# Has anyone actually seen/heard anything officially from TIVO about...



## scorley22 (Aug 15, 2003)

The Switched-Video transition with cable companies? Future plans? Workarounds? I just bought a S3 and I am going to be ticked-off if TW Dallas starts to roll out new HD channels (or existing channels) that I can't get. Is my S3 going to be obsolete in the near future? Is it already?  

I have no idea what you guys are talking about "technically" and it is seems hard to get an answer that I can understand. I just would like to know if TIVO is doing anything to combat the issues that it seems a lot of us will have in the near future.


----------



## SugarBowl (Jan 5, 2007)

From what i've read, it should be possible to plug something into the USB port which can request a channel.. But who knows if anything like that will ever happen.

Will you be happy spending an extra $10+ for every TV in your house, just to have a cable box that will get these few channels?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

short answer is you are hosed and the s3 wont work with switched video anytime soon and potentially not at all.

It's a major bummer and I hope my provider never goes down that route.

Comcast is making noise that they are going to go switched video in a major way in the next year or 2...


----------



## robm15 (Feb 23, 2004)

I sent a email to Tivo asking this same question. No answer back yet, if I ever get one. I just ordered a S3 yesterday from Costco. I have 30 days to return it for a full refund, and I might just do that to avoid being stuck with a $1000 (counting life time transfer fee) paperweight in six months to a year...


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

there's not much for them to say. 

It's a bad situation.

There is currently no standard for switched video and the 2-way standard that it would presumably be built on top of isn't even exactly final by way of an agreement between cable and the CE company's - and the cable company's aren't really even deploying the version of OCAP that they want themselves. 

I'm sure tivo would love to built a device that would work but there is no standard for them to build to.

At best the FCC wakes up tomorrow and mandates some open system for 2-way cable services- even then it will likely takes years to develop and implement.


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> there's not much for them to say.
> 
> It's a bad situation.
> 
> ...


But if the spec existed, then the question of whether an S3 'plugin' would be possible could at least be answered. With no final spec, that's hard to answer.

If I just thought that the 'plugin' was possible (not promised, or even being 'looked into', just possible) then I'd probably feel better about the buying the S3.

Well, than I 'd feel better about buying *multiple S3's* for my whole house... I'll probably buy 1 anyway.

-Kyle


----------



## scorley22 (Aug 15, 2003)

SugarBowl said:


> Will you be happy spending an extra $10+ for every TV in your house, just to have a cable box that will get these few channels?


I don't need it on every TV in my house... just the 50" HDTV in my living room. That's the whole reason I bought the S3, to pair with my HDTV in the main living area. I have heard that some Cable Companies are starting to change stations like Disney, Natl. Geo, etc. to Switched-Video as well as any new HD channels that they may add. I just can't believe that TIVO wouldn't be doing something about this?


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

scorley22 said:


> I just can't believe that TIVO wouldn't be doing something about this?


Doesn't porting the Tivo software to run on the Comcast dvr count as something? It's a step in the right direction for them.


----------



## scorley22 (Aug 15, 2003)

HiDefGator said:


> Doesn't porting the Tivo software to run on the Comcast dvr count as something? It's a step in the right direction for them.


I'm talking about doing something for their customers that just shelled out close to a grand for box that could end up being useless. I mean... it's not like the S3 has been on the market for 2 years or something? We waited forever to get an HD TIVO and when we finally get it... BAM! This SV crap happens. I just can't see them rolling out a product like this without having some sort of forsight into what the cable companies might be headed towards, especially since this is a "Cable-only" device for the most part.

By the way... I am a TW customer... so a Comcast Tivo does nothing for me


----------



## eric_mcgovern (Jan 9, 2002)

scorley22 said:


> I'm talking about doing something for their customers that just shelled out close to a grand for box that could end up being useless. I mean... it's not like the S3 has been on the market for 2 years or something? We waited forever to get an HD TIVO and when we finally get it... BAM! This SV crap happens. I just can't see them rolling out a product like this without having some sort of forsight into what the cable companies might be headed towards, especially since this is a "Cable-only" device for the most part.
> 
> By the way... I am a TW customer... so a Comcast Tivo does nothing for me


And what do you expect them to do? Snap their fingers, click their heels and poop out a standard for SDV that will work across all networks and all companies? If you are that upset about it start complaining to those that actually have an impact on this type of thing. TiVo has zero control over whether or not cable deploys SDV. The best they can do is pressure the FCC to grow a pair and stand up to the cable companies.


----------



## jtown (Sep 26, 2002)

kjmcdonald said:


> If I just thought that the 'plugin' was possible (not promised, or even being 'looked into', just possible) then I'd probably feel better about the buying the S3.


There's a world of difference between what *can* be done and what *will* be done.

I can tell you without hesitation or qualification that it is possible for a device to be designed that can allow the S3 to handle SDV. And PPV. And VOD. All of that two-way communication could be handled by an external box which communicates with the tivo via USB. No question at all.

However, such a device would have to conform to standards which don't yet exist. And get approval from cable labs. And be supported by the cable companies. That is what kills any hope of a timely solution.

If this is ever going to be solved, it will be with a Series 4 Tivo, not a peripheral that attaches to S3 Tivos. I'd love to be proved wrong but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Technology's always a risk but DRM is artificially increasing the risk that our new gadgets will be useless lumps of metal and plastic long before their time.


----------



## bdraw (Aug 1, 2004)

CableCARD support by the Cable Co is not optional, it is a FCC mandate. The Cable Co's can do what they want with SV, but if they disable CableCARD support they have to answer to the FCC. They may think they have a loop hole, but even if they do when the FCC realizes it, they can close it up. (It is not a law, but a mandate so it doesn't take an act of congress)

That being said the FCC doesn't know what you don't tell them. If your cable co is using SV and effectively disabling your CC device, report them. Immediately and if nothing happens do it again and if still nothing happens email your congress person. Don't stand for it! Believe it or not the FCC is trying to help us.

In the meantime lets hope that CC 2.0 get ratified and 2-way is supported, then we can lean on TiVo to cut us a break since we are early adopters on an update that will support 2.0. I am just glad that TiVo didn't let this whole lack of 2-way stop them from selling the S3, or I would still be using my HR10-250.

Luckily for most of us it isn't a problem, YET. Personally I will cross the bridge when I get there.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

In my opinion and understanding of the UDCP hardware, and what is fundamentally needed for any bi-directional communication, purely at a technical level, a USB or other backchannel modulator or even over the internet. (with some headend gear 

The fact is, at this time, there is no standard for it, nor desire in the cable community to allow it, and ergo, nothing TiVo can plan for current Series 3 users, except petition the FCC on the matter (which I believe they have done).


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

classicsat said:


> In my opinion and understanding of the UDCP hardware, and what is fundamentally needed for any bi-directional communication, purely at a technical level, a USB or other backchannel modulator or even over the internet. (with some headend gear
> 
> The fact is, at this time, there is no standard for it, nor desire in the cable community to allow it, and ergo, nothing TiVo can plan for current Series 3 users, except petition the FCC on the matter (which I believe they have done).


Anyone know how to search through FCC petitions to see if they have?

-Kyle


----------



## JPShinn (Aug 24, 2004)

What they should do is to provide some kind of investment protection for those who took the plunge. They need to provide an upgrade path. Otherwise, I will be pretty f'ing pissed.


----------



## kemcg (Mar 13, 2002)

robm15 said:


> I sent a email to Tivo asking this same question. No answer back yet, if I ever get one. I just ordered a S3 yesterday from Costco. I have 30 days to return it for a full refund, and I might just do that to avoid being stuck with a $1000 (counting life time transfer fee) paperweight in six months to a year...


Why do you only have 30 days to return it? Costco doesn't have a timeline as far as I know. Or are you talking about the tivo lifetime transfer time contraints?


----------



## davecramer74 (Mar 17, 2006)

he's talking about returning it to tivo. As you stated, dont go through tivo, send it back to costco. As for lifetime constraints, if the unit breaks, i dotn see why they wont let you transfer it t o the new one.


----------



## eric_mcgovern (Jan 9, 2002)

JPShinn said:


> What they should do is to provide some kind of investment protection for those who took the plunge. They need to provide an upgrade path. Otherwise, I will be pretty f'ing pissed.


Who is going to give TiVo back all the millions they invested in developing the Series 3 when they no longer work properly with the majority of cable systems?

You act as though TiVo just blindly developed the Series 3 and has zero clue of what is happening. There have been petitions to the FCC regarding this from TiVo and they even included PM from this message board in their filings.

You don't think that the last thing TiVo wants is for its customers to have a $800 box that doesn't work anymore?


----------



## Saxion (Sep 18, 2006)

Here is what I emailed to the FCC yesterday. I suggest everyone reading this thread do something similar.

To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Subject: Switched Digital Video (SDV) on cable

Dear Commissioners Kevin J. Martin, Michael J. Copps, Jonathan S. Adelstein, Deborah Taylor Tate, and Robert McDowell:

I am writing to you to express my deep anxieties about Switched Digital Video (SDV) on cable television networks. I recently bought a TiVo Series 3 DVR which cannot support SDV, since CableLabs has not approved *any* method by which third-party cable boxes can support this. If my cable operator (Cox San Diego) starts using SDV, it will render my TiVo Series 3 obsolete!

SDV completely goes against the spirit and goal of CableCards, the Cable Box Integration Ban, and other efforts at fostering competetion. Congress was clear on its intent in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that a viable market should be fostered for competitive, third-party (retail) cable box devices. That was over 10 years ago (*10 years!*), and CableLabs and the cable industry have been dragging their feet ever since and disregarding the expressed will of Congress. SDV is just the latest attempt by cable operators *to kill the market for competitive, innovative third-party cable boxes like the TiVo*.

Please stand up for consumers, and the expressed will of Congress, and *make SDV illegal*. Cable companies and CableLabs must not be allowed to disrupt the fragile and blossoming market for competitive cable boxes and DVRs!

Thank you.

Sincerely, 
xx


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

Actually Tivo has already filed their SDV concerns with the FCC as dt_dc graciously posted about even before the S3 release:
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=308083
The relevant SDV text:


> TiVo then discussed the need to ensure that competitive entrant unidirectional
> digital cable products (UDCPs) such as TiVos S3 device  continue to work
> with cable systems utilizing switched digital video technology. Specifically, TiVo July 17, 2006 Page 2 expressed concern that if a cable operator distributes linear cable channels (apart from PPV and VOD) via switched digital technology, subscribers with a competitive entrant UDCP will not have access to the same channels as those subscribers leasing set-top boxes from the cable operator. Consequently, consumers will be hesitant to invest in UDCPs. This concern, which TiVo has heard from a number of customers, is captured by the attached e-mail, copies of which were distributed at the meetings. TiVo emphasized that it is not against cables use of switched digital technology, but simply wants those cable operators adopting the technology to take whatever actions necessary to ensure that subscribers with competitive entrant UDCPs have equal access to the same digital content offerings available to subscribers with MSO-leased set-top boxes.


----------



## scorley22 (Aug 15, 2003)

Saxion said:


> Here is what I emailed to the FCC yesterday. I suggest everyone reading this thread do something similar.
> 
> To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
> 
> ...


Wow... very nice. There should be some sort of petition online that we can sign. I don't know enough about it to even write a complaint that would make sense.


----------



## scorley22 (Aug 15, 2003)

Someone should start a thread that has email links to the people at TIVO as well as the people at the different cable companies... the "right" people so that our voices can be heard.


----------



## cramer (Aug 14, 2000)

Tivo, Inc. has stated they have no current plans to create a bidirectional cableCARD(tm) system. It doesn't matter what is _technically_ possible. The S3 does not have any RF transmit capabilities; it is not certified for bidirectional capabilities. NO usb dongle will EVER get past Cable Labs -- it's outside the case and thus outside any "secure environment". The best you can hope for is a "referb" process to turn a S3 into a "S4" -- but you'd be sans tivo for weeks while your S3 is sent to a factory in Mexico.

SDV is an "open standard" if you listen to the bull from Scientific Atlanta and TW. However, neither have the documents anywhere to be seen. (From what I can find, there's 2 documents that explain the protocol.) Tivo would need to code an "SDV Client" once they a) have a DOCSIS interface and b) have a copy of these "open standards".

It _is_ a loophole in the "integration ban", but only a small one. OCAP allows for special purpose applications. As soon as there's an OCAP SDV Client, the FCC will be powerless (per the existing mandates.) Tivo, Inc. is not alone in complaining about SDV. SDV renders _every_ existing Digital Cable Ready system useless. Currently, that's every single cableCARD(tm) certified device. (excluding that thing LG announced at CES assuming it's actually been certified -- tivo announce the S3 long before it passed.)


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

cramer said:


> The S3 does not have any RF transmit capabilities; it is not certified for bidirectional capabilities. NO usb dongle will EVER get past Cable Labs -- it's outside the case and thus outside any "secure environment".


I'm not sure that's an obstacle, the S3 has an ethernet on it now. No protected content would be going on the USB, only control signals for mapping a content stream to the right transport stream. The authorization keys for decrypting the content are still within the cablecard and received by its current mechanism.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

robm15 said:


> I sent a email to Tivo asking this same question. No answer back yet, if I ever get one. I just ordered a S3 yesterday from Costco. I have 30 days to return it for a full refund, and I might just do that to avoid being stuck with a $1000 (counting life time transfer fee) paperweight in six months to a year...


It won't be a paperweight, because
(1) As far as I've seen from these threads, not ALL channels will go to SDV.. so you may lose out on some channels, but not all.. and
(2) you'll be able to sell it for a decent amount, with the lifetime subscription included, most likely... at least until the whole country has SDV.. heh.


----------



## robm15 (Feb 23, 2004)

mattack said:


> It won't be a paperweight, because
> (1) As far as I've seen from these threads, not ALL channels will go to SDV.. so you may lose out on some channels, but not all.. and
> (2) you'll be able to sell it for a decent amount, with the lifetime subscription included, most likely... at least until the whole country has SDV.. heh.


I suppose your right, not a complete paperweight. But the truth is, nobody knows the true impact and which channels will be moved to SDV. To obtain the highest benefit to bandwidth with SDV, it would seem logical to me to say it will be the channels with the lowest viewer ratings. After all, to reduce bandwidth you don't switch signals that the majority of your consumer base are watching. But you switch off the ones that nobody is watching the majority of the time. Nobody but Comcast knows which channels those are.

OH, before I forget. I did get a telephone call from TIVO in response to the email I sent yesterday. Unfortunately I wasn't home to take the call, but the answering machine message I listened to said that they are researching the issue. I was given a ticket number to follow up with next week. The concern has been passed to a senior level engineer, and they hope to have more information for me in two or three business days.

The new series 3 will be here by Wednesday, then I'll try it. If within the time I have to transfer lifetime I don't start to feel comfortable with the future prospects of the S3 and Comcast network working together then I'll return it and stay with my current setup that is more upgrade safe to my pocket book.

Rob


----------



## steined (Jan 27, 2007)

Cable labs HAS certified USB CableCard devices. They just certified ATI's digital tuner, which, even in the PCI slot, uses USB protocol. My guess is TiVo COULD probably figure something out, but since this isn't a full fledged computer, it would take a LOT of legwork. 

Check out ATI's website look for the Tv Wonder Digital (I can't post a link yet) :down:


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

a few thoughts-

- even if the standard became official and open tomorrow it takes time. THink about the M-cards. Tivo has been saying for maybe years now that the S3 could use one M-card. They built their hardware to that hardware spec and made the software ready for it. They released the box like 4 months ago and just recently cablelabs decided to figure out how to certufy it. Tivo is presumably in the middle of the first round of M-card testin. But who knows how the hell long that takes. THen once it's tested they'll probably need to roll it into a new software version (and not bashing but stating the facts- supposedly we were supposed to get a new version by the end of 2006 and we havne't- it just takes time). Beyond that cable said LAST winter/spring that M-cards would be 'significantly deployed' at mid year of 2006. That's like 7 months gone by. In the fall a few people said they heard moto was backorderd to ship them. Has anyone even heard of an M-card in the wild yet? So even presuming tivo gets approved, rolls the code in a few months, if might be november before people in any large number get m-cards for their s3's. THATS WITH AN EXTABLISHED STANDARD. So it just isn't going to happen for switched video anytime soon.

-it's pretty possible that an open system for switched video is based on OCAP and bidirectional cablecard hosts. The CURRENT bidirectional standard requires the host device (eg tivo s3) to have a firewire port and a docsis modem. Theres just no firewire port - there is a SLIGHT chance that the hardware in the tivo cold contain a docsis modem (do a search there's essentially a FPGA that can become a docsis modem but no one knows what it's doing now or if the required traces and other cheap hardware bits are included so that could be written to be a docsis modem)- even assuming the chip can become a doscis modem there's no firewire port so no 2-way device cetification for tivo (firewire is not needed at all for what the tivo would need to do- but you have to follow the cablelabs certification- see M-card debacle above- TiVo can do it but they aren't "certified" yet so it means nothing) Perhaps tivo could try to get the standard changed but that wold take time- so we are back to years again.


- I've read a few places that switched video is basically a stop gap if used for major channels. So for channels that many people want it becomes very wastefull. So it's not like they can put ESPN or HBO in HD that way for any long period of time. Becasue of that hopefully some places are discouraged to do that. If 50% of the time someone in the cluster is tuned to ESPN then there is no point to using switched video for it- it might as well be an always on broadcast channel. So it only makes sense for 'fringe' channels and as HD becomes more prevelant less HD channels are 'fringe'. 

There are alternatives- to get an idea of what they can do ditching analog- verizon has the ability to put up like 100-150 HD and 200-300 SD digital channels because they put nothing but the required NTSC broadcast channels in ananlog. Becasue of that all their subs need digital boxes so once the analog shut down comes in early 2009 they can ditch those ananlog too and fit another 50 HD channels. ALL without breaking a sweat- if they do it more efficiently they can do a bit more. Obviuosly cable has a problem just totally ditching analog because they have many analog subs or people use analog only in their garage/kitchen/workshop/etc. But point is there are other potential choices cable can make- so switched video isn't going to become universal - we can hope. Comcast for example apparently said they want to have 30 ish HD channles by year end. Assuming they Have 10 now they are looking to add slots for 20 HD channels- they can go to switched video OR they could just convert 12 analog channels to digital (6 digital SD's can fit in the space on one ananlog and then 2 HD's can fit in one ananlog- easily) . Sounds like comcast decided switched video but other providers might look at that and decide that moving 12 analog channels to digital and running the new HD's fulltime is the better way to go. There's lots of factors- so it's not like there is one right way for them to go. I keep my fingers crossed that my provider decides ditching some analog is how to handle it.


----------



## HORUS (Jan 15, 2007)

I've recently purchased a Series 3 and where I live in Jersey as a Comcast customer, I have been unsuccessful in obtaining cable cards. I've called them several times to inquire, I've asked to be put on a wait list 'which is probably non-existent'. On my last conversation with a CSR I was informed that hopefully the cable cards will be in stock sometime this year.-I kid you not, I wrote the FCC after that phone call to make sure it's definitely a supply chain problem and not someone in mgmt. trying to profit from their non-existent inventories. CSR reps are quick to try to sell me one of their DVR's every time I call and quick to point out that I'll be SOL when it comes to On-Demand and Pay-Per-View. Boy if they can just keep this up for another month or two think how many of their boxes they can convert from potential Series 3 customers, albeit S3s painfully being used as an analog STB. And to think they'll have their own Tivo offerings just in time to quench the demand for all those non-loyal Comcast customers running to Tivo to buy their STB. I asked him what the delay is and he informed me that they are waiting on a new batch from Scientific Atlanta that supports two-way communication. Does bear resemblance to the concerns in this thread? What are the chances that the new batch of 2-way communicating SA cable cards that they are waiting on to be delivered, won't be compatible with my Series 3? Any feedback or advice on dealing with Comcast trying to obtain 2 functioning cable cards would be welcomed. I almost forgot to mention, the first time I called to inquire about cable cards, the always helpful CSR informed me that I was being under billed for one of my STBs and that she would be delighted to correct this error for me. I feel like Im in a twilight zone episode every time I pick up the phone to inquire about cable cards.


----------



## bidger (Mar 30, 2001)

Call TiVo Customer Service, HORUS, to see what they can do on your behalf. 1-877-367-8486


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

HORUS said:


> I've recently purchased a Series 3 and where I live in Jersey as a Comcast customer, I have been unsuccessful in obtaining cable cards. I've called them several times to inquire, I've asked to be put on a wait list 'which is probably non-existent'. On my last conversation with a CSR I was informed that hopefully the cable cards will be in stock sometime this year.-I kid you not, I wrote the FCC after that phone call to make sure it's definitely a supply chain problem and not someone in mgmt. trying to profit from their non-existent inventories. CSR reps are quick to try to sell me one of their DVR's every time I call and quick to point out that I'll be SOL when it comes to On-Demand and Pay-Per-View. Boy if they can just keep this up for another month or two think how many of their boxes they can convert from potential Series 3 customers, albeit S3s painfully being used as an analog STB. And to think they'll have their own Tivo offerings just in time to quench the demand for all those non-loyal Comcast customers running to Tivo to buy their STB. I asked him what the delay is and he informed me that they are waiting on a new batch from Scientific Atlanta that supports two-way communication. Does bear resemblance to the concerns in this thread? What are the chances that the new batch of 2-way communicating SA cable cards that they are waiting on to be delivered, won't be compatible with my Series 3? Any feedback or advice on dealing with Comcast trying to obtain 2 functioning cable cards would be welcomed. I almost forgot to mention, the first time I called to inquire about cable cards, the always helpful CSR informed me that I was being under billed for one of my STBs and that she would be delighted to correct this error for me. I feel like Im in a bad twilight zone episode every time I pick up the phone to inquire about cable cards.


they are full of it. Ask to speak to a manager and threaten to get the FCC and the local franchise board involved.

The CSR is an idiot. All the cards can go one way or 2 way (the host device is what does one way or 2 way) . WHat they probably are talking about are M-cards (multi stream cards) as opposed to the original S-cards (single stream) which would mean that once tivo gets approval you could just use one card instead of the two. (but like verything else cable touches Tivo is in a holding pattern waiting for cablelabs to get around to approving them for M-card use)

That said- I can't imagine that "comcast" is out of cards- maybe your head end but not comcast. So the dumb asses at your head end can probably call another head end and get you a pair of the older s-cards. It's probably not easy for them and that's why they are jerking you around, but i bet when you speak to the supervisor and threaten the fcc that someone finds the form to borrow with another head end.

As Bidger pointed out- if you call tivo and get one of their cablcard people involved- they know all the relevent regulations to site and the proper threat words to use to get comcast to respond as quick as possible. You need to find the right department but once you get the correct folks they will actually go on a three way call with you to get up in comcast's face. (they may also have a directv line to the people at comcast with brains so they might know how to skip alot of the holding wiating for transfers)


----------



## caddyroger (Mar 15, 2005)

Saxion said:


> Here is what I emailed to the FCC yesterday. I suggest everyone reading this thread do something similar.
> 
> To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
> 
> ...


 What do you do tell the cable cable companys that they can't add any more hd programing or upgrade there service because of of a minority that have 3rd party dvr's. You still will be able to use the s3 you just won't get all of them. Ether way we will not get all of the channels that's avaible. If it comes down I will go back to comcast they are coming out a tivo unit this spring so i can get the hd programming even if my $800 s3 tivo become a door stop.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

caddyroger said:


> What do you do tell the cable cable companys that they can't add any more hd programing or upgrade there service because of of a minority that have 3rd party dvr's. You still will be able to use the s3 you just won't get all of them. Ether way we will not get all of the channels that's avaible. If it comes down I will go back to comcast they are coming out a tivo unit this spring so i can get the hd programming even if my $800 s3 tivo become a door stop.


You basically tell them to make an open standard NOW so that at least Tivo can make an S4 in a timely fashion so the minority with 3rd party DVR's and TV's doesn't get to be too big. Try those of us with s3's and cablecard tv's now would get hosed by why allow it to get worse?

You can also tell them to spead up their transition from analog to digital.

The law is pretty clear and was passed 10 years ago that consumers should be able to buy their own tuners (tv's, DVR's , vcr's whatever) and connect them to the cable infrastructure but cable has dragged it's feet and becasue of that we're at a point now where tough choices like this exist. IN that case, I think that cable should be forced to pay the costs not the consumers.


----------



## eric_mcgovern (Jan 9, 2002)

caddyroger said:


> What do you do tell the cable cable companys that they can't add any more hd programing or upgrade there service because of of a minority that have 3rd party dvr's. You still will be able to use the s3 you just won't get all of them. Ether way we will not get all of the channels that's avaible. If it comes down I will go back to comcast they are coming out a tivo unit this spring so i can get the hd programming even if my $800 s3 tivo become a door stop.


There are other options for adding new channels, but SDV service 2 purposes. It allows them to deploy without changing anything in the home, and it locks people into using their set top boxes. If they truly had the customer in mind there are several other options for adding channels that won't just flat out screw CableCARD customers.

The other issue is, do I pay less each month because I use a CableCARD? If I suddenly can't receive 20 channels, they better drop my monthly fee, but I somehow doubt that will happen.


----------



## caddyroger (Mar 15, 2005)

MichaelK said:


> You basically tell them to make an open standard NOW so that at least Tivo can make an S4 in a timely fashion so the minority with 3rd party DVR's and TV's doesn't get to be too big. Try those of us with s3's and cablecard tv's now would get hosed by why allow it to get worse?
> 
> You can also tell them to spead up their transition from analog to digital.
> 
> The law is pretty clear and was passed 10 years ago that consumers should be able to buy their own tuners (tv's, DVR's , vcr's whatever) and connect them to the cable infrastructure but cable has dragged it's feet and becasue of that we're at a point now where tough choices like this exist. IN that case, I think that cable should be forced to pay the costs not the consumers.


Also 3rd party drvs companys should not be able to tell cable companys that they can only have have 10 hd station s when they can have 30. 
I'm on another form and people said that would not buy a 3rd party dvr for that reason. They said if tech changes tivo would become a door stop. 
There will be more people writing the fcc if people tries and stop more hd programming from being added. 
They are still alot of people that only has analog only tv's it going to take time to change over you can not just pull the plug. 
I bought mind knowing that could be a door stop at anytime. People should realize that.


----------



## haysdb (Dec 11, 2002)

CableCard 1.0 devices cannot receive the following types of programming:
Interactive Program Guides
On-Demand with iControl (TWC) or Similar Services
Season Sports Packages (like the NBA League Pass)
Interactive and Enhanced TV Services (like games, interactive news, etc.)
Why can't JUST this stuff be put onto SDV? CC 1.0 devices would not be deprived of a thing, since they can't receive any of this programming ANYWAY.

My cable company offers 33 digital (but not HD) pay-per-view and on-demand channels, plus one HD channel.

How many "channels" would switched-digital require? I'm sure "that depends" but among those cable companies who are rolling it out, how many channels are they stealing from the existing range in order to implement SDV?

Would it take ALL of the bandwidth used by these (in this one example) 33+ channels? I would LIKE to believe that SDV COULD be implemented in such a way that cable companies could expand their PPV and OD offerings, AND offer more regular full-time HD channels (that could be received by all existing CC 1.0 devices.)

The cable company would have something of value to sell, while not pissing off consumers and the FCC. Seems like a win-win to me. For everyone.

Will this not be the case?


----------



## pl1 (Jan 18, 2007)

haysdb said:


> CableCard 1.0 devices cannot receive the following types of programming
> 
> Season Sports Packages (like the NBA League Pass?


I'm assuming I have a 1.0 card, Motorola ver 4.21. I get the NHL Center Ice package with no problem and I can order PPV by phone. Am I incorrect that this is a cableCARD 1.0 from Comcast?


----------



## caddyroger (Mar 15, 2005)

pl1 said:


> I'm assuming I have a 1.0 card, Motorola ver 4.21. I get the NHL Center Ice package with no problem and I can order PPV by phone. Am I incorrect that this is a cableCARD 1.0 from Comcast?


You can call by phone and order ppv. Cable cards does not have a way to call back to the cable company. They are only 1 way.


----------



## haysdb (Dec 11, 2002)

I stand corrected. I cut-and-pasted that list from a site I found with a Google search. Doesn't surprise me that it's wrong. There is a lot of misinformation and even disinformation out there.


----------



## msu2k (Jan 4, 2001)

caddyroger said:


> There will be more people writing the fcc if people tries and stop more hd programming from being added.


That simply isn't a well thought through statement. No one is going to complain to the FCC about channels they can't already get. People will however complain, and will have a legitimate gripe, if SDV violates the intentions of having CableCard devices in the first place. The whole point of CC devices is to not require a consumer to use a cableco's cable box.


----------



## caddyroger (Mar 15, 2005)

msu2k said:


> That simply isn't a well thought through statement. No one is going to complain to the FCC about channels they can't already get. People will however complain, and will have a legitimate gripe, if SDV violates the intentions of having CableCard devices in the first place. The whole point of CC devices is to not require a consumer to use a cableco's cable box.


So you don't think people not going to say anything not getting any more hd programing. The last time i read any thing comcast and dvr was that comcast had about 7000000 customers of which only 2000000 has dvr's so who going to have more say to the fcc. They have cable cards now that's not going away, we just not going to able to get every channel that all. 
I have over $4000.00 in hd equipment and my tivo is the cheapest. Between the 2 i preferr having more hd programming i can always bet a duel turner dvr from the cable company and don't to worry about changing technology.


----------



## msu2k (Jan 4, 2001)

caddyroger said:



> So you don't think people not going to say anything not getting any more hd programing. The last time i read any thing comcast and dvr was that comcast had about 7000000 customers of which only 2000000 has dvr's so who going to have more say to the fcc. They have cable cards now that's not going away, we just not going to able to get every channel that all.
> I have over $4000.00 in hd equipment and my tivo is the cheapest. Between the 2 i preferr having more hd programming i can always bet a duel turner dvr from the cable company and don't to worry about changing technology.


Not a single customer is going to complain to the FCC because Comcast won't give them MTV 3 HD or Military Gardening HD. They might complain to Comcast, but no one will complain to the FCC. If SDV is unfairly violating the intent of CableCards, that is something the FCC can do something about.


----------



## caddyroger (Mar 15, 2005)

The fcc can not tell a company that they can't change. Comcast only has to make possible for 3rd party dvrs to get the programming. It going to be tivo who has to make the equipment for it work. 
I probaly be writing the fcc about this plus let comcast forms know so they can write the fcc.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

caddyroger said:


> The fcc can not tell a company that they can't change. Comcast only has to make possible for 3rd party dvrs to get the programming. It going to be tivo who has to make the equipment for it work.


Except TiVo can't. The cable companies are in charge of the protocol at the head ends that TiVo has to talk to, and they refuse to standardize at that end. So TiVo currently has no way to talk to the head end to get the programming.


----------



## Sirius Black (Dec 26, 2001)

What does it mean "you won't be able to get every channel"? I don't give a rat's @$$ about frakin' PPV and interactive program guides. HD channels? All of them? Regular digital cable channels? All of them? Would I still get charged full price even if I can't receive said channels (however many number that is)?

Maybe I'm late to the party but I'm here and I'm mad. I want to be placated. Either by the FCC. By Bright House telling me that it will be a couple years, or by TiVo saying that they are working on something that will give S3 customers an option. If it means plugging a device into be back of the S3, so be it. I don't car. At least that's something.


----------



## dbenrosen (Sep 20, 2003)

Sirius Black said:


> What does it mean "you won't be able to get every channel"?


SDV is not about PPV, VOD, or the interactive program guide.

You won't be able to get any SDV channels. This would include any HD channel and any digital channel that is part of the SDV range of channels.

As an example, Cablevision recently added a number of foreign stations, including Russian, Korean, etc. These are on SDV, so even if I subscribed to them my S3 would be unable to get them. Right now, this is a small portion of their subscribers. But when they start rolling out new HD stations, say maybe ESPN2 HD, and decide to do so using SDV, you won't be able to get ESPN2 HD.

ESPN2 HD may not interest you, but substitute ESPN2 HD with SCI-FI HD or Discovery HD or any other channel that interests you and you see my point. This applies to non-HD stations as well.

DISCLAIMER: I have NO information regarding ESPN2 HD, etc., on Cablevision. It was used as an example of a station that is currently not carried and therefore would be a candidate for SDV.


----------



## haysdb (Dec 11, 2002)

I am amused that the Cable company's efforts to offer more HD programming is being met with so much resistance. Switched Digital is not evil, and it's not part of a sinister cable company plan designed to limit consumer choice. It's a technological answer to how you fit 20 lbs of sh*t in a 10 lb bag, when it's just not economically viable to make bigger bags.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

haysdb said:


> I am amused that the Cable company's efforts to offer more HD programming is being met with so much resistance. Switched Digital is not evil, and it's not part of a sinister cable company plan designed to limit consumer choice. It's a technological answer to how you fit 20 lbs of sh*t in a 10 lb bag, when it's just not economically viable to make bigger bags.


I don't disagree with that at all. It is their way of going about it that neatly sidesteps the FCC's intent to allow third party boxes (like a TiVo) to compete on an even footing with the cable company boxes.

SDV, by requiring a cable company device to receive all channels, clearly flies in the face of that mandate.


----------



## larrs (May 2, 2005)

GoHokies! said:


> I don't disagree with that at all. It is their way of going about it that neatly sidesteps the FCC's intent to allow third party boxes (like a TiVo) to compete on an even footing with the cable company boxes.
> 
> SDV, by requiring a cable company device to receive all channels, clearly flies in the face of that mandate.


I agree, but I think that SDV if used for Music channels, PPV channels (not on-demaind, but those that are actually running on a set schedule) and other content like this is not an issue with cable cards. In fact, I may be an optimist, but I believe this will be the most common use for SDV.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

We should all keep in mind that the cable companies did not invent SDV. They don't actually design and build any of the hardware they use. They buy it from companies that invent and make this stuff. Those third party companies couldn't care less if they broke Tivo or not. When they invented SDV years ago there were not any third party devices to be broken. The cable companies are simply chosing the best solution available to them on a cost\benefit scale.


----------



## cramer (Aug 14, 2000)

haysdb said:


> I am amused that the Cable company's efforts to offer more HD programming is being met with so much resistance.


We resist it because it's unnecessary. We don't need the _capacity_ for 100 HD stations when there are a few dozen in existance. They have a vast amount of bandwidth being unused down in the analog cable space. Take TW/Raleigh, the highest analog channel in use is (as of 1/23/2007) 76 -- not counting the unadversized EAS channel (125). So, they have about 250MHz that isn't being used at all. (~half the analog spectrum.) That's 4 dozen full rate channels. If (when) they get rid of the analog standard tier (which is getting smaller every year), that'll be an other 50 channels. So, they don't *need* SDV; however, they like SDV because it allows them to legally say "f*** you" to the FCC's integration ban.



HiDefGator said:


> We should all keep in mind that the cable companies did not invent SDV.


Actually, they did. The original SDV implementation was engineered by Scientific Atlanta and Time Warner Cable. They both claim it's a "open standard", but I've been unable to actually find any public documentation on the system. (One may presume they'd hand 'em over if asked, but I don't recommend betting on that.)


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

So you're suggesting that cable companies should wait until there are more HD channels that they are not delivering to their customers and THEN start deploying hardware that takes months if not years to fully deploy? That's very forward thinking of you. 

I'm sure the FCC's integration ban is about number 471 on their list of things they think about every day. Because after all there are so many S3's out there today for them to be worried about.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

> We resist it because it's unnecessary. We don't need the capacity for 100 HD stations when there are a few dozen in existance.


Who are "We"? Narrow minded S3 owners? After dropping truckload of money for large screen LCD, I absolutely hate pathetic choice of HD channels available to me. I subscribe to both Dish and DirecTV, but still get only about 2 dozen channels in HD. I can't wait for either DircTV or cable company to provide me with some choices. I couldn't care less what happens to S3 owners or TiVo inc if my cable company moves to SDV. I want more HD content - period.


----------



## DeathRider (Dec 30, 2006)

HiDefGator said:


> I'm sure the FCC's integration ban is about number 471 on their list of things they think about every day. Because after all there are so many S3's out there today for them to be worried about.


Maybe TiVo should somehow give key ppl in the FCC a S3 things would move along quickly. Of course, that can't/won't happen due to legalities.

Switched channels should start with the music channels, then the shop channels (QVC, HSN, ect), PPV channels, bulletin board channels...



> So you're suggesting that cable companies should wait until there are more HD channels that they are not delivering to their customers and THEN start deploying hardware that takes months if not years to fully deploy? That's very forward thinking of you.


It's not so much implementing the infrastructure (STBs, headend equipment, ec).

It's the part of throwing the switch before it's necessary. Why switch anything before the near capacity (other than for testing to make sure the equipment works)?

I'm sure it costs money to push content down the pipe that no one is watching...but that's not what the cable companies are complaining about.

Why switch all the new HD channels, unless you have already switched all the SD channels you could first?

I'm surprised cable isn't following Satellite in providing "HD Lite". I guess there's no way for Satellite to offer some sort of SDV...


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

DeathRider said:


> I'm surprised cable isn't following Satellite in providing "HD Lite".


I think some cable companies are...

Apart from that, there are basically two ways they can fit in more channels:

1. Move analogs to digital. Each analog channel can be used for two full-rate HD channels, or many SD digitals. But doing this screws people with analog cable-ready equipment.

2. SDV. But doing this screws people with digital cable-ready equipment.

As an S3 user, of course I prefer 1, and in fact I'm with a provider (Fios) that's almost all digital. And most other cable companies are moving more and more of their lineup to digital. But... from their perspective, their analog cable-ready customers outnumber their digital cable-ready customers.

Plus, by deploying SDV, they get to circumvent the CableCard mandate that they never wanted. Of course, this is also the part that makes it seem illegal. Too bad we have a do-nothing FCC.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

HiDefGator said:


> We should all keep in mind that the cable companies did not invent SDV.





cramer said:


> Actually, they did. The original SDV implementation was engineered by Scientific Atlanta and Time Warner Cable. They both claim it's a "open standard", but I've been unable to actually find any public documentation on the system.


"Invent" is a tricky term. SDV (even for cable-style HFC networks) has been kicked around as a concept since at least the early 90's. Fat pipe to a node ... skinny (or skinnier) pipe to the home ... doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that maybe not all content available at the node is going to go to all the homes ...

Heck, Telcos pushed the concept earlier (FTTC + VDSL = the 'original' SDV) for obvious reasons ... their pipes into houses were much skinnier than cable's. Cable vendors just applied the same concepts to HFC + QAM when it started making economic sense to do so.

Cable companies were certainly the first to deploy SDV for linear channels via HFC + QAM. I wouldn't say they "invented" it though.

People have been talking about the eventual migration of cable to switched services forever ... only question has been when / where / how / etc. Even SDV is just an evolutionary step towards ... _something_ else (like IPTV over DOCSIS). Just a question of when / where / how.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

I have no probelm with implementing switched video. New tchnologies come along. If my S3 can't handle it then it kind of sucks but what can you do- stop the pace of progress? I think that even the law/regs that prompted the integration ban state the FCC should give waivers so as not to stifle new technologies like this.

The problem I have is once they decide to deploy such technologies they should create an open standard so others can follow. TW has been filed testing SDV in markets for months (if not years?). Cablevision apparently has already starting using it for foreign langauge programming on a regular basis. Comcast is planning to use it this year. So where is the standard that tivo can use to built the Series 4 that can use these things? That's my beef. 

The law passed in 1996 - a full ten years ago- says that their should be third party devices at retail for video and basically anything that cable offers on those same wires. It doesn't say just for the video channels they broadcast and nothing else. So I take it to mean that third party devices should be availible in retail for PPV, VOD, and now switched video. So where are these? There's no such thing becasue cable and the cea cant agree on a single spec. to do it. The fcc shouldn't let that go on- and that's the problem- they should figure out how to speed up creation of open spec's so third parties can sit at the table. (and of course I'll defer to dt_dc to straigten this paragraph out- LOL)

Either assign a third party like maybe the IEEE or something to create specs in a more timely manner (not sure if that would even work) or put a timeline on cable and the boys at cablelabs- come out with whatever new technology you want but you have 12 months from the day you deploy it in the feild to define an open standard that everyone can agree on. 

So I have no problem with new technology just that they are not open to all. 

How long has PPV existed? Yet you cant get buy a single third party device anywher to order PPV today? That's a screwup by the FCC plain and simple.


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

HiDefGator said:


> Because after all there are so many S3's out there today for them to be worried about.


It's not just S3's.

It's every Unidirectional CableCARD device. (right now that's basically **every** CableCARD device.)

-Kyle


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

samo said:


> Who are "We"? Narrow minded S3 owners? After dropping truckload of money for large screen LCD, I absolutely hate pathetic choice of HD channels available to me. I subscribe to both Dish and DirecTV, but still get only about 2 dozen channels in HD. I can't wait for either DircTV or cable company to provide me with some choices. I couldn't care less what happens to S3 owners or TiVo inc if my cable company moves to SDV. I want more HD content - period.


I hope you don't mind using a STB for that LCD TV (considering you're willing to consider DirecTV I guessing you dont' mind them.) Because if your fancy new LCD TV has CableCARD slots, and you're looking forward to using them to receive those new HD channels, you'll be in for a big disappointment.

-Kyle


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

My understanding is that while there may have been a lot of cable card devices (tv's) sold in the past, very few ever had cable cards put in them. So breaking all those existing cable card slots still won't make news.

I'm also not convinced that even if there was a public common spec for interfacing with SDV that Tivo would make an S4 to support it. I have yet to hear Tivo mention even the concept of an S4. I believe they have seen the writing on the walls and intend to pursue only OCAP in the future.


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

HiDefGator said:


> My understanding is that while there may have been a lot of cable card devices (tv's) sold in the past, very few ever had cable cards put in them. So breaking all those existing cable card slots still won't make news.


Well, CableCARDs or not. SDV will take channels away from anyone who uses the QAM tuner built in to their TV to tune un-encrypted channels. This will affect TV's that don't even have CableCARD slots. That is probably an even larger population.



> I'm also not convinced that even if there was a public common spec for interfacing with SDV that Tivo would make an S4 to support it. I have yet to hear Tivo mention even the concept of an S4. I believe they have seen the writing on the walls and intend to pursue only OCAP in the future.


They can't really. I wouldn't if I were them. It would cannibalize S3 sales even more than the threat of SDV. It's bad enough when your competitor puts out talk of VaporWare to make people hold off on purchases. It's worse to do it to yourself.

That said you might be right. TiVo has really always considered itself a service company and not a hardware company. I think they've only gotten into the HW business when they've had to. Will the CableLabs, OCAP platform, and MSO's allow them to provide all the cool features they want to provide? If so maybe they'll be happy with the Cable Only market

If the Cable Companies get in the way, Or if TiVo cares enough about OTA customers, then I think you may see something in the future.

It might be a Dual OTA ATSC Tuner box, with no QAM or CableCARD, but with FireWire to communicate with an external STB.

I can't stand that idea, I hate STB's with a passion. But I might just be the minority.

-Kyle


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

HiDefGator said:


> My understanding is that while there may have been a lot of cable card devices (tv's) sold in the past, very few ever had cable cards put in them. So breaking all those existing cable card slots still won't make news.
> 
> I'm also not convinced that even if there was a public common spec for interfacing with SDV that Tivo would make an S4 to support it. I have yet to hear Tivo mention even the concept of an S4. I believe they have seen the writing on the walls and intend to pursue only OCAP in the future.


I agree that a small percenatge of cablecard ready tv's actually use them (and it's likley dropping as a percent all the time- I helped my friend connect a new moto cable dvr the other day and take out the card from his plasma)- last I read it was like single digit percentage. So I dont think it will make the nightly news but I'm not sure they will be ignored either. The FCC didn't/wont let the cell phone company's shut down their analog networks because some tiny percentage who have some big giant brick analog only phone from 1990 will be effected. The FCC mandated that there could be no futzing with analog inputs on HDTV's so early adopters without HDMI dont get hosed- what percentage of HDTV's is that going to be in the future?

Your second paragraph is almost funny to me. What do you want them to do say "hey we have this nice new $800 series 3 but we think might be junk in a year so we're coming out with the S4 to deal with that whenever cable and the cea finish their pissing match and come up with an open standard (if and whenever that might be)." Oh yeah that will help sales of the S3 hit their targets.

Even assuming theres some secret standard that exists and that tivo is currently building to it's not clear they would announce till it's very close. How much notice did they give for the S2 DT as an example? (wasn't much if I recall)


----------



## vstone (May 11, 2002)

I' m sure that there is an S4 on the drawing boards, they want to keep their mouths shut so we don't deluge them "with how I'd design it," etc.

Im hoping that the FCC will see the OCAP issue as the cable companies' trying to capture the interface market, stiffling innovation, etc. But I don't have much hope.

It would be interesting to watch a Congressional panel watch a Tivo demo (S2 will do), then watch an SA 8300HD demo, with a commentary on the differences.

I've written to Congress about the lack of equipment and public knowledge available to the consumer allowing him to replace a recently expired TV (used w/o a cable box) with a new one with equivalent capabilities after cable companies start going all digital (starts next year on the west coast). Haven't heard back. Of course, if they solve the Iraqi mess, I'll take that as an acceptable substitute.


----------



## vstone (May 11, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> ...
> The FCC didn't/wont let the cell phone company's shut down their analog networks because some tiny percentage who have some big giant brick analog only phone from 1990 will be effected.
> ...


In flyover country, it's not always economical to put up a lot more cell towers to support those digital phones with less range. Those big bricks had 5 times the output of the handheld analog phones. In places like eastern Montana there are still analog only cell phone companies and they still sell those bricks. You can buy analog bricks to work with the existing analog towers if you need more range and you have a cell comp that will let you use it. (Hint: they will probably charge you an arm and a leg). What is needed are full power bricks that do digital as well as analog, but I don't think anybody makes them.


----------



## ivan256 (Feb 13, 2007)

bdraw said:


> In the meantime lets hope that CC 2.0 get ratified and 2-way is supported, then we can lean on TiVo to cut us a break since we are early adopters on an update that will support 2.0. I am just glad that TiVo didn't let this whole lack of 2-way stop them from selling the S3, or I would still be using my HR10-250.


The best thing that can happen for everybody is for the integration ban to go into effect, and for the FCC to strengthen it to require CableCARD 1.0. CableCARD 2.0 should never see the light of day. There is no service that a cable company would be unable to provide with a unidirectional cable card. Of course, this would require that cable companies provide open network services to make VOD, and switched services function properly, but this is a win for consumers. It would also mean that S3 Tivos would be able to support everything that Cable Company boxes could, and wasn't that the whole point of the integration ban?

CableCARD is mainly supposed to provide the cable companies a way of protecting content. Content that originates from their end. If it doesn't need to be DRMed, the cable card doesn't need to be involved, and no data the customer initiates needs to be DRMed.

CableCARD 2.0 is the cable company's clever trick to get everybody to have a cable box again, and to regain their monopoly on STB "innovation". They're getting away with it by tricking people into thinking it isn't a cable box since it's only the size of a PC card. Push for uni-directional cable cards and open protocols for bi-directional services. _Oppose CableCARD 2.0_.


----------



## PhillyGuy (Mar 12, 2006)

kjmcdonald said:


> Well, CableCARDs or not. SDV will take channels away from anyone who uses the QAM tuner built in to their TV to tune un-encrypted channels. This will affect TV's that don't even have CableCARD slots. That is probably an even larger population.


Very few digital channels are in the clear. Most of them are local channels which most likely will not be switched anyway.


----------



## JimPa (Oct 25, 2006)

Don't be too surprised if the cable companies who think they're smarter than they really are, are halted in mid release of SDV because it wasn't an open standard and violated the FCC mandate.

Cable companies loose, consumers loose, everybody looses.

As for Tivo fighting it, are they really a strong enough company to do this????


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

JimPa said:


> Cable companies loose, consumers loose, everybody looses.


If everybody looses will somebody tighten?


----------



## JimPa (Oct 25, 2006)

...oops


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

JimPa said:


> Don't be too surprised if the cable companies who think they're smarter than they really are, are halted in mid release of SDV because it wasn't an open standard and violated the FCC mandate.


But then I get no new HD channels for the S3 and I have to switch back to DirecTV and the HR20 for my HD fix. How is this a better scenario?

Although I'd be more surprised if this happned then if I saw pigs flying outside my window.


----------



## davecramer74 (Mar 17, 2006)

> Don't be too surprised if the cable companies who think they're smarter than they really are, are halted in mid release of SDV because it wasn't an open standard and violated the FCC mandate.


how is it not an open standard? Motorola, SA, panasonic to name a few are already making thier boxes that support sdv. The current boxes they make support sdv. Whats to stop tivo? Tivo takes years to put out a box where the bigger companies put them out yearly. The only issue here is you guys will be waiting another couple years just like you did for the tivo HD box.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

davecramer74 said:


> how is it not an open standard? Motorola, SA, panasonic to name a few are already making thier boxes that support sdv. The current boxes they make support sdv. Whats to stop tivo? Tivo takes years to put out a box where the bigger companies put them out yearly. The only issue here is you guys will be waiting another couple years just like you did for the tivo HD box.


Nonsense! It's not an open standard because those others are selling boxes *to the cable companies*, for the cable companies to put cable company proprietary software on. That doesn't sound open to me!

There's no place in this scenario for any of those other companies to sell SDV equipment to the consumers, and they don't.


----------



## davecramer74 (Mar 17, 2006)

> Nonsense! It's not an open standard because those others are selling boxes to the cable companies, for the cable companies to put cable company proprietary software on. That doesn't sound open to me!


 why didnt tivo go into business with comcast like the others did and develop more compatible boxes instead of going the route they did?

Panasonic's deal last year and we'll start seeing these boxes this year. Triple tuners, 250 gig drives, etc.:

http://blog.itvt.com/my_weblog/2006/01/comcast_in_ocap.html

Tivo instead chose to license its software, which tells me, they are getting out of the hardware business all together.

When u say open standard, what exactly do you mean? Tivo had every opportunity to go this same route and make these type of boxes instead of using comcasts existing hardware or building 1 way cable card boxes.

My opinion is tivo made a large mistake and it will be their downfall in the end. correct me if im mistaken. Sony is the only other company i know that made a dvr like the s3. But they obviously dont rely on that one product.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

davecramer74 said:


> why didnt tivo go into business with comcast like the others did and develop more compatible boxes instead of going the route they did?
> 
> Panasonic's deal last year and we'll start seeing these boxes this year. Triple tuners, 250 gig drives, etc.:
> 
> ...


You're very mistaken both as to what the meaning of "open standard" is, and to what TiVo's goals are.

Can you please tell me how TiVo can make a sold-to-consumer OCAP box that will work without having access to proprietary information from the particular cable company it will be connected to? I claim they can't. How can that be considered an "open standard"?

The only way they can use OCAP is by doing it on cable company owned boxes. This is precisely what they are doing with Comcast TiVo and the Cox TiVo. They did "go into business with Comcast" as you want. What more do you want?

TiVo would prefer not to sell hardware boxes, and they have said so at every opportunity. They lose money on their hardware sales. But they also don't want to be "owned" by the cable companies; they want to be able to compete in the marketplace with their complete software offering. And that's what the cable company closed systems are forbidding. The cable companies are insisting on being in control of both sides of the line into the home.


----------



## Emacee (Dec 15, 2000)

Sorley, maybe you think you're being "creative" but people who don't put the actual topic in the topic line are IMHO inconsiderate. 
I propose a boycott of all threads that don't include a meaningful subject line.


----------



## TexasAg (Apr 2, 2006)

JDguy said:


> I heard that there are boxes (TVs?) from Samsung, LG and Panasonic now working on cable plants in Wisconsin, Florida and perhaps other cities with all the required software (OCAP) to support the switched digital video. Why can't Tivo do the same thing?


Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but with OCAP the cable company controls the user interface. Why would you pay $800 for an S3 so the cable company could put their own user interface on the box?


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

JDguy said:


> You can get Tivo as part of the CableCo's user interface....


Not yet, you can't (coming soon). And it won't have many of the standard TiVo features for quite a while, and some it won't ever have. The cable companies will be in control of exactly what software TiVo can put on those boxes.


----------



## CraigHB (Dec 24, 2003)

JimPa said:


> As for Tivo fighting it, are they really a strong enough company to do this????


No, but there are some strong companies that have an interest in seeing cablecard succeed, Microsoft comes to mind.



JDguy said:


> And who controls what features you can get on a DirecTV box? Who controls what features you can get on the Verizon Fios box?


Similar mandates *should* apply to these providers, but they don't because the FCC feels 3rd party compatability would be too much of a burden for "fledgling" companies like FiOS and the satellite providers.



JDguy said:


> At least some of the cable operators will be offering Tivo. Why won't the other service providers?


Because TiVo is expensive. That's why the relationship dissolved with DirecTV. They felt the savings were worth it even though they may lose a few customers. Personally, I was mad as hell about it and I'll never go back with them.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

JDguy said:


> I heard that there are boxes (TVs?) from Samsung, LG and Panasonic now working on cable plants in Wisconsin, Florida and perhaps other cities with all the required software (OCAP) to support the switched digital video. Why can't Tivo do the same thing?


correct me if I'm wrong but tivo can not sell ocap boxes to the public that has the tivo UI- no?

Tivo can sell the hardare all they want like Samsung, LG, panny, etc but then the head end will download their UI on the hardware under the current rules. If the headend happens to be comcast and they happen to offer the tivo OCAP dvr then you could pay comcast to run it on that box- but you could also buy the panny, moto, or sa hardware that can download the tivo ocap software from comcast too.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

The downside to Tivo is that the value of Tivo software is diminished if the drive can only hold 20 hours and can't be upgraded. It is also harder to justify the Tivo premium if you aren't also getting the premium Tivo box with it. After all the OCAP box comes with free software included. It'll be interesting to see how many people will pay extra for the Tivo UI to run on their existing box.


----------



## CraigHB (Dec 24, 2003)

I have a feeling the popularity of the Comcast/TiVo offering in going to be underwhelming. People who know TiVo would probably pay the extra $5 per month for it. Most people would probably rather save the $5 and go with the Comcast software. Though I do hope I'm wrong. 

If the CTiVo still uses an MFS file system, then it should be possible to do a disk copy then use mfsadd to expand it. Of course, the CTiVo may be an entirely different beast. TiVo might live only at the application level on that box.


----------



## jfh3 (Apr 15, 2004)

CraigHB said:


> Because TiVo is expensive. That's why the relationship dissolved with DirecTV. They felt the savings were worth it even though they may lose a few customers. Personally, I was mad as hell about it and I'll never go back with them.


There is no way that the relationship with Tivo at about $1 sub was more than what DTV has/will spend developing the NDS boxes, let alone their losses of high-end customers that left because of no Tivo.

When my commitment is up, I'm gone from DirecTV. Tivo got me to switch to DirecTV. Lack of a future for Tivo at DirecTV will cause me to leave. My only hesitation is the MLB EI deal.

Comcast and the S3 seems fine.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

jfh3 said:


> There is no way that the relationship with Tivo at about $1 sub was more than what DTV has/will spend developing the NDS boxes, let alone their losses of high-end customers that left because of no Tivo.


The bean counters at DirecTV disagree with your assessment. The payments to Tivo were never ending. They only have to design and fix the HR20 once. If they eventually give an HR20 to every single DTV customer it will be far cheaper than staying with Tivo who could and would raise their rates every time the contract renewed.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

HiDefGator said:


> The bean counters at DirecTV disagree with your assessment.


Can you please give me evidence for that? As far as I can tell, the issue was not revenue under the current scheme; it was future revenue from things like advertising. Murdoch wanted control of that revenue. It will take a decade before the current money DirecTV pays TiVo is enough to recoup development costs (my estimate).


HiDefGator said:


> The payments to Tivo were never ending. They only have to design and fix the HR20 once. If they eventually give an HR20 to every single DTV customer it will be far cheaper than staying with Tivo who could and would raise their rates every time the contract renewed.


That's completely contrary to all the evidence we have. The per subscriber revenue from DirecTV has gone down every time the contract was renewed.

An HR20 costs around $500 to make and "sell." At $1 per month (the amount DirecTV pays TiVo), how long does it take for them to recoup that $500?


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

CrispyCritter said:


> An HR20 costs around $500 to make and "sell." At $1 per month (the amount DirecTV pays TiVo), how long does it take for them to recoup that $500?


This argument doesn't make any sense. No matter what mpeg4 dvr they offer it will cost them $500 to make it. The only difference is are they paying Tivo $1 per month for the rest of the life of the DVR. My point was that ten years from now Tivo will not still be happy with $1 per month. BUt by writing their own software they will own it and only need to pay for ongoing enhancements. If they have 15 million dvrs deplyed 5 years from now they would have been cutting Tivo a check for $15 million a month. They can certainly roll their own cheaper than $180 million a year. They will be free to make whatever enhancements they chose to offer. And they can implement those enhancements however fast their staff can do it. Far more flexibility then they had with the Tivo solution.

As you said I'm sure there were many factors that went into their decision. The cost of the Tivo software, the future advertizing revenue, the ability of Tivo to immediately respond to their needs, etc. Some day one of the top exec's may write a book and then we will know what went on behind the scenes.


----------



## acvthree (Jan 17, 2004)

[delete}

Sorry. I responded to something I thought I read that didn't actually exist when I re-checked. 

More coffee is needed.

Al


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

HiDefGator said:


> This argument doesn't make any sense. No matter what mpeg4 dvr they offer it will cost them $500 to make it. The only difference is are they paying Tivo $1 per month for the rest of the life of the DVR.


I agree with this. But that's not what you said earlier (or at least how I interpreted it). You said that they could give an HR20 to every customer and that would save them money over time because of the TiVo charge. That as opposed to actually charging their customers for the DVR.

$1 a month is pretty insignificant compared to either the DVR purchase price or the money a new DirecTV customer will bring in (attracted by the TiVo option). I don't see any way that it's the reason for the NDS switch.


----------



## CraigHB (Dec 24, 2003)

Contrast the savings and any other advantages to having their own branded DVR versus the number of customers they've lost by dropping TiVo. Based on numbers I've seen here, a lot of us D* customers have jumped ship for the S3. Of course, this board probably is not a good indication since it *is* TiVo-centric. Personally, I think it was a huge mistake for D* to drop TiVo. Tivo may have cost them money and may have limited some control over the device, but it *was* a selling point. If anything, I think they should maintained the DirecTiVo and added their own in-house offering as a cheaper option. This is what Comacast plans to do and it sounds like a good thing, at least as far as the customer is concerned.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

scorley22 said:


> I don't need it on every TV in my house... just the 50" HDTV in my living room. That's the whole reason I bought the S3, to pair with my HDTV in the main living area. I have heard that some Cable Companies are starting to change stations like Disney, Natl. Geo, etc. to Switched-Video as well as any new HD channels that they may add. I just can't believe that TIVO wouldn't be doing something about this?


I feel the same way. By the time this happens I too hope that TiVo will take care of us loyal early adopters in some way. Having said all that, if I can get a couple of years out of my S3 boxes until Comcast can get TiVo in their own boxes I'll be "not unhappy". Not happy either but I'll suck it up.

I already rent one Comcast DVR because Comcast told me I HAVE to rent their box to get PPV. Even though the same PPV can be shown on all three of my DVR boxes including the ones with TIVo. So I guess that's the work around in the worst case scenario. You may have to use a Commie DVR for SDV channels until they come up with a two-way box for TiVo. Or an add-on box... I personally won't hold my breath for the add-on box unless it's from a 3rd party vendor.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

> As far as I can tell, the issue was not revenue under the current scheme; it was future revenue from things like advertising. Murdoch wanted control of that revenue.


This article  helps to prove your point.


> Nielsen Co., the marketing research firm, has struck a deal with DirecTV Group Inc. to study viewing habits of customers who subscribe to the satellite television service, the companies said on Wednesday.
> 
> Under the agreement, privately held Nielsen will use anonymous data from a panel of 300,000 DirecTV customers to develop new statistics and measurements about viewing patterns.
> 
> ...


----------



## jmace57 (Nov 30, 2002)

I was about to take the S3 plunge until I started reading about this...

I don't give a flip about PPV or NFL passes...but don't mess with my Discovery or National Geographic!

<sigh>

Jim


----------



## CraigHB (Dec 24, 2003)

Yea, I like those channels a lot too. That's the main reason I went through the cablecard fuss.


----------

