits of a gateway-


Not a good assumption. Do you feel that there is merit in universal and lasting Peace on Earth? Me too. Does that mean it is reasonable to expect it to occur this year? Sorry, but no.

And beyond that, I bet even the MSOs and satellite services would be in favor of gateways, if it resulted in lower expenses and higher revenues. Focusing narrowly, solely on the technology, you would miss the aspects that actually drive what is and is not fair, what is and is not going to be.



MichaelK said:


> I just think it's the government and like most of the government it sucks and does nothing well.


As opposed to what? What structuring for society would result in everyone being happy and healthier and safer and cleaner, etc.?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> Wasn't it kevin martin's FCC that got smacked down by the courts for trying to force the broadcast flag on everyone? (I'm not certain of the timeframes but i think it was)


The actions taken were definitely taken when Kevin Martin was in charge. I think the smack-down happened after he was gone, but of course, that wouldn't matter -- it would still be his administration that effected the transgressive actions.

So that really fosters an assumption that it wasn't an isolated abuse of power, but rather might be a pattern of transgression executed by an agency that regularly overreaches its authority due to its leaders' personal (rather than professional) consumerist bias.

Like I said, it might be...


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

bicker said:


> As opposed to what? What structuring for society would result in everyone being happy and healthier and safer and cleaner, etc.?


Benign Dictatorship with me at the healm.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> why does it mean the end- congress specifically gave the FCC the power to do what it deems is necessary to ensure the commerical availilility of 3rd party devices. (or some such wording).


No, the wording is important. The FCC was absolutely *not* given "power" to "do whatever is necessary". They simply weren't.

The FCC's job is to drive the sector towards a better place. That means taking actions that encourage all stakeholders (system manufacturers, CE manufacturers, service providers, and consumers) to travel that road, together. The FCC violates their moral obligations when they fail to accomplish their objective through a fair balancing of the interests all of those stakeholders, when they favor one group over another.



MichaelK said:


> what's the difference between the 'gateway' and cablecards in this regard?


Here's one difference: Gateways make it impossible to charge more for customers deriving more value from the service provided than other customers, i.e., through reception through multiple outlets.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

jmpage2 said:


> If the congress tells the FCC to go do something and FCC tries to do it but gets smacked down in court, there are only two options. Congress can pass laws giving FCC specific legal leeway to do what they want, or FCC can continue appealing this in hopes of getting a more favorable ruling.


Yes, true. However, folks shouldn't hold out much hope for either direction. The courts are all about fairness rather than consumerism, and I believe Congress also will balance the pull of consumerist avarice with acknowledgment that business has a legitimate stake as well.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

jrm01 said:


> Benign Dictatorship with me at the healm.


I have a sneaking suspicion that your dictatorship would be anything but "benign" with regard to service providers. 

I do think is very clear, from this thread and so many others, that the poster most likely to be able to achieve a dictatorship that would be regarded as most benign by most of the stakeholders in this sector would be me.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

On the agenda for the FCC's April 21st open meeting.



> *Item No.: 3*
> *Bureau: Media *
> *Title: *Video Device Competition; Implementation of Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices (CS Docket No. 97-80); and Compatibility Between Cable Systems and Consumer Electronics Equipment (PP Docket No. 00-67)
> *Summary:* The Commission will consider a Notice of Inquiry seeking comment on best approaches to assure the commercial availability of smart video devices and other equipment used to access the services of multichannel video programming distributors.
> ...


Just to define some terms:


Notice of Inquiry (NOI): A NOI is issued by the Commission to ask the public for information on, or to generate ideas about, a topic. A NOI is often followed by a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM): A NPRM is issued when the Commission is considering a change to its rules and regulations. The NPRM asks the public to comment on whether they agree with the proposed changes or to propose alternatives.
 Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM): A FNPRM is issued by the Commission to seek further comment from the public when new issues arise in a proceeding after an NPRM has been issued, or the Commission desires additional public comment on issues raised in an NPRM.
 Order: An order is a decision of the Commission or one of its Bureaus and Offices.

Note that they will _consider_ issuing an NOI and FNPR on these issues, but they already have those as items to be completed in the second quarter on their Broadband Action Agenda. They also plan to followup the "smart video devices" NOI with a NFPR in the fourth quarter. After the NFPR an Order is required to put the rules into force. There is no item on the action plan for an order related to these items.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> ... congress specifically gave the FCC the power to do what it deems is necessary to ensure the commerical availilility of 3rd party devices. (or some such wording). ...
> ..





bicker said:


> No, the wording is important. The FCC was absolutely *not* given "power" to "do whatever is necessary". They simply weren't.
> 
> The FCC's job is to drive the sector towards a better place. That means taking actions that encourage all stakeholders (system manufacturers, CE manufacturers, service providers, and consumers) to travel that road, together. The FCC violates their moral obligations when they fail to accomplish their objective through a fair balancing of the interests all of those stakeholders, when they favor one group over another.
> 
> Here's one difference: Gateways make it impossible to charge more for customers deriving more value from the service provided than other customers, i.e., through reception through multiple outlets.


Moral obiligtions? that's in interesting legal concept....

anyway

also if you are going to quote me- try using the actual words that i did- i never said "whatever"- I said "what is necessary"

you're just basically wrong.

the act says:



> Regulations required.--The regulations prescribed by the
> *Commission *under this section *shall include such regulations as are
> necessary--....* *to promote the commercial availability , from *cable
> operators and *retail vendors *that are not affiliated with cable
> ...


so the FCC ("the commision") is required by the law prescribe regulations such that are necessary to promote the commerical availibility of converter boxes from retail vendors that are not affiliated with cable systems.

So never mind the "power" to act if they want to. The FCC is REQUIRED by the law to create regulations that promote commercial availibility- the FCC can NOT just sit around legally and do nothing, or just act if they feel like it. The law says they "shall regulate".

The FCC ~ 12 -14 years ago decided that the cablecard standard was necessary to promote commerical availibility. Later they decided it was necessary to force the largest 6 providers to support the cablecard standard on all their systems by a certain date. After that they decided it was necessary to force cable to use cablecards themselves at another date. None of that worked, but the current FCC's figuring. Now if they decide that the gateway is necessary then what's the difference between a regulation mandating that and the earlier regulations?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> And the earth shook -- just a little bit.
> 
> ...
> 
> As opposed to what? What structuring for society would result in everyone being happy and healthier and safer and cleaner, etc.?


dont think the earth has to shake- there's plenty of things I agree with you on- I just dont need to write "+1" everytime I see you say something wise. just becasue we disagree about the need for regulation in the cable industry doesn't mean we have to disagree on everything. Putting everyone in a 'with me or 'against me camp isn't necessary.

What government would be best in my mind- I'd vote OUR government is the best. But (much like you?) I think that at times government regulations aren't always the most helpfull to get things done. Just because it's best doesn't mean it's perfect. At the moment I think the Tivo is the best DVR for me- doesn't mean I think it's perfect. I think my job is great- doesn't mean i think it's perfect. etc.

I think we probably just disagree were the line is when regulations might be needed or when not. (actully we might just disagree in this one particular genre- of cable service regulation- i dont honestly know your opinions about other issues but the bits I have picked here and there seem maybe we'd agree on plenty of items.)


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> ...
> 
> Here's one difference: Gateways make it impossible to charge more for customers deriving more value from the service provided than other customers, i.e., through reception through multiple outlets.


since there is no spec yet - how can you say that?

what's do say they can't built in a mechanism to charge for each device that connects to the gateway?

if this difference is important then cable just needs to lobby to ensure the spec ensures that for them- just like they lobbied to get the law/regulations changed to allow additonal outlet fees.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> ... The courts are all about fairness rather than consumerism, ....


"fairness"- I guess that goes with morality.

The courts aren't supposed to do decide whats "fair". Plenty of times they do things that aren't "fair" at all. They're supposed to arbitrate legal disputes (in a fair manner) in conjuncton with the current law and if the constitutionality of the law is brought into question then the courts are supposed to decide if the law is legit under the consitution.

they aren't supposed to decide what's fairest- they are supposed to decide what the law or consititution says.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> ...
> The FCC's job is to drive the sector towards a better place. That means taking actions that encourage all stakeholders (system manufacturers, CE manufacturers, service providers, and consumers) to travel that road, together. The FCC violates their moral obligations when they fail to accomplish their objective through a fair balancing of the interests all of those stakeholders, when they favor one group over another. ....


made me curious - so i decided to find out exactly what the legal "job" of the FCC really is according to the law that created it.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/151.html



> 151. Purposes of chapter; Federal Communications Commission created
> 
> For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is created a commission to be known as the Federal Communications Commission, which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this chapter.


can anyone say "run on sentence..."


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> The actions taken were definitely taken when Kevin Martin was in charge. I think the smack-down happened after he was gone, but of course, that wouldn't matter -- it would still be his administration that effected the transgressive actions.
> 
> So that really fosters an assumption that it wasn't an isolated abuse of power, but rather might be a pattern of transgression executed by an agency that regularly overreaches its authority due to its leaders' personal (rather than professional) consumerist bias.
> 
> Like I said, it might be...


there's certainly a pattern of overreaching. I honestly wonder why that is. I'm not a lawyer- but the FCC presumably employs a few. Seems those lawyers either aren't giving the commisioners good advice about what powers they actually have- or the commissioners are ignoring the legal advice. They seem to get pretty squarely batted down by the courts and it is so clear when it happens that they dont appeal. Makes me think that since it's different commisioners (and just the guy in charges can't do anything without other members buying in- so it's not just 2 people) involved maybe the lawyers are bad? But really no idea.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

nrc said:


> Just to define some terms:
> 
> Notice of Inquiry (NOI) ...
> Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) ...
> ...


Followed by 

 Decision of the US Court of Appeals


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> dont think the earth has to shake- there's plenty of things I agree with you on- I just dont need to write "+1" everytime I see you say something wise.


I dunno... I've gotten some PMs over the last few months saying that I need to do that more.


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> Followed by
> 
> Decision of the US Court of Appeals


Doesn't it have to go through a district court first to get tot he court of appeals?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Review of actions of most federal agencies, including the FCC, bypass district courts and go directly to the Courts of Appeal.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> I dunno... I've gotten some PMs over the last few months saying that I need to do that more.


maybe I'll have to +1 you more often .


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> The FCC violates their moral obligations when they fail to accomplish their objective through a fair balancing of the interests all of those stakeholders, when they favor one group over another.
> 
> Here's one difference: Gateways make it impossible to charge more for customers deriving more value from the service provided than other customers, i.e., through reception through multiple outlets.


then they clearly violated their "moral obligation" with the cable card fiasco that was allowed to be run by the cable companies to the detriment of CE companies. Time to balance that out.

Do you have some facts that would show a gateway could not be simply metered in some fashion; that is allow for only x number of streams that the customer has signed up for.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

ZeoTiVo said:


> then they clearly violated their "moral obligation" with the cable card fiasco that was allowed to be run by the cable companies to the detriment of CE companies. Time to balance that out.
> 
> Do you have some facts that would show a gateway could not be simply metered in some fashion; that is allow for only x number of streams that the customer has signed up for.


If cable limits streams, online video will be even more popular. Any less then 10 streams a household, will cause problems. We have 1500 but you can only watch/ record one ?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

If gateways could be spec'ed out so that they could meter usage per outlet, then that would overcome that objection.

And simultaneously very likely evoke just as much whining from the people who have been whining about CableCARD.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

The cable cos and providers will embrace nearly anything the FCC proposes that increases their profits. Consumers will reject nearly anything that increases their costs. If the Gateway can be done in such a way that it increases the profits of the providers it would happen, even without the FCC mandating it. Then the increased fees would be yet another thing to complain about when discussing the providers of content. I doubt there will ever be a solution that makes most people happy, just one both sides can equally complain about.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

bicker said:


> If gateways could be spec'ed out so that they could meter usage per outlet, then that would overcome that objection.
> 
> And simultaneously very likely evoke just as much whining from the people who have been whining about CableCARD.


I know I wouldnt have as much of a problem with cablecards if they gave me access to VOD and everything else already included in my service. Then again I also don't think I should be required to use cablecards unless I want VOD, PPV, or the cable companies guide. I dont have to pay for the companies routers for every device I want to connect and get access to the internet.

As it has probably been talked about before, the problem is you pay for the service but without paying additional fees for hardware you cant use the same service. I dont know of any other business that works that way.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

daveak said:


> The cable cos and providers will embrace nearly anything the FCC proposes that increases their profits. ... If the Gateway can be done in such a way that it increases the profits of the providers it would happen, even without the FCC mandating it. ....


Not so sure it's that black and white. If cable embraced cablecards or tru2way or ANYTHING that allowed CE to just include the 'cablebox' in the tv then cable could save the billions of dollars that they now have to spend on digital cable boxes today. They could completely pass that whole cost to CE and consumers and be BILLIONS richer. That would be the most profitable choice. Not only that but every TV, DVR, DVD- recorder, etc, produced would be "cable ready" again- and DBS, ATT, etc would all be at a major disadvantage because they would have STB costs. There would be a whole 'nother generation that could be taught how "dbs sucks becasue you need a box at every tv".

Just seems they are too stupid to have played the game right to get there. Seems tru2way was close but they dragged their feet just a little bit too long and now probably will not get that.

They could have controlled their own destiny- like they managed to do with SDV and tuning adapters. get out there and make a standard that suits them best and then deploy it before the alternate suggestion even has time to get read by the powers that be in their complaint letters. If they were smarter they would have finalized true2way (with whatever onerous rules they wanted- no one was forcing them to be 'consumerists' with that) and then actually deployed tru2way already. They would have won it all. They even got sony and piles of others to buy into their whole tru2way dream. But they are do stupid to have deployed it before the FCC got totally fed up and is now going to act.

Now it's very possible there will be "everything ready" Tv- instead of "cable readY" that just plugs into the gateway that is provided by whatever company wants your business. So they gave up a major advantage they could have had on DBS, IPTV, etc.

You can't always trust every company (or even industry) to make the the most profitable, wisest choice. The government wouldn't own stakes in GM and Chrysler if it always worked out. Sometimes they make honest mistakes. Sometimes businesses make the choice that helps the bottom line tomorrow but ignores next year. Sometimes there is history involved that is against them. Sometimes businesses are just run by idiots. There's lots of reasons why things dont wind up working as efficiently as they should always.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Here's an interesting article- not directly related- basically Tivo talked to the FCC to get them to inquire about why cablecard costs aren't dropping now that there is mass deployment. But it touches on some issues being discussed in this thread .

http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=190625&site=lr_cable&f_src=lightreading_gnews

First- cablecard costs cable a FORTUNE- even more than i guessed at above- seems the cards themselves STILL cost around 55 bucks- and the pcmcia slot might cost another 25 bucks a box. So it adds 80 dollars a box to the cost for cable to deploy. Figuring in the number of boxes deployed since the integration ban and cable is on the hook for OVER A BILLION- approaching 1.5 billion. Also talks about how cable gets waivers for things like the DTA's (and is trying for HD DTA's with integrated encryption).

Considering that they go through the legal effort of waivers whenever they can and still are eating over a billion in added costs- yet haven't tried to overturn the FCC's right to impose cable card- seems almost a dead certainty that cable is conceding the FCC has the right to issue the regulations that it deems are necessary to promote 3rd party availability at retail. Even if they are as costly to cable as cablecard has been.
I don't see how the FCC could be legally blocked from determining a new gateway device is needed to promote 3rd party boxes. Cable could perhaps fight/sue over the details (I wouldn't have a clue) but seems mandating some flavor of a gateway would be no issue at all.

But in the end the same choke point occurs with a gateway though that did with cablecard. - Who's spec and what does it say- that's the bottom line. When the FCC was debating what to do with cablecards originally- there were comments from CE- and I even remember Directv weighing in- that cable should NOT be in charge- that it would be a mess. ( depends on your view point if it played out as predicted&#8230. The FCC said they didn't think they were the best body to make such a standard. But at the time the FCC argued that they didn't think all the players could get together in a reasonable amount of time- similar to the proposal now they had DREAMS of implementing cablecard quickly and didn't think a standard could get hammered out fast enough to act quickly if more than cablelabs was involved. The same logic still holds- can you get all stakeholders to agree quickly to something so that gateways could get deployed as soon as the FCC has suggested?

Will be interesting if they mandate gateways- if the FCC will decide to mandate specs or if they will allow all the interested parties to come together. If they allow a group- then how quickly is that really going to get done?

Article also brings up and Interesting side note about cablecards costing SOOOO much still even though they are produced in much much larger quantities today- article says: 


> Several industry sources confirmed that CableCARD modules still cost at least $50 each. They also blame that on the fact that competition for those cards, and the security features and licensing requirements found therein, are still largely limited to just two suppliers -- Motorola Inc. (NYSE: MOT) and Cisco Systems Inc. (Nasdaq: CSCO) -- and hold that the situation has allowed those vendors to maintain a hammerlock on the market and keep costs artificially high.
> "When the separable security ruling came into effect, the CableCARD price was in the $55 to $60 range. Now, after 20 million units have been deployed, the going price for a CableCARD is... $55 to $60. That's what you get when there is no effective competition," says an industry source who is familiar with the economics of the CableCARD market.


Seems just because you 2 (moto + cisco) or 3 choices (people tend to forget NDS plays too) for something doesn't always mean you will get the best price&#8230;. Sometimes other factors limit your ability to jump to an alternative supplier&#8230;.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Videodrome said:


> If cable limits streams, online video will be even more popular. Any less then 10 streams a household, will cause problems. We have 1500 but you can only watch/ record one ?


in my picture - the digital stream is what comes down the coax now. gateway unencrypts it and provides that to a device with a tuner to pick up the one channel in the stream to record - same as now save that it is a cable card or STB at the device that unecrypts now. It gets a little more detailed for security reasons.

so if you had access to 5 streams that is 5 digital outelts in the house that can record whatever is allowed by the account status. Only wnat to pay for 1? then only 1 device in the house can use it. -- gives the broadcaster company its revenue model while the CE companies get a standard cheaper way to build their devices


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> If gateways could be spec'ed out so that they could meter usage per outlet, then that would overcome that objection.
> 
> And simultaneously very likely evoke just as much whining from the people who have been whining about CableCARD.


eh - let them whine. My vested interest in this is to go into Best Buy and be able to pick from all kinds of nifty gadgets that can access whatever broadcaster I choose - even if I switch from cable to DBS or FIOS or joes new cell relay service.

I am fine with any broadcast company getting to charge for the use made of their service. With actual competition made possible cause I can just switch providers and only have a gateway device to swap out - then real value comes into play versus factoring in all the equipment swap out cost and hassle.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

Maybe it would have shown foresight on the providers part by allowing others to spend the money on set top boxes, but there is an argument for maintaining control of the user options and making sure the profits (and the costs) come your way. A truly open set top box forces the VOD offered by the providers to compete with NetFlix, Amazon, and every every other option out there. This option is closed to the average person on the provider supplied set top box. I would think if they were so open to wanting other CE companies to bear the costs of supplying set top boxes, they would be making it easier for others (like TiVo) to supply boxes that fully work on their systems - instead of providing such spotty support and equipment (TAs and the like) that make it harder to use and even use well. There is money in VOD and the providers are not very willing to have it directly compete with other offerings.

I think watching what happens with RCN and TiVo will be interesting. How this arrangement works (or does not) will be telling.



MichaelK said:


> Not so sure it's that black and white. If cable embraced cablecards or tru2way or ANYTHING that allowed CE to just include the 'cablebox' in the tv then cable could save the billions of dollars that they now have to spend on digital cable boxes today. They could completely pass that whole cost to CE and consumers and be BILLIONS richer. That would be the most profitable choice. Not only that but every TV, DVR, DVD- recorder, etc, produced would be "cable ready" again- and DBS, ATT, etc would all be at a major disadvantage because they would have STB costs. There would be a whole 'nother generation that could be taught how "dbs sucks becasue you need a box at every tv".
> 
> Just seems they are too stupid to have played the game right to get there. Seems tru2way was close but they dragged their feet just a little bit too long and now probably will not get that.
> 
> ...


----------



## jadziedzic (Apr 20, 2009)

My issue with the "additional digital outlet" fee is that while it may be claimed by Comcast (and others) that the fee pays the content originator, it's hard to see how that is anything other than rationalization when the ADO fee is the same regardless of which programming package is chosen.

One day for fun I asked a Comcast CSR why I'm paying an "additional outlet fee" when I installed all the coax in my house. I received the same rationalization about re-imbursing the content originator for additional viewings, then said, "Oh, so if I cancel HBO, will the ADO fee decrease?" "No." "If I add *all* your premium channels, will the ADO fee increase?" "No."

If Comcast is going to claim that the ADO fee goes to the content originator then the fee should vary based on the programming package. It doesn't, which exposes the ADO fee as a farce.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

daveak said:


> Maybe it would have shown foresight on the providers part by allowing others to spend the money on set top boxes, but there is an argument for maintaining control of the user options and making sure the profits (and the costs) come your way. A truly open set top box forces the VOD offered by the providers to compete with NetFlix, Amazon, and every every other option out there. This option is closed to the average person on the provider supplied set top box. ..


There's no reason they had to do a truly open set top box. A closed up one may very well have fit the bill- it exactly what they wanted with tru2way- they still would have maintained the UI and VOD money and all. They just never made it happen. They dragged their feet too long and now it's too late. They may have needed to compromise to a degree and be more open then they wanted to get it done- but they would have had at least some control of the compromises. instead now it looks like the FCC is perhaps going to force a completely open system down their throats.



daveak said:


> I would think if they were so open to wanting other CE companies to bear the costs of supplying set top boxes, they would be making it easier for others (like TiVo) to supply boxes that fully work on their systems - instead of providing such spotty support and equipment (TAs and the like) that make it harder to use and even use well. There is money in VOD and the providers are not very willing to have it directly compete with other offerings.
> ..


Clearly they are not at all open to wanting the CE people to play- that's the whole problem. That's why they have the FCC poking into their business at the moment.

There's nothing to say that cable couldn't have implemented their tru2way platform as they agreed to with sony et al several years back (even without hte compromises that tivo seems to have extracted to allow boxes to switch to "tivo mode"). We'll never know, but I'm not so sure that the FCC would be poking around if half the tv's sold at best buy where OCAP/tru2way ready and you could just bring it home and plug it in and it worked on your head end. Certainly cable could have argued then that there were plenty of 3rd party devices available at retail. And again all those tv's would work only on cable without a box. DBS and the rest would have been out of the loop.

Instead of all or nothing cable could have done much better for themselves- IN MY HUMBLE OPINION- of course. They could have taken lemons (handed to them by the 1996 law) and made lemonade. But instead now they may get the whole lemon tree thrown down their throats. I guess they could argue that they held off the open system for 15 years (probably 20 before gateways get deployed- IF ever)- and so sharing some of the pie now is made up with the extra money they made over the time. Maybe that was the strategy all along? Don't know if anyone besides the top of the cable food chain will ever know.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

jadziedzic said:


> My issue with the "additional digital outlet" fee is that while it may be claimed by Comcast (and others) that the fee pays the content originator, it's hard to see how that is anything other than rationalization when the ADO fee is the same regardless of which programming package is chosen.
> 
> One day for fun I asked a Comcast CSR why I'm paying an "additional outlet fee" when I installed all the coax in my house. I received the same rationalization about re-imbursing the content originator for additional viewings, then said, "Oh, so if I cancel HBO, will the ADO fee decrease?" "No." "If I add *all* your premium channels, will the ADO fee increase?" "No."
> 
> If Comcast is going to claim that the ADO fee goes to the content originator then the fee should vary based on the programming package. It doesn't, which exposes the ADO fee as a farce.


they charge the fee for one simple reason- the law was changed to permit it in 1996. They can- so they will.

My opinion is cable saw DBS charge "mirroring fees" and people paid them and so they got jealous and had their lobbyists include that in the 1996 update to the telecommunication act so they could too. As you point out- it is rather interesting that no matter what package you buy the fee is the same and just happens to be about the same that DBS charges.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> If gateways could be spec'ed out so that they could meter usage per outlet, then that would overcome that objection.
> 
> And simultaneously very likely evoke just as much whining from the people who have been whining about CableCARD.


as Zeo said- let em whine.

I have no problem with the cost of my cable service. I do at times get annoyed by the randomness of their billing system and the general opaqueness of it all. But the number on the bottom of the bill doesn't offend me at all. They have the right to charge whatever they see fit. I can pay it or not.

But just as Zeo said- I'd like to be able to walk into best buy and get any number of gadgets that will allow me to connect to their system. Just like i can walk into the store and pick any number of telephones to hook to my phone jacks (which happens to be VOIP from my cable provider- hmm see how that works- I can get POTS from the local telco, Voip from cable, voip over cable or over DSL from a 3rd party, phone over fiber and no matter why I can plug in my phone because they all output the same standard signal from their "gateway" ).

In fact they lose money on me that I can't get their VOD on my tivo's. I'm not a huge VOD/PPV guy but I'd buy something every now and again if I had the option.

it's not about the money- it's about the convenience to me. And to tell you the truth if the law wasn't the law i wouldn't be clamoring to change it. But the law says the FCC should promote 3rd party boxes at retail- so that should happen or the law should get changed.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

daveak said:


> The cable cos and providers will embrace nearly anything the FCC proposes that increases their profits. Consumers will reject nearly anything that increases their costs. If the Gateway can be done in such a way that it increases the profits of the providers it would happen, even without the FCC mandating it. Then the increased fees would be yet another thing to complain about when discussing the providers of content. I doubt there will ever be a solution that makes most people happy, just one both sides can equally complain about.


Indeed. :up:


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

innocentfreak said:


> I dont have to pay for the companies routers for every device I want to connect and get access to the internet.


With the Internet, you're paying for access to content provided by others, who could actually be charging you for that content.

With cable, you're paying for provision of content.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> You can't always trust every company (or even industry) to make the the most profitable, wisest choice. The government wouldn't own stakes in GM and Chrysler if it always worked out.


Without commenting on the statement you were actually making, I want to point out that these two thoughts do not follow from each other. It is very possible to do everything right and still fail. It never ceases to amaze me how many consumers blind themselves to this reality and assume that failure means bad decisions were made. Sometimes there simply are no profitable options. Sometimes circumstances intervene and rip the carpet out from underneath an otherwise reasonable endeavor, or some other unforeseeable trapdoor swings open.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> eh - let them whine.


Well they might as well just let you whine (about CableCARD).


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

jadziedzic said:


> My issue with the "additional digital outlet" fee is that while it may be claimed by Comcast (and others) that the fee pays the content originator,


Do you just have anecdotal instances of this? Or do you have multiple corroborated reports that Comcast has actually said this as a matter of corporate policy? Until I see the latter, the most likely scenario afaic is that some consumer made that up (or edited critical equivocations out of a broader statement) just to try to make it sound like Comcast said something that was not adequately defensible.



jadziedzic said:


> One day for fun I asked a Comcast CSR why I'm paying an "additional outlet fee"


So essentially you asked the wrong person your question, because you knew you could trick them into commenting on something that no reasonable person would assume they're authorized to make public corporate policy dictates with regard to.

It is consumers like you that prompt companies to force CSRs to do nothing other than read from printed scripts.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

I suspect that when everyone has to start paying per outlet you'll see more people defecting to satellite. If you have to have a box on every set and pay per outlet cable really isn't all that good.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Comcast is still cheaper than DirecTV, here in Burlington, even with paying for each digital outlet.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> Without commenting on the statement you were actually making, I want to point out that these two thoughts do not follow from each other. It is very possible to do everything right and still fail. It never ceases to amaze me how many consumers blind themselves to this reality and assume that failure means bad decisions were made. Sometimes there simply are no profitable options. Sometimes circumstances intervene and rip the carpet out from underneath an otherwise reasonable endeavor, or some other unforeseeable trapdoor swings open.


totally True- See I agree with you again. But plenty of times it's poor decisions that get businesses in trouble.

The fact is business just DONT ALWAYS make the best LONG TERM choice. I listed some reasons above in the rest of the post you quoted part of.

I dont want to get into the why does the government own part of them- there's several threads here that got into that.- But -it's tough to argue that GM and Chyrsler ALWAYS made the best choices over the years. Particularly when you can compare them to Ford who had many of the same handicaps.

Do you think it's impossible for a business to make choices, that in the end, are not the best for it's bottom line?

I completely agree with you, again , 
that in general when left alone businesses will, as a whole, pick the choices that maximize profits. That's a fact for sure in my mind. But there are umpteen reasons why sometimes they might not make the best choices, only some of which are incompetence. Businesses fail, products are failures, it happens, sometimes it's nothing more than luck, other times bad decisions where made.

Or do you think it's impossible for a business to make a bad choice?


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

MichaelK said:


> Or do you think it's impossible for a business to make a bad choice?


They certainly look good at the time and then unintended consequences set it, and then you get what you get. Sometimes it's better to be lucky then smart. Though we do not usually depend upon our luck around here.....

You could argue a good choice is relative to other choices and cable (sat as well), for the most part, has made there choice. It is likely the FCC may try to 'shove something down their collective throats' and we actually might live to see it happen, but without a clear mandate from congress (and probably even with) lawsuits will be many and the time will not be short. And even if they agree, do not expect compliance to be pretty (think CableCARD).

I know this, if the gov 'shoves something' down the throat of our business - compliance will be the minimum required by law. Unless, and of course, compliance increases profit - then our ability to exceed the regulations will know few (if any) limits.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> But plenty of times it's poor decisions that get businesses in trouble.


Yes, but even then it never ceases to amaze me how many consumers assume that failure, whether due to circumstances or bad decisions, is far more commonplace than it is. I cannot tell you how often I see the argument put forward that "companies are stupid and they all fail because they're stupid". It's puerile nonsense, but it practically dominates many discussions online.

Including some on TCF.



MichaelK said:


> The fact is business just DONT ALWAYS make the best LONG TERM choice.


Actually, this brings us back to my earlier point. Very often there are short-term imperatives (the word "imperative" implies that there is no way to get around the issue) that preclude making the best long-term choice. As a matter of fact, I think it is practically impossible for a public company to make the "best" long-term choice. Short-term-oriented demands by employees, shareholders, regulators, and even consumer sentiment compel companies to regularly make decisions that are representative of a compromise between long-term objectives and these short-term imperatives.



MichaelK said:


> But -it's tough to argue that GM and Chyrsler ALWAYS made the best choices over the years.


I don't want to get into the auto industry. It is much deeper than I think television forum posters would be interested in. Airlines are a little easier. Folks regularly question why, for example, United Airlines wasn't making the same choices, and therefore having the same success as Southwest Airlines had. This is a prototypical example of great long-term decisions made 30 years ago, with 5, 10 and 15 year time horizons, turned into disastrous decisions for the 25, 30, 35 year time horizon. Things change. "Long-term" is always relative.



MichaelK said:


> Particularly when you can compare them to Ford who had many of the same handicaps.


No, they didn't but like you said, let's not get into that.



MichaelK said:


> Do you think it's impossible for a business to make choices, that in the end, are not the best for it's bottom line?


I think it is impossible for a business to engage in an on-going pattern of decision-making that disrespects its owners.



MichaelK said:


> But there are umpteen reasons why sometimes they might not make the best choices, only some of which are incompetence.


Abso-friggen-lutely.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

bicker said:


> I think it is impossible for a business to engage in an on-going pattern of decision-making that disrespects its owners.


Absolutely. The business will fail or the owners (shareholders) will fire the person(s) involved in the process. Even if the owners and/ or share holders are directly running the business, poor decision making will eventually destroy the business. Luck is succeeding in spite of your best efforts at destroying your business through poor decision making.


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

daveak said:


> Absolutely. The business will fail or the owners (shareholders) will fire the person(s) involved in the process. Even if the owners and/ or share holders are directly running the business, poor decision making will eventually destroy the business. Luck is succeeding in spite of your best efforts at destroying your business through poor decision making.


If only any of that had anything to do with customers and consumers in a regulatory and structural environment like cable TV.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

If you don't think that the overriding obligations that service providers have to their owners don't impact consumers, then I believe you need to rethink your position in that regard.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

bicker said:


> I think it is impossible for a business to engage in an on-going pattern of decision-making that disrespects its owners.


Actually I think that is exactly what has been going on for over a decade. Over the entire stock market there is no justification for the level of executive compensation being paid. Over an extended period of time there are only a few companies where the current level of executive compensation is justified but they are a small minority.

Thanks,


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

bicker said:


> Comcast is still cheaper than DirecTV, here in Burlington, even with paying for each digital outlet.


I dont understand the cost involved in a digital outlet, if you connect one set or 100. The cost is the same. Its like SMS on cellular, the cost is barely measurable.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Videodrome said:


> I dont understand the cost involved in a digital outlet, if you connect one set or 100. The cost is the same. Its like SMS on cellular, the cost is barely measurable.


It's the old telephone model AT&T used. You have to pay for each telephone attached to the network. Cable has been jonesing for outlet fees for years even while marketing the advantage of one connection throughout your home as an advantage over Sat.

Cable does not:
 Want you to use your TV's tuner (for anything they provide, cuts into their VOD profits.)
 Want you to use any other third party devices to access cable content (cuts into their VOD profits.)
 Want you to use additional devices without paying for them.
 Want you to watch video content from any source they don't provide and will penalize you if you do. (Bandwidth caps/Cutting off service)


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> Actually I think that is exactly what has been going on for over a decade. Over the entire stock market there is no justification for the level of executive compensation being paid.


Executive compensation is a red herring. It isn't any part of what we're talking about, and doesn't represent, in case of any of the companies we're talking about, any significant percentage of expense.

And even putting that aside, the fact that *you *don't *see *justification doesn't mean that there isn't justification. There *is* justification, but you simply have chosen not to place value on things that most investors place value in. That's why we're still *talking *about executive compensation after ten years, instead of it already being a resolved issue: Investors are willing to pay more to get the best leaders.

You are welcome to invest your money in the organizations that pay their leaders the least, if that is so important to you. As a matter of fact, they have a specific investment vehicle for that. They're called T-Bills.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Videodrome said:


> I dont understand the cost involved in a digital outlet, if you connect one set or 100.


Do you understand the *value* that some folks derive from having the ability to watch television in the living room *or* the kitchen *or* the bedroom, depending on where they want to watch television at that specific moment?

The value is *not *the same. There is more value in having more flexibility about where you want to watch. The more value you derive, the more you should expect to pay.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

bicker said:


> Executive compensation is a red herring. It isn't any part of what we're talking about, and doesn't represent, in case of any of the companies we're talking about, any significant percentage of expense.
> 
> And even putting that aside, the fact that *you *don't *see *justification doesn't mean that there isn't justification. There *is* justification, but you simply have chosen not to place value on things that most investors place value in. That's why we're still *talking *about executive compensation after ten years, instead of it already being a resolved issue: Investors are willing to pay more to get the best leaders.
> 
> You are welcome to invest your money in the organizations that pay their leaders the least, if that is so important to you. As a matter of fact, they have a specific investment vehicle for that. They're called T-Bills.


Unless you are one of the few people/entities that own a substantial portion of a company executive compensation is not within the control of the owners, the only option owners have if they don't like the executive or the compensation package is to sell their ownership interests. When there was talk about congress actually requiring owners to have some limited rights in this area these executives complained and used what effectively was the owners money to stop it. The theory was that increasing executive compensation would increase profits and benefit owners. Sounds good until you understand that owners have no control or even much of a say in the matter. We have a system where executive A sits on a board and sets executive B's compensation and executive B sit on board and sets executive Cs compensation and so on and on and on. So over the last decade or 2 executive compensation has increased substantially has owners profits? I think not.

Of course there are exceptions however over the last decade or 2 the over all return to owners (of publicly owned companies) has not changed/increased over periods when executive compensation was lower. So unless you think paying executives more is just the right thing to do what was the justification?


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

Videodrome said:


> I dont understand the cost involved in a digital outlet, if you connect one set or 100. The cost is the same. Its like SMS on cellular, the cost is barely measurable.


The cost isn't the signal, or the content (the content is licensed to the whole address). The cost is simply to have an access device activated on the account, similar to the mirroring fee for satellite. It is just a mistake or calculated move, they called it an "outlet fee."


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

Anyone watching? I cant get it at work so I will have to wait to see what if anything was said.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

atmuscarella said:


> Sounds good until you understand that owners have no control or even much of a say in the matter. We have a system where executive A sits on a board and sets executive B's compensation and executive B sit on board and sets executive Cs compensation and so on and on and on. So over the last decade or 2 executive compensation has increased substantially has owners profits? I think not.


I compare it to a system where in fraternity row on a college is run by only the other fraternities with no involvement by either the college or the parents who pay the tuition.

In the case of the US - the College board and president has been sorely lacking in doing their job over the last few decades. The parents are trying to get them to do something but have little option other than taking their son out of the system or somehow getting onto the college board


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

innocentfreak said:


> Anyone watching? I cant get it at work so I will have to wait to see what if anything was said.


They're talking about it right now. Nothing being said so far that wasn't already mentioned here. They did mention that the gateway adapter could be sold at retail just like cable modems are today.

I will mention that the person currently asking questions about this is a complete techno-neophyte.

Edit:

Well that was short. They spent at most 3 minutes talking about it.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

bicker said:


> Do you understand the *value* that some folks derive from having the ability to watch television in the living room *or* the kitchen *or* the bedroom, depending on where they want to watch television at that specific moment?
> 
> The value is *not *the same. There is more value in having more flexibility about where you want to watch. The more value you derive, the more you should expect to pay.


So when home service was offered by cable. Cable wasnt expecting to get paid more ? I guess i should expect even more then. Our towns contract made it illegal to charge an outlet fee. Really the digital outlet fee, is the same as sms. Its just another unjustified money train.

The value of my cablecard experiences , is that cable should have given my 2 months free service for the hassle. How come i wasnt compensated.


----------



## segaily (Aug 3, 2003)

bicker said:


> Do you understand the *value* that some folks derive from having the ability to watch television in the living room *or* the kitchen *or* the bedroom, depending on where they want to watch television at that specific moment?
> 
> The value is *not *the same. There is more value in having more flexibility about where you want to watch. The more value you derive, the more you should expect to pay.


So by that reasoning if I take down the wall between the kitchen and my living room so I can watch the living room TV while cooking I should pay the cable company more because I am getting more value out of my cable TV.

Then if I use my slingbox to send the show to my bedroom I show also pay the cable company more.

Yes we do get value from being able to watch in more places but unless the cable company has done something to provide that value we should not be paying more for it. What cable does is provide artificial value. They set up a system were a set top box or cable card is needed then charge rent for each one. The idea of gateways show there is no need for the set top boxes but cable wants to continue to provide fake value they can charge for.

Normally I would say a company has every right to charge for fake value if they can get away with it. Companies that pull stuff like that end up in trouble when a competitor sees the opening and gives you a better deal. Cable however is in an industry that has huge barriers to entry so we get imperfect competition. In cases like that I think it is completely reasonable for government to provide regulations preventing a company from charging for fake value.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

segaily said:


> .........
> Normally I would say a company has every right to charge for fake value if they can get away with it. Companies that pull stuff like that end up in trouble when a competitor sees the opening and gives you a better deal. Cable however is in an industry that has huge barriers to entry so we get imperfect competition. In cases like that I think it is completely reasonable for government to provide regulations preventing a company from charging for fake value.


Yeah, but how much government micro-managing 

Can we afford? (Bureaucracies cost money.)
Can be practically enforced? (Enforcement costs money and can be politically abused) 
Can we stand without creating absurd unexpected consequences? (e.g., CableCARD/Tuning Adapter Fiasco)


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

segaily said:


> Normally I would say a company has every right to charge for fake value if they can get away with it. Companies that pull stuff like that end up in trouble when a competitor sees the opening and gives you a better deal. Cable however is in an industry that has huge barriers to entry so we get imperfect competition. In cases like that I think it is completely reasonable for government to provide regulations preventing a company from charging for fake value.


Actually if this gateway thing comes to fruition then those barriers will be significantly reduced. Just think about it. If a new provider could come into your neighborhood and offer you TV service through some alternate means (i.e. wireless, fiber, internet, etc...) and all they needed to make it work for you was to replace 1 box in your house, there would be a whole lot more competition.

Heck the competition from the DSS providers alone would probably get cable companies to lower their prices and pick up the pace on innovation. I know that I personally would have switched to DirecTV years ago if so much of my equipment wasn't already tied to cable. If all I had to do was swap out one box and everything else would just continue to work, then I'd be much more likely to switch providers on s whim if one had a service I wanted or significantly lower prices.

Unfortunately I think that attitude is what's going to make all the providers resist this change. They like that it's hard for people to switch providers. I think that if this system does come to be then we're going to start seeing a lot more providers requiring long term contracts, like cell phones, so they can keep you locked to their service.

Dan


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

FCC Inches Towards Net-Agnostic Gateways


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> Actually if this gateway thing comes to fruition then those barriers will be significantly reduced. Just think about it. If a new provider could come into your neighborhood and offer you TV service through some alternate means (i.e. wireless, fiber, internet, etc...) and all they needed to make it work for you was to replace 1 box in your house, there would be a whole lot more competition.


exactly - let the cable company charge as it wants after that. Let the gateway meter out outlets even. If I finally have competition in that I could switch to DBS without replacing my current TiVo DVRs or some fancy digital TV can still be fully functional then let the value wars begin.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> ... the only option owners have if they don't like the executive or the compensation package is to sell their ownership interests.


That's all the power you need.

Regardless, it is a red herring. It is noise -- nothing more than a distraction from the issue we're discussing. Why are you trying to distract attention away from what we're discussing, instead of trying to defend your objection to the point that was made?


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

In case anyone missed it, this is from the FCC today:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-61A1.pdf

Particularly interesting:


FCC said:


> Part 15 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
> I. SUBPART B: Unintentional Radiators
> 1. Amend § 15.123 to read as follows:
> § 15.123 Labeling of Digital Cable Ready Products
> ...


I am not 100% positive on this, but this supposedly opens up the door for a lot of other software players in the media center market.



> Part 76 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
> I. SUBPART K - TECHNICAL STANDARDS
> 1. Amend § 76.640 to read as follows:
> § 76.640 Support for unidirectional digital cable products on digital cable systems.
> ...


Cool! This essentially means that cable company provided STBs will have either USB, firewire ports or ethernet capability similar to that of a HDHomeRun. I'm liking what I see so far.



> Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-61
> 14
> II. SUBPART P - COMPETITIVE AVAILABILITY OF NAVIGATION DEVICES
> 1. Amend § 76.1204 to read as follows:
> ...


Nice! This means hopefully that we can end the nonsensical practice of requiring a $70 (in some cases) truck roll to install a cablecard, and people who need two cards don't have a tech show up (between 10am and 5pm) with only one S card when they wanted/needed two.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Videodrome said:


> Our towns contract made it illegal to charge an outlet fee.


That's a sure-fire way of chasing away any chance of ever getting any further competition.



Videodrome said:


> Really the digital outlet fee, is the same as sms. Its just another unjustified money train.


Incorrect. It is a justified money train. If it wasn't justified, you wouldn't care about it. You care about it because you value having multiple outlets. That demonstrates their value. That justifies charging you more for it.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

segaily said:


> So by that reasoning if I take down the wall between the kitchen and my living room so I can watch the living room TV while cooking I should pay the cable company more because I am getting more value out of my cable TV.


How the heck are you suggesting that they gauge that? Try to keep your comments limited to the rational, okay?



segaily said:


> Yes we do get value from being able to watch in more places


End of story.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> That's a sure-fire way of chasing away any chance of ever getting any further competition.
> 
> Incorrect. It is a justified money train. If it wasn't justified, you wouldn't care about it. You care about it because you value having multiple outlets. That demonstrates their value. That justifies charging you more for it.


What exactly in your opinion does the outlet fee cover?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Raj said:


> What exactly in your opinion does the outlet fee cover?


It covers extending the provision of service to the additional outlet.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

Raj said:


> Nice! This means hopefully that we can end the nonsensical practice of requiring a $70 (in some cases) truck roll to install a cablecard, and people who need two cards don't have a tech show up (between 10am and 5pm) with only one S card when they wanted/needed two.


Nearly another slam dunk for TiVo. The only downside is the slight hesitance to immediately recommend TiVo's IP based SDV solution. But there's still hope for that. They do sate equal access to non-linear programming as one of their goals and there aren't any other proposals on the table to achieve that right now.


----------



## segaily (Aug 3, 2003)

bicker said:


> How the heck are you suggesting that they gauge that? Try to keep your comments limited to the rational, okay?
> 
> End of story.


lol so does that mean you think that if the cable company could find a way to gauge it they should be able to charge for it?

Truthfully I am very torn on a lot of this because I do not like government intervention. I also think that the internet is slowly starting to provide more competition for the cable companies and that they may be forced to become more consumer friendly if they want to remain in business.

It really comes down to if the barriers to entry for competition are large enough to justify more regulation of the cable industry. At the moment I am inclined to still say yes. Though I will freely admit I would like to see them support a gateway device so I could be biased by my personal desire.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> It covers extending the provision of service to the additional outlet.


Your definition surprisingly does not match what is defined by the FCC. The FCC defines the AO fee as "the cost of the wiring and parts installed and the estimated cost to maintain the outlet. This monthly fee generally will be quite low. "

So let's just get this out of the way - it has nothing to do with provision of service. It has everything to do with wiring and parts (splitters, taps, actives), i.e. the actual cost of the outlet and maintaining it, *as defined by the FCC.*

Comcast in particular seems to think that fee is $7/month, which is pretty high. However they give you one CableCARD or box for no additional cost. This is one thing the FCC intends to remedy - the CableCARD rental charge will now be a separate line item. In Comcast's case it is not. But this will change by FCC rule soon. Good thing. People will actually see how much the actual AO fee is versus the equipment rental charge.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Raj said:


> Your definition surprisingly does not match what is defined by the FCC. The FCC defines the AO fee as "the cost of the wiring and parts installed and the estimated cost to maintain the outlet. This monthly fee generally will be quite low. "
> 
> So let's just get this out of the way - it has nothing to do with provision of service. It has everything to do with wiring and parts (splitters, taps, actives), i.e. the actual cost of the outlet and maintaining it, *as defined by the FCC.*


That fee should be $0 then because Comcast doesn't maintain the internal wiring in my house, it was built into the house by the developer. Actually my bill does show three additional outlets at $0 each. I'm not sure why that is though as it's been like that for about 6 years.

Comcast does charge me a separate optional house wire maintenance fee which basically means if I report a problem with my service and Comcast comes out and finds that the problem is caused by the internal wiring in my house, they won't charge me for the service call. They won't fix it, but they won't charge me.

Comcast does show a cableCARD fee on my bill, but only for cards in non-rented devices (my S3 in my case). I think that's what the FCC wants to change. They want the CableCARD fee to show up for separately for cards in rental devices instead of being lumped together with the box rental fee. Now whether that means the cable companies will now start charging for all deployed cableCARDS in addition to cable boxes or they do something like they do now with the box and remote where it shows as one charge and then it's broken down into sub-charges (for the box and the remote).


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

segaily said:


> lol so does that mean you think that if the cable company could find a way to gauge it they should be able to charge for it?


Business 101: Understand your customers, understand what they value, provide it to them, and charge them for it.



segaily said:


> Truthfully I am very torn on a lot of this because I do not like government intervention.


What I find is that a lot of people who don't like government intervention really only don't like when it adversely affects them.  They're fine with it when it is to their own personal benefit.



segaily said:


> I also think that the internet is slowly starting to provide more competition for the cable companies and that they may be forced to become more consumer friendly if they want to remain in business.


There is a reasonable argument to be made that subscription television service via cable, itself, is in danger from alternatives, i.e., Internet distribution and satellite services. If you buy-into that, then the only hope for the future that the cable companies have is to convert themselves into, essentially, competitors to the phone company, in which case they need to adjust to the way the phone company deals with its customers.



segaily said:


> It really comes down to if the barriers to entry for competition are large enough to justify more regulation of the cable industry.


And effectively decimate any ability for the companies to raise capital to enhance their offerings. It's like gelding a stallion -- you'll get a good ride for a few years, but don't expect them to father any foals in the future.

You might as well shut them down, than regulate them in the way you are insinuating.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Raj said:


> Your definition surprisingly does not match what is defined by the FCC. The FCC defines the AO fee as "the cost of the wiring and parts installed and the estimated cost to maintain the outlet. This monthly fee generally will be quite low. "


That applies to the cost of additional outlets for the regulated (B1) service. The FCC is not authorized to regulate rates for upper-tier services. Note that the additional outlet fees we're talking about are only applied to replicate *upper-tier *service to additional outlets.



Raj said:


> So let's just get this out of the way - it has nothing to do with provision of service. It has everything to do with wiring and parts (splitters, taps, actives), i.e. the actual cost of the outlet and maintaining it, as defined by the FCC.


Again, that only applies to what the FCC is authorized to regulate, and therefore is irrelevant to what we're talking about.



morac said:


> That fee should be $0 then because Comcast doesn't maintain the internal wiring in my house, it was built into the house by the developer.


Indeed, which underscores how wrong Raj's understanding of the situation is.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

segaily said:


> cable business is changing for sure - but do you think people will go - Oh I do not want that lower rate from Hulu, the cable company has been so darn nice and easy to work with lately.


----------



## lgerbarg (Jun 26, 2000)

The notice of inquiry is out, which the FCC created based on their initial feedback from companies, and now that they have something a bit more concrete they are asking for more feedback. Here are the highlights:


The refer to the gateway as a "setback device"
They propose two configurations of setback device, 1 with dual tuners for a single set, and one with 6 tuners multiple sets. They acknowledge there may be a need to scale beyond that
They propose using IP as an underlying protocol
They propose using UPnP for discovery
They propose using DTCP-IP for security
They propose requiring 100baseT as an interconnect, though ask for feedback if that is necessary and mention some other options
They mention that this might allow them to phase out cable cards and get rid of integration ban


----------



## segaily (Aug 3, 2003)

bicker said:


> And effectively decimate any ability for the companies to raise capital to enhance their offerings. It's like gelding a stallion -- you'll get a good ride for a few years, but don't expect them to father any foals in the future.
> 
> You might as well shut them down, than regulate them in the way you are insinuating.


Are you saying that you think regulations forcing providers to offer gateway devices will make them become unprofitable? At this point I have seen no evidence to support that position. If that is not what you are saying on what do you base the claim that a still profitable company will no longer be able to raise capital to innovate.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

lgerbarg said:


> The refer to the gateway as a "setback device"


With that name, it's almost like they expecting the device to fail.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

bicker said:


> That's a sure-fire way of chasing away any chance of ever getting any further competition.
> 
> Incorrect. It is a justified money train. If it wasn't justified, you wouldn't care about it. You care about it because you value having multiple outlets. That demonstrates their value. That justifies charging you more for it.


Is that why we have Fios, as well now ?


----------



## segaily (Aug 3, 2003)

bicker said:


> What I find is that a lot of people who don't like government intervention really only don't like when it adversely affects them.  They're fine with it when it is to their own personal benefit.
> .


I am sure that is true in many cases. I also think many people fail to recognize the hidden costs of regulations so they support regulations that will actually hurt them thinking they will help.

It is in fact the hidden cost of regulations that are often very hard to predict that makes me generally reluctant to support government intervention. I think in most cases letting free markets deal with issues work better. That makes the question for me is cable in a true free market. They do have some competition, but also have vast areas where they enjoy a virtual monopoly. How much direct and indirect government support did they receive when building their infrastructure in those areas? If a company is only in a location making money because of initial government support that is not available to other companies to compete then a good case can be made for government regulation.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

segaily said:


> I am sure that is true in many cases. I also think many people fail to recognize the hidden costs of regulations so they support regulations that will actually hurt them thinking they will help.
> 
> It is in fact the hidden cost of regulations that are often very hard to predict that makes me generally reluctant to support government intervention.  I think in most cases letting free markets deal with issues work better. That makes the question for me is cable in a true free market. They do have some competition, but also have vast areas where they enjoy a virtual monopoly. How much direct and indirect government support did they receive when building their infrastructure in those areas? If a company is only in a location making money because of initial government support that is not available to other companies to compete then a good case can be made for government regulation.


Lets be honest without "Government Regulations" (also called laws) these companies would not be in business. So the only question is what the regulations are going to be and what is the "best" balance to serve all interested parties. Of course we could debate what the "proper" balance is forever which is normally what goes on and as far as I can tell is going on it this thread.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

segaily said:


> Are you saying that you think regulations forcing providers to offer gateway devices will make them become unprofitable?


The comment you took out of context was in response specifically to the non-specific suggestion you made, "more regulation of the cable industry". If you want to be more specific about what you mean, I'll be glad to consider a reply.

As it is, FWIR, gateway devices will be spec'ed out so that they can still limit the gateway to serving either one or multiple outlets, with an added charge for the latter. In that case, as long as existing equipment is grandfathered, as has been the FCC's past practice, such gateway devices are not going to have a significant adverse impact on them.



segaily said:


> At this point I have seen no evidence to support that position.


I've seen no evidence to support the opposite position. What's your point? That babies have to die before we stop wholesale pollution of our air and water?



segaily said:


> If that is not what you are saying on what do you base the claim that a still profitable company will no longer be able to raise capital to innovate.


I'm an investor. I'm telling you that one factor smart investors factor into their investment decisions is the extent to which government regulation would decimate the company's ability to pay me better returns than any other way I could invest my money. If you want my capital to fund the innovation you want to see, then you have to make the company that will practice that innovation the very best possible use for my investment capital.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Videodrome said:


> Is that why we have Fios, as well now ?


FiOS, who charges for every digital outlet as well. What's your point?


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

bicker said:


> FiOS, who charges for every digital outlet as well. What's your point?


No they dont.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

innocentfreak said:


> No they dont.


Yes, they do charge for the same additional digital outlets as Comcast does.


----------



## segaily (Aug 3, 2003)

bicker said:


> The comment you took out of context was in response specifically to the non-specific suggestion you made, "more regulation of the cable industry". If you want to be more specific about what you mean, I'll be glad to consider a reply.


Sorry I thought this thread was about gateway regulations and not sure how it was out of context. Though in a way that makes your last statement even worse because it means my general statement of cable regulation lead to you saying it would be the end of cable being able to raise money. That is a great example of how far to extremes you are willing to go and I must say for me raises questions about all of your responses.



bicker said:


> I've seen no evidence to support the opposite position. What's your point? That babies have to die before we stop wholesale pollution of our air and water?


I was not the one making the wild jump that "regulation" would lead to cable not being able to raise money. Really not sure how you made the even more wild jump to dead babies but throwing in things like that just make all of your arguments look weaker. The worst part of that is I do think you have a lot of valid points.



bicker said:


> I'm an investor. I'm telling you that one factor smart investors factor into their investment decisions is the extent to which government regulation would decimate the company's ability to pay me better returns than any other way I could invest my money. If you want my capital to fund the innovation you want to see, then you have to make the company that will practice that innovation the very best possible use for my investment capital.


Very true. I do the same thing and yes companies do sometimes raise money by offering more stock, but a profitable company can also raise money to innovate by borrowing. In fact it is small business that is usually hurt by regulation because they can not borrow the way a large company can and have a much greater need to be able to raise investment capital. In fact if this was truly a competitive market cable would probably be in favor of more regulation because it would lead to an even greater barrier to entry for competitors. They already have that barrier however so of course oppose more regulation.

Just for the record your statement makes it look like you already have a financial stake in this argument and would indicate a personal bias against the regulation even if it made sense overall. I will give you the benefit of doubt that you just meant "I'm an investor" in a general sense however.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

bicker said:


> Yes, they do charge for the same additional digital outlets as Comcast does.


Well since I have Fios and dont pay for any outlet fees. Where are you getting your info and according to that info what are they supposedly charging me?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

segaily said:


> Sorry I thought this thread was about gateway regulations and not sure how it was out of context.


Your reply to the specific comment was out of the context within which the reply was made.



segaily said:


> Though in a way that makes your last statement even worse because it means my general statement of cable regulation lead to you saying it would be the end of cable being able to raise money.


Not at all; you're just being obtuse. I made a specific statement as a specific reply to a categorical statement you made. Please don't blame me because you weren't clear about what you were saying.

Beyond that, you cannot possibly claim, now, that you are confused about the context of what I said, because it is has been so significantly clarified by our back-and-forth. The question now is whether you are going to go forward understanding it, or are you going to go forward deliberately intent on continuing misunderstanding it? Which makes more sense to you?



segaily said:


> I was not the one making the wild jump that "regulation" would lead to cable not being able to raise money.


You posted the categorical statement I replied to. Please take responsibility for _your own _comments, as I have: I've made my position clear, when you asked for clarification. Why are you refusing to do the same?



segaily said:


> Really not sure how you made the even more wild jump to dead babies but throwing in things like that just make all of your arguments look weaker.


Not at all. It's an analogy.



segaily said:


> The worst part of that is I do think you have a lot of valid points.


Then please stop trying so hard to ignore them.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

segaily said:


> Very true. I do the same thing and yes companies do sometimes raise money by offering more stock, but a profitable company can also raise money to innovate by borrowing.


Borrowing is just a way of taking something from the existing owners. I'm not going to vote for directors who are going to allow the company to take equity from me to pursue something that isn't the very best use of that equity. Better to give that money back to me, and let me invest it in the better investment I referred to earlier.



segaily said:


> Just for the record your statement makes it look like you already have a financial stake in this argument and would indicate a personal bias against the regulation even if it made sense overall.


I own a few TiVos... that's clear from my profile. That's bias in one direction. I invest money. That's bias in another direction. If you don't invest money, then you are only biased in one direction. So please tell me: Are you biased solely toward one side of the issue? Or is your bias balanced in both directions?


----------



## segaily (Aug 3, 2003)

Bicker you do realize there are cases were regulations can be good for a company correct? I was calling you on your blanket statement that regulation would make it impossible for cable to raise money. You are correct however at this point that is pretty irrelevant because I think we both now understand what we each meant. 

Sorry I think needing to resort to dead baby analogies make for pretty weak looking arguments but hey maybe that is just me. 

I was not intending to ignore your good points but when you started using such extreme cases it got me off track. Of course maybe that was the point because I do not think you have responded to the fact that cable competition has extreme barriers to entry so some government regulation makes sense.

As a long term investor I have no problem with a company borrowing money if it will lead to future growth. If my time horizon was short term then I would not want that but then I would not want stock dilution from bringing in more investor money either. Are you against companies investing in future growth in general? 

My biases are some small stakes in retirement funds that do contain some cable verses the possibility that I might someday gain extra features by use of a gateway. At the moment I am very happy with my cable card TiVo so really I think my personal bias is pretty small. I do however personally believe in encouraging competition. Normally that means I am against regulation but because I am leaning towards thinking that cable is not in a normal competitive market then that leads me to thinking that regulations the encourage competition in the set top box market might be good.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

lgerbarg said:


> The refer to the gateway as a "setback device"
> They propose two configurations of setback device, 1 with dual tuners for a single set, and one with 6 tuners multiple sets. They acknowledge there may be a need to scale beyond that
> They propose using IP as an underlying protocol
> They propose using UPnP for discovery
> ...


why in the world would they put the tuners in the gateway device?????
anyone recall the joy of waiting for a series 2 hooked directly to a STB to change the channel?


----------



## segaily (Aug 3, 2003)

Bicker in my opinion you our best point is that many of us in this thread have not given enough thought to the harm regulations may do to the owners of the cable companies. They do have a legitimate right to the chance to make money because they are taking the chance of loosing money in exchange for it. That is after all what investing is all about and is one thing that makes this country great.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

Regulations are only good for profits when they harm other companies or technologies that compete with you. Or they simply harm you less then your competitor.

You could argue increasing regulations are good for big business, as they make it much harder for business upstarts and new small businesses to enter the playing field. The cost per employee in a small business is inherently more expensive to comply with increasing regulation, which harms large businesses less than their smaller competitors.

Regulatory compliance is often more costly to smaller companies on a per capita basis and therefore limits competition and favors large companies. Though this is not always true, there is generally less regulatory benefit to smaller companies.

The thing is, when the government attempts to level the playing filed and help foster competition and help new companies enter the field - increasing regulations often have unintended consequences and *cost* - harming smaller companies more, and preventing more from entering the field.

Think CableCARD. How did this help other companies enter the cable set top box market? I would say it increased costs for third parties and made them even more uncompetitive with cable in offering set top boxes. And cable cos were certainly more able to absorb the costs and thwart competitors than smaller companies like TiVo. And with no financial incentive to make CableCARDs work well and easy for the consumer, most cable cos did the minimum required and harmed the business model (and discouraged others from entering) of third party set top providers.

If the Gateway increases regulation, it will certainly harm some business models and may help some *at the expense* of others. I can see how in some ways it will increase competition, but it will be at the expense of lost business for some.

(Increased) Regulation, intentional or not, has the government selecting or influencing winners and losers in the marketplace. The Gateways will go the way of CableCARD if there is no financial incentive (i.e. increased profits) for companies to make them work.


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> why in the world would they put the tuners in the gateway device?????


The gateway must have tuners, because different services use completely incompatible tuners and modulation schemes.

The tuners in satellite boxes aren't compatible with cable, and vice versa. The demodulator chips in satellite boxes aren't compatible with cable, and vice versa. It is not cost effective to integrate or combine these technologies. Furthermore, IPTV providers like U-Verse don't have tuners in their boxes, and cable companies may eventually move to some form of IPTV. When that happens, only the MSO's gateway must be replaced under this proposal.

The primary goal of the gateway proposal is to create a market for third-party STBs and DVRs. A key component of that is reducing cost. The easiest way to cut cost is to move the tuners out of the STB and DVR and move them into the gateway provided by the MSO. The FCC's gateway proposal turns all third-party products into [lower cost] IPTV-type boxes.

Broadcom DVR SoCs like those in the TiVo Premiere feature a data transport module that will record up to six IPTV streams at once. All that is needed to support such "six tuner" functionality in a CE device is the SoC, DDR2 memory, flash memory, and hard drive. Such a product can be built for around $100, or at roughly half the cost of the TiVo Premiere.



ZeoTiVo said:


> anyone recall the joy of waiting for a series 2 hooked directly to a STB to change the channel?


That experience is not relevant. The added latency associated with IP delivery is virtually non-existent. The consumer will still have the latency from tuning and decoding, just as they have today with built-in tuners, but there should be no noticeable delay beyond that.



daveak said:


> Think CableCARD. How did this help other companies enter the cable set top box market? I would say it increased costs for third parties and made them even more uncompetitive with cable in offering set top boxes. And cable cos were certainly more able to absorb the costs and thwart competitors than smaller companies like TiVo. And with no financial incentive to make CableCARDs work well and easy for the consumer, most cable cos did the minimum required and harmed the business model (and discouraged others from entering) of third party set top providers.


The proposed gateway solution is the approach the FCC should have taken from the start. CableCard never made much sense, because it took existing cable set-top technology and made it more expensive by imposing additional hardware costs and licensing requirements. The gateway proposal does the opposite; it reduces the requirements to cut significant cost from third-party products, at some expense to cable companies (or at least, legacy cable equipment). Cable companies should also benefit from lower-cost STBs.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> why in the world would they put the tuners in the gateway device?????
> anyone recall the joy of waiting for a series 2 hooked directly to a STB to change the channel?


Because that's the only way to allow a consumer device to tune any type of signal (cable, satellite, OTA, etc) without having to have a separate tuner for each possible source. It also allows consumer devices to work with possible new sources (TV over power line?) in the future.

As for changing channels, once I got a serial connection to my STB with my old S2 changes took between 1 to 2 seconds. This should be faster since the change signal would be sent via TCP/IP as one message (not one digit at a time like with the S2). So the channel change should be no slower than what it is now with S3 and S4 boxes.

The real limitation in the gateway is the 100baseT network interface as that limits the amount of channels that can be streamed.

Also as currently proposed it wouldn't work with TiVo DVRs since they don't do UPnP or DTCP-IP, but that could be updated via software. I'm not sure if Series 3 boxes could do DTCP-IP, but by 2013 I doubt the Series 3 boxes will be getting software updates anyway as they'll be past their "end-of-life" stage so it's likely Series 3 boxes won't work with gateways.

Edit:

bktv beats me by a minute.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bkdtv said:


> The gateway must have tuners, because different services use completely incompatible tuners and modulation schemes.


Crud - I was hoping they would have a gateway that would take whatever came in and turn the whole digital stream into something a defined standard tuner could use.

Now it sounds like instead I will need some box for each TV and for each DVR (unless Tivo can makes use of what you describe to get the IPTV feed) and I would need to size the unit with the broadcaster since there are either tuners or there are not tuners versus sending a digital stream around.

I am now less interested in this


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

segaily said:


> Bicker you do realize there are cases were regulations can be good for a company correct?


Absolutely. If you read some of my messages you'll see clearly where I *advocate *fair regulations. If you're choosing to see me as presenting a specific perspective without regard to context, then you're not getting the big picture.



segaily said:


> You are correct however at this point that is pretty irrelevant because I think we both now understand what we each meant.


Given that, I have no idea why you thought it useful to rehash the confusion. Whatever.



segaily said:


> Sorry I think needing to resort to dead baby analogies make for pretty weak looking arguments but hey maybe that is just me.


Then you're not paying attention. By magnifying both the context and the consequence, you can see the implication more clearly. Go back and read it again. If you have an open mind, and are not just blindly trying to find another excuse to call an argument that you don't *like* "weak"  then I'm sure you'll come to see the parallel and understand the point I made. If you're intent on keeping the blinders on, that's okay too. I can agree to disagree with you.



segaily said:


> Of course maybe that was the point because I do not think you have responded to the fact that cable competition has extreme barriers to entry so some government regulation makes sense.


Didn't see that. I've said many times that the federal government should pass a regulation prohibiting municipalities from refusing to grant franchises to any company willing to abide by a "me too" agreement, i.e., comply with all the tenets of the franchise agreement made with any other service provider.

That government regulation would make a lot of sense, to me.



segaily said:


> As a long term investor I have no problem with a company borrowing money if it will lead to future growth.


Which is exactly what I said. The problem is that you cannot demonstrate that what you're advocating for provides the greatest amount of future growth.


segaily said:


> Are you against companies investing in future growth in general?


Not at all. Again, you haven't proved that what you're advocating for provides the greatest amount of future growth. You're essentially saying A and C and skipping B, so your whole argument falls apart.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> why in the world would they put the tuners in the gateway device?????


"I told you" that people would just whine about the gateways.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> "I told you" that people would just whine about the gateways.


This is not whining - I simply do not like the technical approach they are taking. Tuners in the gateway will mean more cost to broadcast companies and less chance for them to innovate. Tuners will be a very limiting factor - BKDTV has good detail on why it would be hard to have the tuners elsewhere but this really mucks things up from a technical perspective.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

daveak said:


> The thing is, when the government attempts to level the playing filed and help foster competition and help new companies enter the field - increasing regulations often have unintended consequences and *cost* - harming smaller companies more, and preventing more from entering the field.


This is a really important point Dave made.

By extension, one of the best way to foster competition in a situation where there is a high barrier to entry -- and I know how much so many of the consumerists will go apoplectic when they read this -- is to impose taxes that are earmarked to subsidize start-up costs for new entrants. Yes, those taxes will get passed-along directly to consumers, but it is consumers investing their own money toward something that will pay off for them in the long-term. That makes a heck of a lot more sense, and is actually a lot fairer, than trying to get one company to expend _its _resources for the benefit of _some other _company.

The reason why consumer(ist)s go apoplectic in response to such an idea is because they are afflicted by entitlement mentality, the belief that everything that is good for them should be provide to them without them making any sacrifices to get it... essentially just handed to them on a silver platter.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> This is not whining


It's still whining.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

I hope they request more than 2 tuners then otherwise I am going to need at least 1 6 tuner device per tv if not more assuming I am understanding all of this correctly. Most of my outlets have 6 tuners already connected.

Would it be a possibility to install the device at the central distribution of the house or from the recommendations would each device like a TiVo need a direct connection? I havent had time to read much of what is out there or coming out about this device.


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Crud - I was hoping they would have a gateway that would take whatever came in and turn the whole digital stream into something a defined standard tuner could use.


Not possible.



ZeoTiVo said:


> Now it sounds like instead I will need some box for each TV and for each DVR (unless Tivo can makes use of what you describe to get the IPTV feed) and I would need to size the unit with the broadcaster since there are either tuners or there are not tuners versus sending a digital stream around.


You won't need a box for every TV. The FCC proposed two gateway configurations -- one with two tuners and the other with six. One six-tuner gateway would serve multiple TVs. Quote:



> The AllVid equipment would be designed to operate specifically with one MVPD and offered through the MVPDs preferred mechanism, whether leased or sold at retail, manufactured by one company or competitively. We foresee two possible physical configurations for the AllVid equipment. In the first configuration, the AllVid equipment would be a small set-back device, capable of communicating with one navigation device or TV set and providing at least two simultaneous video streams to allow for picture-in-picture and to allow subscribers to watch a program on one channel while recording a program on another channel. In the second configuration, the AllVid equipment would act as a whole-home gateway, capable of simultaneously communicating with multiple navigation devices within the home, and providing at least six simultaneous video streams within the home (which would allow picture-in-picture in three different rooms), possibly through a modular system that could accommodate more streams as necessary. We seek input on each of these configurations and whether one of these configurations is more appropriate than the other, or if there are other superior configurations that should be considered.


The current proposal only mentions 100Mbps ethernet, but the FCC is taking comments on alternatives. Some version of MoCA would probably make more sense.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Okay, but that means you'd need new televisions that are capable of understanding how to communicate with the gateway device (if not a separate box for each television).

Presumably, something like a TiVo could probably be upgraded to communicate with the gateway device - is that a reasonable assumption?

Though maybe not: The gateway sounds like it would be like you're own private SDV system.


----------



## lgerbarg (Jun 26, 2000)

innocentfreak said:


> I hope they request more than 2 tuners then otherwise I am going to need at least 1 6 tuner device per tv if not more assuming I am understanding all of this correctly. Most of my outlets have 6 tuners already connected.


You actively watch/record 6 channels at the same time on every TV?



> Would it be a possibility to install the device at the central distribution of the house or from the recommendations would each device like a TiVo need a direct connection? I havent had time to read much of what is out there or coming out about this device.


That is the whole point. You get 1 6 tuner box, leave it somewhere central, connect it to all your TVs/DVRs via ethernet (or possibly MoCA to reuse the existing coax), and when a device needs to tune to a channel it asks the gateway to do it, and the gateway then tunes the channel and start streaming the channel back to the device.

They discuss the idea of using multiple gateways at different locations in the same house (primarily so that you can use a 2 tuner one with each TV, which seems like a transitional setup to deal with existing wiring), but that does not appear to be proposed as a normal configuration.


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

bicker said:


> Presumably, something like a TiVo could probably be upgraded to communicate with the gateway device - is that a reasonable assumption?


Yes.

UPnP or DTCP-IP are required, but those are features supported by the existing hardware (but not the existing software).

The TiVo HD may not be able to maintain the necessary streaming throughput when DTCP-IP encryption is enabled, but the Premiere most certainly can.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

lgerbarg said:


> You actively watch/record 6 channels at the same time on every TV


See my sig. I currently have 10 tuners over two TVs with plans of adding a Ceton quad tuner to the PC once released. I pretty much record 24/7.


----------



## lgerbarg (Jun 26, 2000)

ZeoTiVo said:


> This is not whining - I simply do not like the technical approach they are taking. Tuners in the gateway will mean more cost to broadcast companies and less chance for them to innovate. Tuners will be a very limiting factor - BKDTV has good detail on why it would be hard to have the tuners elsewhere but this really mucks things up from a technical perspective.


Tuners are a limiting detail right now. One of the things pointed out in this document is that once gateways are ubiquitous the MPVDs will be free to transmit in anyway they want on their wires (IE, in the long run they may not even use QAM). For Uverse or FiOS it may result in them spending less money by omitting tuning hardware altogether and going pure IP.

There are plenty of savings for the cable companies as well. First off, if they no longer need to use cable cards in any of their devices that is pretty big (cable cards and the associated hardware allegedly cost over $60 a piece, so getting rid of one pays for ~4-6 tuners). It also will likely reduce the cost of the low end digital adapter boxes people use with old sets, since an ethernet interface is much cheaper than a digital tuner (even an SD one).

In my house we have 2 DVRs and 3 digital adapters, which means in total there are:


7 tuners
2 cablecards
5 power supplies
5 video decoders
5 SoC/MB/Case
2 ethernet controller

Moving to a gateway based setup that goes to


6 tuners
6 power supplies
5 video decoders
6 power supplies
6 SoC/MB/Case
6 ethernet controllers

So


-1 tuner
-2 cable cards
+1 power supply
+1 SoC/MB/Case
+4 ethernet controllers

Net result, almost equivalent functionality (1 less tuner across my whole house, but I never have every set in use at the same time, and if I did several of them would probably be on the same channel, which could probably reuse the same tuner if the gateway was intelligent), a slightly different hardware mix, but given that a digital tuner is around $10 and the cable cards are $60 according the the cable cos, there is a cost reduction of ~$125 which can be used to cover the other bits of new hardware, and once TVs actually start supporting AllVid directly there are more potential savings.

The point I am making is that it is not clear this will be more expensive than existing configurations once deployed, though there will obviously be some transition costs, and a period of time where they need to support both legacy technologies and new technologies, but it seems like there are some pretty realistic savings for the cable companies as well.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

lgerbarg said:


> Tuners are a limiting detail right now. One of the things pointed out in this document is that once gateways are ubiquitous the MPVDs will be free to transmit in anyway they want on their wires (IE, in the long run they may not even use QAM). For Uverse or FiOS it may result in them spending less money by omitting tuning hardware altogether and going pure IP.
> 
> There are plenty of savings for the cable companies as well. First off, if they no longer need to use cable cards in any of their devices that is pretty big (cable cards and the associated hardware allegedly cost over $60 a piece, so getting rid of one pays for ~4-6 tuners). It also will likely reduce the cost of the low end digital adapter boxes people use with old sets, since an ethernet interface is much cheaper than a digital tuner (even an SD one).
> 
> ...


You won't see a dime of any savings. The Cable Companies will pocket all of it and charge you more for the service.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> You won't see a dime of any savings. The Cable Companies will pocket all of it and charge you more for the service.


I would actually expect the price to go up, at least in the short run, as cable needs to recoup the cost of buying millions of soon to be obsolete CableCARDs. Plus the cost of setting up the whole gateway interface.

The new system and the old system will need to run side by side for a while though to allow legacy boxes to work. Like I mentioned before I doubt the TiVo Series 3 units (S3/HD/XL) will be updated to support this.


----------



## segaily (Aug 3, 2003)

bicker said:


> Then you're not paying attention. By magnifying both the context and the consequence, you can see the implication more clearly. Go back and read it again. If you have an open mind, and are not just blindly trying to find another excuse to call an argument that you don't *like* "weak"  then I'm sure you'll come to see the parallel and understand the point I made. If you're intent on keeping the blinders on, that's okay too. I can agree to disagree with you.


I would agree with you here but when I gave a magnified example you told me to stick to the rational so you can not have that argument both ways.



bicker said:


> Didn't see that. I've said many times that the federal government should pass a regulation prohibiting municipalities from refusing to grant franchises to any company willing to abide by a "me too" agreement, i.e., comply with all the tenets of the franchise agreement made with any other service provider.
> 
> That government regulation would make a lot of sense, to me.


I agree that is a good idea though it certainly does not address all the barriers to entry that anyone wanting to compete with cable face.



bicker said:


> Which is exactly what I said. The problem is that you cannot demonstrate that what you're advocating for provides the greatest amount of future growth.Not at all. Again, you haven't proved that what you're advocating for provides the greatest amount of future growth. You're essentially saying A and C and skipping B, so your whole argument falls apart.


Now this I think is our major source of disagreement. I do not think a regulation has any need to demonstrate that it provides for the greatest amount of future growth. In fact I would say that if it does it is probably a bad regulation because it means it must be killing competition. The whole point of good regulation should be to insure no babies are killed not to insure a companies future growth! I could not resist.  The point of a regulation is to balance the public interest. Both the public interest in a company doing well and there are many benefits of that and the public interest that the regulation is trying to protect or provide.

In this case the public interest in allowing competition in the set top box market verses any cost the regulation will force on the cable and hopefully satellite providers.


----------



## acvthree (Jan 17, 2004)

Can you point to an example of a country without regulation that has be more robust cable industry than the US?


----------



## lgerbarg (Jun 26, 2000)

Stormspace said:


> You won't see a dime of any savings. The Cable Companies will pocket all of it and charge you more for the service.


I am not arguing my rates will go down. There is a lot for them to like in this proposal (and a few parts they will dislike, particular the issue about how controls the UI, the MPVD of the CE companies, which is not entirely resolved in the proposal).

What I am arguing the Cable companies are not going to fight it on the basis of cost because it is actually cost advantageous to them, and they aren't dumb. If they fight against this plan it is not about the fundamental architecture or technology, it will be about controlling the user experience and how that will impact their support costs and ability to upsell other services like PPV.

Obviously they will use any change as a chance to try to increase rates if they think it is feasible, but the notion that would balk at the cost of the tuners is just ludicrous. They will try to correctly determine the number they need so as to not spend unnecessarily, but even if they needed to include 12 tuners in the gateway box it would still be a savings if they could eliminate 2-3 cable cards.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

lgerbarg said:


> What I am arguing the Cable companies are not going to fight it on the basis of cost because it is actually cost advantageous to them, and they aren't dumb. If they fight against this plan it is not about the fundamental architecture or technology, it will be about controlling the user experience and how that will impact their support costs and ability to upsell other services like PPV.


The cable companies won't fight it because the proposal gives them something they want which is permission to deploy DTA and possibly HD-DTA boxes. Basically they are getting a waiver on the separable security requirements which is something they've been asking for for a while now.

Despite what their press release says, I don't think they particularly like the gateway proposal otherwise they would have jumped on it when TiVo recommended it a while back. All I can say is that if I ran a cable company and was forced to embed all these cableCARDs in rented boxes at cost to me only to be told that they are going away and being replaced by gateways, I'd be steaming. Of course if I was a cable company I'd then say oh well and just jack up rates of my customers to cover my costs (which is what's being done).


----------



## acvthree (Jan 17, 2004)

morac said:


> T All I can say is that if I ran a cable company and was forced to embed all these cableCARDs in rented boxes at cost to me only to be told that they are going away and being replaced by gateways, I'd be steaming. Of course if I was a cable company I'd then say oh well and just jack up rates of my customers to cover my costs (which is what's being done).


I thought cablecards were a cable company designed solution.


----------



## socrplyr (Jul 19, 2006)

acvthree said:


> I thought cablecards were a cable company designed solution.


True, and that fact is also why Sat providers were able to get a waiver.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Not quite. Separable security is not a cable industry invention. CableCARD is an implementation of separable security. No one, not even cable companies, are required to comply with the separable security regulation using CableCARD. They simply choose to. 

Therefore, satellite service providers were not granted a waiver because CableCARD was a cable industry solution. 

They were granted a waiver because they were small companies and the waivers were deemed to be essential for them to eventually gain profitability.

Don't ask why the waivers were never lifted, after they became large and profitable.... because there is no good answer to that.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> Yes, but even then it never ceases to amaze me how many consumers assume that failure, whether due to circumstances or bad decisions, is far more commonplace than it is. I cannot tell you how often I see the argument put forward that "companies are stupid and they all fail because they're stupid". It's puerile nonsense, but it practically dominates many discussions online.
> 
> Including some on TCF.
> 
> ...


to tell you the truth (for me it's hard for me to tell exactly with the way i perceive your posts- seems like sometimes you like to focus in the .001 percent that you disagree with people than the 99.999 percent you agree- could be me though for sure)- I honestly think we're basically on the same page here- you just describe things differently than i. Glass half full vs half empty or you say tomato and I saw tomato. 

One last thing I wanted to say on the subject though is that businesses are run by people. And people can and do make mistakes. There's a reason why executives get big ol' paychecks. The boards (and shareholders depending on how people see things) think the decisions those individuals make are so important they pay them a ton. The companies dont just run themselves (by the preceding logic)- so theres a lot of critical decisions made by the top dogs. Look at Steve Jobs- he's almost the personification of Apple.

In the cable world if I recall the Dolan (cablevision) and Roberts (Comcast) families have huge chunks of the voting power in their companies. So there are a few handfuls of people that have significant (although not absolute) control over the decisions that the cable/ncta makes. if those handful of people make bad choices they can affect the whole cable industry. I'm not saying that is necessarily so- but point is the Dolans and Roberts arent omnipotent infallible gods.- can anyone say "voom" . Both the families obviously made tons of good choices to grow their businesses to where they are- but I personally wont assume that every last decision they make is the best one.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> That applies to the cost of additional outlets for the regulated (B1) service. The FCC is not authorized to regulate rates for upper-tier services. Note that the additional outlet fees we're talking about are only applied to replicate *upper-tier *service to additional outlets.
> ...


true- but when the only channels left analog are the broadcast locals and you need digital for anything else- is that really an uppertier service? (I dont know the definition).

But I personally feel no one has stated the exact reason why cable charges what they do for AO fees.

My 2 cents- they charge what the market will bear 0 plan and simple. Just like every other non-regulated business charges for their services. I own my own business- I charge as much what I think the market will bear- for sure there are some that dont think my company's products and services are worth what I charge- they are free to buy elsewhere- and I'm free to adjust my pricing as I see fit to to maximize my profits. In this case DBS set the bar with their ~6 dollar 'mirroring' fees ten+ years ago and now cable just follows suit becasue their lobbyists had the law/regulations changed to permit additional outlet fees in the digital domain.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> Lets be honest without "Government Regulations" (also called laws) these companies would not be in business. So the only question is what the regulations are going to be and what is the "best" balance to serve all interested parties. Of course we could debate what the "proper" balance is forever which is normally what goes on and as far as I can tell is going on it this thread.


just FYI- there are VERY significant differences between a law and a regulation.

laws are passed by congress and signed by the president.

regulations are created by regulatory agencies- OSHA, EPA, FCC, etc. The agencies must be given the power by a specific law to create such regulations. The FCC was specifically empowered (in fact commanded) by the 1996 telecommunications act (a law)- to create regulations to help get devices in retail. The FCC at other times has tried to create regulations that the courts have found they were never given the right to create by a law.

laws can't change over time unless a new law is written (or if it's written with expriation dates). The regulatory agencies can and do fiddle with regulations regularly. there are many factors- and politics/lobbyists are just one of the factors that come into play.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

MichaelK said:


> you say tomato and I saw tomato.


I fail to see your point concerning the word tomato. Both versions above are obviously said only one correct way, anyone knows that words spelled the same sound the the same. And besides, shouldn't there be an 'e' on the end? 

I do agree that there is no infallibility in decision making by anyone. That being said, you can still make an argument that a majority of decisions made by those very same executives you mention must have been at least reasonably good. You cannot bring that kind of success and money by having a history of poor business decisions (Unless the you are to big to fail and you get billions for your company from the gov because you made bad decisions).

I do not think you are meaning to imply that would suddenly change, but there is a reason key employees who bring in the business (money) and make good decisions make a hefty salary. They are being compensated well for their proven ability to make good business moves and the expectation that they will continue to be shrewd and successful in their business.

It is a reasonable expectation that these (and other) cable executives who have been successful, will continue to be so. Though this is not always the case, it is more often then not. And it is a fair assumption that these same people are likely pretty smart and very knowledgeable about the businesses they run - and will continue to make reasonable decisions because of this. Even if we, as consumers of their product, do not like them.

So I agree that not *every* decision they make will be the best one, but I fully expect a vast majority of their decisions to be reasonable based upon their information at hand that will bring the best fortune to their respective companies.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

daveak said:


> Regulations are only good for profits when they harm other companies or technologies that compete with you. Or they simply harm you less then your competitor.
> ...


lets all try to take a breath about regulations and step back from the absolutes.

While in many cases regulations are damaging to certain segments of commerces- "only" is an awfully strong word.

Sometimes regulations set boundaries so that everyone can play by the same rules. For example isn't it a good thing that all wireless phone providers know the exact maximum level of power they can transmit from a cell tower so they all follow the same rules?

other times- regulations ensure the health and safety of humans and the environment. Is there a legitimate business harmed by the regulations that prohibit dumping of hazardous waste directly into the environment?

On the flip side there are times when "sides" are taken- an some parties gain.- as an example certainly there's LOTS of leeway and politics involved in WHAT gets listed as hazardous waste as an example or which industries the FCC issues separable security waivers to.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> Okay, but that means you'd need new televisions that are capable of understanding how to communicate with the gateway device (if not a separate box for each television).
> 
> ....


it's all a bit over my head- but I'm pretty sure MANY new tv's and blueray players come with upnp and dtcp-ip

So would those just "hook right in"?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Stormspace said:


> You won't see a dime of any savings. The Cable Companies will pocket all of it and charge you more for the service.


which is fine- the FCC isn't trying to make costs lower for consumers. the regulations they are working on are all about giving people 3rd party options.

Anyway- if it SAVES cable money than they have a reason to agree and push forward. As a penny saved is a penny earned.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

lgerbarg said:


> I am not arguing my rates will go down. There is a lot for them to like in this proposal (and a few parts they will dislike, particular the issue about how controls the UI, the MPVD of the CE companies, which is not entirely resolved in the proposal).
> 
> What I am arguing the Cable companies are not going to fight it on the basis of cost because it is actually cost advantageous to them, and they aren't dumb. If they fight against this plan it is not about the fundamental architecture or technology, it will be about controlling the user experience and how that will impact their support costs and ability to upsell other services like PPV.
> 
> ....


seems cost isn't the primary driver. Getting the CE companies to incude cable-ready tuners a couple years back would have saved them millions or perhaps even billions in digital STB costs.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

morac said:


> The cable companies won't fight it because the proposal gives them something they want which is permission to deploy DTA and possibly HD-DTA boxes. Basically they are getting a waiver on the separable security requirements which is something they've been asking for for a while now.
> 
> Despite what their press release says, I don't think they particularly like the gateway proposal otherwise they would have jumped on it when TiVo recommended it a while back. All I can say is that if I ran a cable company and was forced to embed all these cableCARDs in rented boxes at cost to me only to be told that they are going away and being replaced by gateways, I'd be steaming. Of course if I was a cable company I'd then say oh well and just jack up rates of my customers to cover my costs (which is what's being done).


Nothing makes them throw out the recently bought boxes. I doubt the usefull life now a days is significantly longer then the transition period this would require.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

daveak said:


> ...
> 
> I do agree that there is no infallibility in decision making by anyone. That being said, you can still make an argument that a majority of decisions made by those very same executives you mention must have been at least reasonably good. You cannot bring that kind of success and money by having a history of poor business decisions (Unless the you are to big to fail and you get billions for your company from the gov because you made bad decisions).
> 
> ...


agree 100% with everything you wrote.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

I agree that regulations that set rules and boundaries that are equally applicable to all, can actually be a good thing and foster competition that benefits a majority. Sadly, many regulations do not seem to have this goal or at least fail to achieve it.

And of course health and safety regulations are usually a good thing, though these can become overbearing and politically driven.

So does the proposed Gateway regulations level the playing field or is it the government favoring one market solution or business over another?

I think the market is the best driver of what will really work, not the government and I think you would agree with that. It is when the government artificially interferes with the performance of businesses on the open market, to determine how they will get to the governments objective, that I get concerned. If it is to level the playing field, then let's go for it. If it burdens the businesses involved and raises prices - especially without improving the product or service offered, then certainly the regulation is a problem.

If the proposed gateway solution turns out to be one that levels the playing field, then let's do it. However, no matter how well intentioned it is, it will not work without willing businesses who have financial incentives for the success of gateway regulations. And even then, it will cost some businesses some amount of revenue - those who are now in a better position because of a (perceived) uneven market. And yet, I would think if they are shrewd and smart, it would only benefit them in the end.



MichaelK said:


> lets all try to take a breath about regulations and step back from the absolutes.
> 
> While in many cases regulations are damaging to certain segments of commerces- "only" is an awfully strong word.
> 
> ...


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

bicker said:


> Not quite. Separable security is not a cable industry invention. CableCARD is an implementation of separable security. No one, not even cable companies, are required to comply with the separable security regulation using CableCARD. They simply choose to.


Not true. Cablecard is the only separable security solution that the FCC has approved. While a cable company could conceivably come up with their own mechanism, it won't meet FCC regulations unless they get it approved and it won't get approved unless it benefits the goal of fostering competition for navigation devices.

http://www.hrrc.org/File/FCC-03-225A1.pdf


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

The funny thing about the gateway concept is that the cheapo basic boxes that the cable industry is proposing to avoid the integration ban could end up being just a half step short of gateways.

The FCC is proposing to require one of either ethernet, USB, or firewire on these devices and they're proposing to require that there be published information for remotely controlling those boxes through the interface. Make it an ethernet port and require a standardized web services interface and you've got a gateway.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> seems like sometimes you like to focus in the .001 percent that you disagree with people than the 99.999 percent you agree- could be me though for sure


I don't post a lot of "Uh-uh" and "+1" messages. I find them a bit vacuous. I've been trying to post some more, because I know it makes some people feel better (about what, I don't know, though), even though I think they're a waste of time and column inches.



MichaelK said:


> One last thing I wanted to say on the subject though is that businesses are run by people. And people can and do make mistakes.


True, but reading this thread -- really many threads -- you'd think that's the case hundreds of millions of times more often than actual. A rapist was sentenced in superior court yesterday -- if it was discussed in the community board the way most posters discuss service providers in the coffee house board, then you'd leave that thread thinking not only that every man over the age of 12 is a rapist, but that every man commits a rape every five minutes.



MichaelK said:


> ... I personally won't assume that every last decision they make is the best one.


And I think you've got it backwards: Folks should assume that every decision is a good one until they have objective evidence to the contrary, since the overwhelmingly vast majority of decisions they make are indeed a decision serves the needs of the business well, and the mistakes are very rare. Given the proportion of correct to incorrect decisions, a reasonable person would, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, assume that any given decision is a good one.

However, most consumers don't think reasonably. They think about themselves; they think about how the decision affects them personally. They generally don't care how the decision affects the business. They judge the decision based on how much it serves their needs, not based on whether it satisfies the criteria that are valid for the decision, i.e., good for the business. So it is not just about being reasonable in playing the odds, with regard to judging the decision -- rather, most consumers as a matter of course judge decisions based on invalid criteria for judging the decision. They say it is a "mistake" instead of saying that the decision is "bad news for me".

That's the point I made in the earlier message. If you want, I'll be glad to go into great detail with you why this is a critical matter for our society; not just this thread, this forum, these boards, or the Internet, but for our society. I'll explain the philosophical underpinnings of why entitlement mentality, such as is exhibited by most mass-market consumers in our nation, causes great harm. However, those details and derivations would drive us a bit OT for this thread.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> true- but when the only channels left analog are the broadcast locals and you need digital for anything else- is that really an uppertier service? (I dont know the definition).


Upper tier is everything above B1, the broadcast locals. It always has been (i.e., since 1992).



MichaelK said:


> But I personally feel no one has stated the exact reason why cable charges what they do for AO fees.


Stated to whom? under what circumstances? Answer those questions, and then ask yourself (1) Are they required to by law? and (2) Is there any chance that answering those questions will service the needs of their business? The point is that the fees are legal; the service providers have to answer to regulators in that regard. Anyone else is simply spewing an unauthorized interrogation, often deliberately seeking to cast a negative light on the business, not because it is doing anything wrong, but because it is big, and in doing the right things for the business, it is "bad news for me". As such, there is probably no rationality in providing more details than they're already providing.

This goes back to what I said in the previous message: Most consumers are incapable of thinking about things from the standpoint of the other guy. By contrast, businesses have made a science out of thinking about things from the standpoint of their customers.



MichaelK said:


> My 2 cents- they charge what the market will bear 0 plan and simple. Just like every other non-regulated business charges for their services.


+1

There, I did it. Ouch that hurt.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> which is fine- the FCC isn't trying to make costs lower for consumers. the regulations they are working on are all about giving people 3rd party options.


This is a really good point. A lot of folks forget that the integration ban wasn't about helping consumers, but rather was all about helping CE manufacturers. Benefits to consumers was a selling point, but not the object.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

nrc said:


> Not true. Cablecard is the only separable security solution that the FCC has approved. While a cable company could conceivably come up with their own mechanism, it won't meet FCC regulations unless they get it approved and it won't get approved unless it benefits the goal of fostering competition for navigation devices.


We're saying the same thing.... remember the context of my reply... it was explaining to socrplyr why his claim about why satellite service providers were exempt from separable security was invalid. Again, to be clear: Satellite services were granted a waiver because they were small companies and the waivers were deemed to be essential for them to eventually gain profitability.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

lgerbarg said:


> Tuners are a limiting detail right now. One of the things pointed out in this document is that once gateways are ubiquitous the MPVDs will be free to transmit in anyway they want on their wires (IE, in the long run they may not even use QAM).


I have 10 tuners in constant use (TiVo DVRS) so sharing tuners in consideration of DVR needs is not appealing to me.

Good point though on being able to move beyond QAM and the need for tuners.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> I don't post a lot of "Uh-uh" and "+1" messages. I find them a bit vacuous. I've been trying to post some more, because I know it makes some people feel better (about what, I don't know, though), even though I think they're a waste of time and column inches.


+1


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> I don't post a lot of "Uh-uh" and "+1" messages. I find them a bit vacuous. I've been trying to post some more, because I know it makes some people feel better (about what, I don't know, though), even though I think they're a waste of time and column inches.
> ............


+1 :up:

And I hope you weren't implying that you are seriously concerned about the number of "column inches" you use! 

Oops, I just wasted a couple more column inches. I wonder what fraction of a square inch of disk platter that equates to?


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> I have 10 tuners in constant use (TiVo DVRS) so sharing tuners in consideration of DVR needs is not appealing to me.
> 
> Good point though on being able to move beyond QAM and the need for tuners.


From TiVo's alone I have 5 tuners. Add in two more TV's with analog tuners that might possibly need a STB and the number goes to 7.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> From TiVo's alone I have 5 tuners. Add in two more TV's with analog tuners that might possibly need a STB and the number goes to 7.


I don't think there's anything prevent a cable (or satellite) company from allowing more than one gateway any more than there's anything preventing them from allowing more than one cable box. They'll simply charge extra.

The limitation will likely be on the home users end as they must have enough bandwidth to carry the extra channel streams. I've read this can be an issue when using multiple FIOS's HD boxes.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

You are forgetting, for the near future anyways, most providers will likely still be using QAM or whatever to deliver almost all their channels at once to the home, which are parsed out to IP for distribution to individual boxes.

Now, with a number of gateway boxes in one home, they could be placed on their own network segments.

Yes, with provider that uses IP, there could be issues with getting a number of IP channels down one customer pipe. A cable IPTV gateway could have its own cable modem, easing that for that sort of customer.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

morac said:


> They'll simply charge extra.


That is a perfect summary of the whole gateway proposal. To benefit TiVo and few TiVo subscribers, every cable and satellite customer will have to pay more - do they want a TiVo or not.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Indeed, that's probably true, and may even have been true with regard to CableCARD -- that to placate us outliers, everyone else has paid more over the last several years than they would have otherwise. However, I'm not so sure. Pricing is based on value, not cost, so I suspect that those really harmed by all of this will be the owners of the company, essentially forced to subsidize this out of their equity.


----------



## lgerbarg (Jun 26, 2000)

samo said:


> That is a perfect summary of the whole gateway proposal. To benefit TiVo and few TiVo subscribers, every cable and satellite customer will have to pay more - do they want a TiVo or not.


Lets pretend for a second that the 6 tuner gateway with cable co provided STBs that talk to it (instead of talking directly to the cable headend) were to cost subscribers exactly the same as their current current configuration. If that was the case then charging more for a second gateway would not constitute an additional charge for the average consumer to benefit a minority, it would be an additional charge on an outlying group of users who use the service more than normal. It is no different ISPs than charging high bandwidth users more, especially in the presence of things like SDV, where those additional streams may in fact consume a constrained resource and force the company to do things like split their nodes. In that way it is a lot fairer than cable card, it just happens to impact a lot of the people in this thread.

Having said that, even in a house where none of the TVs can use AllVid directly and require boxes to talk to the gateway, in most configurations the amount of hardware (and total cost) should be lower for the provider than current boxes, especially if you include the cost savings of dropping the integration ban. It also lets them innovate much more rapidly in terms of their transmission and encoding tech, which may yield significant efficiencies in terms of node sizes and headends (though those sorts of transitions will still take years unless they want to phase out existing hardware instead of handle it through normal lifecycle). It probably also makes their whole system more reliable as well since all new installations only need the signal to be good at the gateways, not balanced across a whole house with tons of splitters.

Now, I still expect any transition will cause a price increase, but that is not because there are new structural costs they will need to pass on to the consumer, it is because in general it is not as easy to raise rates as to lower them, so as companies lower them over time they need to wait for any significant events in order to have an excuse to raise them that their customers can find palatable, and blaming your rate hike on the government is a pretty good way to do that.

In other words, I think complaining that AllVid is going to raise your rates is a bit of a red herring. Any regulatory change will raise your rates in the short term, regardless of whether there are structural savings for the players involved, and I think there are actually some substantial structural savings for both the CE companies and the MPVDs, though the MPVDs probably have some legitimate risks related to this transition as well.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

lgerbarg said:


> Now, I still expect any transition will cause a price increase, but that is not because there are new structural costs they will need to pass on to the consumer, it is because in general it is not as easy to raise rates as to lower them, so as companies lower them over time they need to wait for any significant events in order to have an excuse to raise them that their customers can find palatable, and blaming your rate hike on the government is a pretty good way to do that.


I agreed with everything you stated except this paragraph. First off I've never seen my cable rates go down so I don't see how it's easier to lower rates. Second, cable companies have never needed an excuse to raise rates. The reason they always give is the costs of improving service and/or adding channels (even when neither occurred that year).

If you think of the gateway in the same light as a modem then if implemented correctly, there will be a rental fee for the gateway. Presumably, you'll be able to buy your own gateway and bypass the rental fee just as you can now with a cable modem.

Now most if not all cable companies only allow one cable modem per household because additional modems would use more bandwidth. Multiple gateways shouldn't use that much more cable "bandwidth", at least not unless cable switching to IPTV. As such I would think the cable companies would allow renting (or buying and using) multiple gateways.

In the long run I think this will end up costing the cable companies less since the only "complicated" box would be the gateway. Cable boxes would end up being a lot simpler and costing less. In the short run it will drive up prices since the cable companies would have to buy a lot of gateways, extender boxes, etc.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Broadband Reports has a basic breakdown of AllVid as well as the cable company industries response of why they don't think it's a good idea.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Actually, cable industry trade magazines indicated that they don't think it is a good idea. The cable industry itself was vaguely supportive of the idea.


----------



## Luke M (Nov 5, 2002)

It's been a while since I visited this forum. So I click on this thread, and enjoy reading the first few pages, getting caught up on developments...then bicker shows up and the thread becomes about bicker: bicker's political views, bicker's economic theories, bicker's lessons on grammar, even bicker's religion. It tends to crowd out non-bicker-related topics, which frankly I find more interesting.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

morac said:


> Broadband Reports has a basic breakdown of AllVid as well as the cable company industries response of why they don't think it's a good idea.


I love seeing the cable industry fight these changes because they don't seem to even recognize that changes like these will sooner or later be the only thing that keeps them in competition as content providers and not simply as data line providers.

Complaints about the cost of changing their infrastructure are as stupid as it would be for brick and mortar stores to complain about the cost of setting up e-commerce sites. It's the cost of doing business and doing business according to a common standard is the only way you'll be competitive once you can no longer limit your customer's source of content.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Luke M said:


> It's been a while since I visited this forum. So I click on this thread, and enjoy reading the first few pages, getting caught up on developments...then bicker shows up and the thread becomes about bicker: bicker's political views, bicker's economic theories, bicker's lessons on grammar, even bicker's religion. It tends to crowd out non-bicker-related topics, which frankly I find more interesting.


And so you decided to make it more about bicker? Ridiculous. I post what I know and believe. Don't blame me because some people are so weak-minded that instead of presenting a stronger argument to support their perspective, they lamely try to make the thread about me instead, because they figure personal attack is a good away to try to distract attention away from the important points I made.


----------



## lgerbarg (Jun 26, 2000)

morac said:


> I agreed with everything you stated except this paragraph. First off I've never seen my cable rates go down so I don't see how it's easier to lower rates. Second, cable companies have never needed an excuse to raise rates. The reason they always give is the costs of improving service and/or adding channels (even when neither occurred that year).


I meant it in the general economic sense that one you sell someone a product on an ongoing basis they tend to be more accepting of rate decreases than increases. Obviously it is not hard for a seller to change a price, but when you increase the price you lose some customers, when you can blame the increase on someone else you often lose fewer.

Obviously MVPD's are somewhat insulated from that because there relatively few of them in any given market, and there are often a number of factors that can effectively limit a customer to only a single provider. That lets them get away with rate increases in general, but increasing rates does cost them some customers.

I can also think of plenty of cases where I have seen cost reductions, but they never just give them to you. You need to get them to offer them you through their retention department. As an example, my parents have an apartment they only use during the summer, so they planned to just cancel the cable every winter. Comcast offered them a rate drop to keep it connected all year round.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

lgerbarg said:


> I meant it in the general economic sense that one you sell someone a product on an ongoing basis they tend to be more accepting of rate decreases than increases. Obviously it is not hard for a seller to change a price, but when you increase the price you lose some customers, when you can blame the increase on someone else you often lose fewer.


Most companies selling a product can't just jack up prices constantly, but those rules don't really apply to services like cable. Also because cable is a natural monopoly in many areas they aren't governed by the normal rules of economics.



lgerbarg said:


> As an example, my parents have an apartment they only use during the summer, so they planned to just cancel the cable every winter. Comcast offered them a rate drop to keep it connected all year round.


My parent's did that for a while. They threatened to go to FIOS and Comcast offered them lower rates, for a while. After about a year, Comcast said c'ya and my parent's went to FIOS. So it doesn't work forever, even when there is a competitor to go to, which for many people there isn't.


----------

