# Mavrik is dead, Hydra delayed



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

Dave Zatz is reporting that Mavrik is dead and Hydra is delayed until late 2017.

TiVo Mavrik Is Dead (and all of retail is in jeopardy)

It sounds like the TiVo development team, at least those involved in DVR/streaming development, are increasingly rudderless. None of this is surprising given the state of things, just sad. Regardless of its retail future, if TiVo can't keep their devices fresh and current for MSOs they're going to quickly lose whatever foothold they've gained in that market.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Oh well. Can't say I'm shocked. But yeah, this is sad, if true.

I think we all have known that TiVo's retail CableCARD device business is on its last legs but I thought maybe they still had a future with retail OTA. Guess they're going to be purely B2B before long...


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

I still have hopes that they will license their software to a hardware vendor when/if ATSC 3.0 shows up. But ya it is pretty clear that without a FCC mandated cable card replacement, stand alone cable DVRs will suffer a slow death as cable companies decide to convert from QAM to IPTV delivery. 

The Roamio OTA and Bolt both are very good to excellent OTA DVRs and the Bolt & Bolt+ are very good QAM cable DVRs so I don't see TiVo doing any future hardware development unless something major changes. It would be nice if they did update the Mini, but the existing one gets the job mostly done. 

At this point we will all be better off if TiVo can significantly cut down development costs as they may be able to make money just selling and servicing the existing hardware line up.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Tivo tried different price points for Roamio OTA. I guess sales weren't impressive.

Bolt with minis was a reasonable good product. All indications sales weren't impressive.

Cable systems are talking about migrating to IPTV. It's questionable if tivo will even be able to release a viable product.

Tivo leaving retail seem inevitable.


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

It doesn't surprise me. For the Mavrik we argued incessantly over viability of that product; with no local storage and the difficulties TiVo has with facilitating OOH streaming today it was a huge lift to do correctly - apparently, they never did.

I think we can all see the sunset for TiVo - once the MSO's move away from Cablecard and begin to deliver content via branded streaming apps, TiVo loses its niche and consumers lose a great product. 

They can continue to focus on the OTA market, but the cost is going to have to be competitive.


----------



## mattyro7878 (Nov 27, 2014)

With the entire TV watching population using IPTV is there any chance the system couldn't handle it? Maybe half the country watching the Game of thrones Premiere through thier routers will be too much on the systems? Possibly forcing mso's back to qam and cc?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I've thought for about as long as I've owned a TiVo [glances at member box to left] that the future of TiVo would be as a software company, not a hardware company. But aside from their time with DirecTV, they've never been able to make significant inroads into that market. And with the Rovi data problem cloud hanging over them, I suspect such progress will be even more difficult in the foreseeable future...


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

mattyro7878 said:


> With the entire TV watching population using IPTV is there any chance the system couldn't handle it? Maybe half the country watching the Game of thrones Premiere through thier routers will be too much on the systems? Possibly forcing mso's back to qam and cc?


It is not that TiVo couldn't build a system to support IPTV - they obviously can. The issue is that the MSO's aren't forced to support them.

The FCC has abandoned the Parity policy and replaced it with simple third party access. This will be accomplished by branded streaming apps provided by the MSO's and supported by Roku - et al. Think of Hulu as the new model (yes, with forced commercials)

They days for third party, cable based, DVR's are coming to an end. Branded, streaming, on demand services are the future.


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

Tell Trump his TiVo won't work anymore and he'll tweet something.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

mattyro7878 said:


> With the entire TV watching population using IPTV is there any chance the system couldn't handle it? Maybe half the country watching the Game of thrones Premiere through thier routers will be too much on the systems? Possibly forcing mso's back to qam and cc?


You are talking about several different things.

Frist:
IPTV via a Netflix, Hulu, or Sling TV type provider uses the Internet. IPTV from a Uverse, Google Fiber, or a Comcast when they convert does not use the Internet it uses those providers private system the same pipes QAM would use.

Second:
Each Netflix user has a independent stream requiring the Internet's back bone to handle them all independently. However live/broadcast IPTV works differently and does not require the same back bone bandwidth (each user does not get and independent stream, they get a stream that is replicated as/where needed). Plus system like Uverse, Google Fiber or any Cable provider that converts to IPTV do not use any more last mile bandwidth than a QAM system does and may use less as they function like SV does.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

Mavrik was weird. The pending patents talked about users sharing small segments, and the mothership putting all the pieces together to create a master copy. This seems so over-engineered and complicated considering all the variables that come with signal quality and being able to put the pieces together without errors or skips.

I mean, just reduce the cost of the Bolt or redo the Aereo Edition Bolt in 2-tuners or something. One way or another a box with transcoding built-in would eventually be cheap enough to replace the Roamio OTA. The crazy cloud solution is unnecessary.


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

This may not be popular opinion here, but I've experienced ReplayTV and Sling. This feels very similar. Market shrinking, rudderless attempts to address the problem, then project cancellations. Next it will be drastic cost cutting, then brain drain (beyond what has already happened), leading to self fulfilling prophecy.

This process can take several years.


----------



## tomhorsley (Jul 22, 2010)

sfhub said:


> This may not be popular opinion here, but I've experienced ReplayTV and Sling. This feels very similar. Market shrinking, rudderless attempts to address the problem, then project cancellations. Next it will be drastic cost cutting, then brain drain (beyond what has already happened), leading to self fulfilling prophecy.


Then they'll just be Rovi again, minus the cash they spent buying TiVo and throwing it away.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

Will have to enjoy these golden years of 6 tuner TiVo Roamio Pro with SkipMode. I don't think there will be many years left to enjoy. I had no intention of using Mavrik but was hoping it succeeded anyway somehow just to keep TiVo as a company alive in the DVR business. I also went through the ReplayTV demise and as sfhub mentioned it feels much the same way with TiVo now.

Just sure hope in the coming IPTV models that there will be a way to automatically bypass commercials even if it means paying more for that...


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

BigJimOutlaw said:


> Mavrik was weird. The pending patents talked about users sharing small segments, and the mothership putting all the pieces together to create a master copy. This seems so over-engineered and complicated considering all the variables that come with signal quality and being able to put the pieces together without errors or skips.
> 
> I mean, just reduce the cost of the Bolt or redo the Aereo Edition Bolt in 2-tuners or something. One way or another a box with transcoding built-in would eventually be cheap enough to replace the Roamio OTA. The crazy cloud solution is unnecessary.


I still think TiVo's only hope in the retail arena is to come out with their own skinny bundle type service and merge that seamlessly with OTA recorded locally. I'm not aure how viable it is, given the cost and licensing involved, but that's the only way I can see them being able to compete in an IPTV world.


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

tomhorsley said:


> Then they'll just be Rovi again, minus the cash they spent buying TiVo and throwing it away.


Plus TiVo patents.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

sfhub said:


> Plus TiVo patents.


Since you mentioned patents: TiVo shares climb 10% after the company receives favorable patent ruling against Comcast


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

If U-verse is using mutli-cast, why do they limit the number of simultaneous HD streams a user can receive?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

lpwcomp said:


> If U-verse is using mutli-cast, why do they limit the number of simultaneous HD streams a user can receive?


My understanding is they are limited by available bandwidth on their last mile copper. Remember Uverse is using the old phone lines to some extent.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> My understanding is they are limited by available bandwidth on their last mile copper. Remember Uverse is using the old phone lines to some extent.


If they're multi-casting, how does that come into play?


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

lpwcomp said:


> If U-verse is using mutli-cast, why do they limit the number of simultaneous HD streams a user can receive?


Is that a limitation on the connection to your house rather than their backbone?


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

atmuscarella said:


> My understanding is they are limited by available bandwidth on their last mile copper. Remember Uverse is using the old phone lines to some extent.


Yup. And now that AT&T owns DirecTV, they're pushing their Uverse internet customers toward satellite TV, which preserves more bandwidth for other internet usage. (However, they're still pushing IPTV for their gigabit AT&T Fiber customers.)


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

sfhub said:


> Is that a limitation on the connection to your house rather than their backbone?


Yes.


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

lpwcomp said:


> If they're multi-casting, how does that come into play?


Think of it this way, if the connection to your house is 20Mbps and the HD stream takes 20MBps, you can only support one HD stream, multicast or not, however 3 TVs can watch the same channel and that is considered one HD stream if multicasting is being used.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

sfhub said:


> Think of it this way, if the connection to your house is 20Mbps and the HD stream takes 20MBps, you can only support one HD stream, multicast or not, however 3 TVs can watch the same channel and that is considered one HD stream if multicasting is being used.


If it's multicast, it's coming to your house anyway.


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

lpwcomp said:


> If it's multicast, it's coming to your house anyway.


Normally you don't have enough bandwidth (at the connection to your house) to multicast every channel in their lineup from their backbone. You choose which channels to multicast to your house, w/r/t what the connection to your house can support.

If your 3 TVs are watching the same channel, because of multicasting, that uses bandwidth of one channel. If they are watching 3 different channels, then that is 3 separate streams from a bandwidth perspective.

Multicasting doesn't remove bandwidth requirements. It makes it so that access to the same channel doesn't require separate streams.

The big gain isn't in your house, when often people are watching different channels. The big gain is at the backbone, where 30% of the neighborhood might be watching Game of Thrones finale or Presidential debate.


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

BigJimOutlaw said:


> This seems so over-engineered and complicated considering all the variables that come with signal quality and being able to put the pieces together without errors or skips.


Sounds like they couldn't even get the basics, like channel changes, operating within acceptable limits... Ah well, I hope the 4K Mini and voice remote actually make it to market. Won't help them with new customers, but I'd buy both.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

sfhub said:


> Normally you don't have enough bandwidth (at the connection to your house) to multicast every channel in their lineup from their backbone. You choose which channels to multicast to your house, w/r/t what the connection to your house can support.
> 
> If your 3 TVs are watching the same channel, because of multicasting, that uses bandwidth of one channel. If they are watching 3 different channels, then that is 3 separate streams from a bandwidth perspective.
> 
> ...


What you're describing is not the equivalent of current Cable TV delivered via QAM.


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

lpwcomp said:


> What you're describing is not the equivalent of current Cable TV delivered via QAM.


I never claimed it was the equivalent experience, I was answering your questions only.

Multi-cast IP delivery is different than Netflix-style IP delivery, which is where I think your questions started. Netflix IP delivery, every stream (even of the same show) is separate stream to your house AND over the backbone.

If your questions were meant to be rhetorical, sorry, I missed that.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

lpwcomp said:


> If U-verse is using mutli-cast, why do they limit the number of simultaneous HD streams a user can receive?


Because with U-verse the connection from the "curb" to your house is only 30-45Mbps, so you're limited by that connection.

With cable if they got rid of QAM and used the entire coax just for data (DOCSIS 3.1) then a typical 800Mhz system has the potential to carry about 8Gbps of data. Now the way bandwidth is shared on cable is different, so that full 8Gbps doesn't all go to you, but the potential bandwidth to your house is much, much, higher then U-verse.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

JoeKustra said:


> Since you mentioned patents: TiVo shares climb 10% after the company receives favorable patent ruling against Comcast


Maybe that will force Comcast to work with TiVo on an IPTV solution thatt works with TiVos? I would have no problem switching to Comcast TV if it meant I could still use my TiVos with their IPTV.

Sent from my Galaxy S8 using Tapatalk


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

aaronwt said:


> Maybe that will force Comcast to work with TiVo on an IPTV solution thatt works with TiVos? I would have no problem switching to Comcast TV if it meant I could still use my TiVos with their IPTV.


Except for those "Additional Outlet" and "Rental" fees, I would agree.

Maybe they should make the TiVo Mini's work with Comcast provided equipment.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> You are talking about several different things.
> 
> Frist:
> IPTV via a Netflix, Hulu, or Sling TV type provider uses the Internet. IPTV from a Uverse, Google Fiber, or a Comcast when they convert does not use the Internet it uses those providers private system the same pipes QAM would use.
> ...





sfhub said:


> I never claimed it was the equivalent experience, I was answering your questions only.
> 
> Multi-cast IP delivery is different than Netflix-style IP delivery, which is where I think your questions started. Netflix IP delivery, every stream (even of the same show) is separate stream to your house AND over the backbone.
> 
> If your questions were meant to be rhetorical, sorry, I missed that.





Dan203 said:


> Because with U-verse the connection from the "curb" to your house is only 30-45Mbps, so you're limited by that connection.
> 
> With cable if they got rid of QAM and used the entire coax just for data (DOCSIS 3.1) then a typical 800Mhz system has the potential to carry about 8Gbps of data. Now the way bandwidth is shared on cable is different, so that full 8Gbps doesn't all go to you, but the potential bandwidth to your house is much, much, higher then U-verse.


My point was that U-Verse should not have been included in atmuscarella's post as, _*to the user*_, there is no real difference. You're limited in the number of simultaneous streams. U-verse is using the same bandwidth to deliver it's IPTV product and it's internet product.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

lpwcomp said:


> What you're describing is not the equivalent of current Cable TV delivered via QAM.


It's more like SDV. Channels are only "broadcast" if someone on a node is actively watching it. So you never waste bandwidth on channels that no one is watching.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

lpwcomp said:


> What you're describing is not the equivalent of current Cable TV delivered via QAM.


It is the infrastructure hardware (those old copper wires) not the delivery tech (IPTV) that is limiting Uverse, they simple do not have much physical bandwidth available.

If you compared using IPTV versus QAM on COAX or Fiber it would be completely different. In the end on a COAX or Fiber system IPTV appears to have significant benefits over QAM and is why cable companies are looking at moving to the tech at some point in time.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> It's more like SDV. Channels are only "broadcast" if someone on a node is actively watching it. So you never waste bandwidth on channels that no one is watching.


Kinda, but SDV is designed to make up for the bandwidth limitations of installed coax based systems, where delivery to the node is via coax. Even if it's FTTN, every house on a node is sharing the same coax *from* the node. The limit here is per node, not per home.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

lpwcomp said:


> My point was that U-Verse should not have been included in atmuscarella's post as, _*to the user*_, there is no real difference. You're limited in the number of simultaneous streams. U-verse is using the same bandwidth to deliver it's IPTV product and it's internet product.


My point was more about the fact that some IPTV comes over the Internet and some does not, that Vod is different than broadcast channels, and that companies switching from QAM to IPTV delivery are not using anymore bandwidth with IPTV on their own networks than they were before with QAM.

Perhaps I should have left out Uverse, while they are running on a private network and not the Internet, the copper they use couldn't be used for a QAM network so they are unique.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

lpwcomp said:


> Kinda, but SDV is designed to make up for the bandwidth limitations of installed coax based systems, where delivery to the node is via coax. Even if it's FTTN, every house on a node is sharing the same coax *from* the node. The limit here is per node, not per home.


If you're comparing to U-verse then yes, the limitation for U-verse is because of the bandwidth limitations of the copper wires they use between your home and the "curb".

With cable though multicast IP and SDV are basically the same thing. The major advantage of going IP is that they can then convert to DOCSIS 3.1, which uses smaller frequency chunks and different modulation to squeeze more bandwidth from the same coax. If they stick to DOCSIS 3 and QAM modulation then there is no advantage to IP over SDV.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> If you're comparing to U-verse then yes, the limitation for U-verse is because of the bandwidth limitations of the copper wires they use between your home and the "curb".
> 
> With cable though multicast IP and SDV are basically the same thing. The major advantage of going IP is that they can then convert to DOCSIS 3.1, which uses smaller frequency chunks and different modulation to squeeze more bandwidth from the same coax. If they stick to DOCSIS 3 and QAM modulation then there is no advantage to IP over SDV.


Since Comcast doesn't use SDV, the comparison is between IP and QAM.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Then IP will save them a LOT of bandwidth which will allow them to offer more HD channels, more VOD and higher internet speeds. Which is what people want, so it makes sense that they want to switch.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

sfhub said:


> Except for those "Additional Outlet" and "Rental" fees, I would agree.
> 
> Maybe they should make the TiVo Mini's work with Comcast provided equipment.


If they did you'd need a Comcast specific mini with a monthly rental fee.


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

lpwcomp said:


> My point was that U-Verse should not have been included in atmuscarella's post as, _*to the user*_, there is no real difference. You're limited in the number of simultaneous streams. U-verse is using the same bandwidth to deliver it's IPTV product and it's internet product.


At some point if the number of streams is large enough, the user will see no effective difference between coax/QAM simultaneous delivery of all channels and IPTV multicasting of subset of streams.

If you have 4 TVs and 1 DVR with 4 tuners and the amount of bandwidth they are dedicating to TV is 200Mbps for 10 streams, you will never notice the difference.

My area has GigaPower U-verse. They could easily do 10 streams and still have very fast Internet, but they chose to do 6 HD streams and market GigaBit broadband.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

It's not unusual for me to have 10 or 11 of my 13 tuners actively recording different things.


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

lpwcomp said:


> It's not unusual for me to have 10 or 11 of my 13 tuners actively recording different things.


Great, so the point at which you won't notice is 300Mbps devoted to video.

Original U-Verse clearly doesn't have enough so it is transparent to you.

Fiber U-Verse (GigaPower) has the bandwidth to make it transparent to you, but there is a marketing decision not to devote that much to video and instead allocate for data/internet.

My point is not whether U-Verse is transparent to you, but rather that there is a point for IP multicasting technology in general (short of multicasting every channel all the time) where it becomes transparent for home usage.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

If IP transmission takes up less bandwidth than QAM, then why the need to do the equivalent of SDV?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

SDV is the same as IP just using different technology. If they switch to IP there will be no SDV. 

IP saves bandwidth, compared to SDV, by allowing them to switch to DOCSIS 3.1 which increases the total bandwidth available.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> I still think TiVo's only hope in the retail arena is to come out with their own skinny bundle type service and merge that seamlessly with OTA recorded locally. I'm not aure how viable it is, given the cost and licensing involved, but that's the only way I can see them being able to compete in an IPTV world.


Agree, but no more Bundles, give a list of channels and let me choose which ones I want. Bundling is whats killing traditional Pay TV and makes no sense for steaming services.

If you want to get my 50 dollars a month, fine, but it needs to have all the channels I want.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

foghorn2 said:


> Agree, but no more Bundles, give a list of channels and let me choose which ones I want. Bundling is whats killing traditional Pay TV and makes no sense for steaming services.
> 
> If you want to get my 50 dollars a month, fine, but it needs to have all the channels I want.


I don't think the content owners would allow that. Alot of theses channels are all owned by the same mega-corp and they only sell them as bundles.

If they did allow access to just one channel at a time the costs would likely be similar to CBS All Access or HBO Now, which is like $6-$10 per channel. Your $50/mo would be used up on a half dozen channels.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> I don't think the content owners would allow that. Alot of theses channels are all owned by the same mega-corp and they only sell them as bundles.
> 
> If they did allow access to just one channel at a time the costs would likely be similar to CBS All Access or HBO Now, which is like $6-$10 per channel. Your $50/mo would be used up on a half dozen channels.


Yes. It's much cheaper for me to just get a bundle with all the channels than to get the couple dozen channels I watch regularly at individual prices..


----------



## mattyro7878 (Nov 27, 2014)

atmuscarella said:


> You are talking about several different things.
> 
> Frist:
> IPTV via a Netflix, Hulu, or Sling TV type provider uses the Internet. IPTV from a Uverse, Google Fiber, or a Comcast when they convert does not use the Internet it uses those providers private system the same pipes QAM would use.
> ...


Thanks. I thought all worked off the basic internet so there might be some point of overload or inability to perform


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> SDV is the same as IP just using different technology. If they switch to IP there will be no SDV.
> 
> IP saves bandwidth, compared to SDV, by allowing them to switch to DOCSIS 3.1 which increases the total bandwidth available.


Uh, what? IP uses less bandwidth than QAM to deliver the same stream. SDV limits the streams to those in actual use.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

lpwcomp said:


> Uh, what? IP uses less bandwidth than QAM to deliver the same stream. SDV limits the streams to those in actual use.


The video stream has a fixed bitrate and the bandwidth to deliver those bits is the same regardless of how it's delivered. IP doesn't inherently use less bandwidth. Multicast IP actually works basically the same as SDV. When a user tunes a channel the headend either starts streaming that channel specifically for that user or if someone else on their node is already streaming that channel then it simply tells your box which packets to grab to get that channel.

The only way IP saves bandwidth is by allowing the cable company to convert to DOCSIS 3.1. DOCSIS 3.1 uses different modulation that is completely incompatible with QAM. But this new modulation allows it to squeeze about 40% more bandwidth from the same frequency range. That is why IP is more desirable. Well that and the fact that once you have IP in place it's simple to stream the same content over the internet as well, so users can stream to mobile devices even when they are outside their home.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

The thing is that IP multi-cast is not the same as SDV. All channels could be streamed simultaneously even if no one is currently watching them, just as in a non-SDV QAM based system.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

lpwcomp said:


> The thing is that IP multi-cast is not the same as SDV. All channels could be streamed simultaneously even if no one is currently watching them, just as in a non-SDV QAM based system.


Just because IP can stream all the time doesn't mean it has to. It makes more sense for them to use on demand mutlicast, just like SDV, for lesser watched channels. That allows them to dedicate more of their bandwidth to the internet which will allow them to offer gigabit speeds.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

I think the reason they would move to an SDV like network as part of the move to IP is this (emphasis mine):


> IP Video requires additional DOCSIS capacity. Migrating to IP Video will require operators to transition a large number of QAM video channels to DOCSIS channels. _*DOCSIS channels have historically cost around eight times more than QAM video channels*_. Infonetics Research has calculated the average price per channel for DOCSIS at roughly $1,000 and the average price per channel for QAM video at $120


----------



## BadMouth (Mar 1, 2016)

Dan203 said:


> I don't think the content owners would allow that. Alot of theses channels are all owned by the same mega-corp and they only sell them as bundles.
> 
> If they did allow access to just one channel at a time the costs would likely be similar to CBS All Access or HBO Now, which is like $6-$10 per channel. Your $50/mo would be used up on a half dozen channels.


ESPN for $36? Analyst Shows True Cost of A La Carte Cable -- The Motley Fool

I remember seeing an expanded list like this a while back that had more channels listed.

I'd only want a few channels in addition to my OTA ones and the ones I want were only listed at a few bucks. $10 a month for 3 channels I actually watch would be worth it to me, but I want access to their back catalog as well.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

lpwcomp said:


> I think the reason they would move to an SDV like network as part of the move to IP is this (emphasis mine):


Where did that quote come from?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

BadMouth said:


> ESPN for $36? Analyst Shows True Cost of A La Carte Cable -- The Motley Fool
> 
> I remember seeing an expanded list like this a while back that had more channels listed.
> 
> I'd only want a few channels in addition to my OTA ones and the ones I want were only listed at a few bucks. $10 a month for 3 channels I actually watch would be worth it to me, but I want access to their back catalog as well.


I'd gladly drop ESPN if they'd knock $36 off my cable bill. I don't watch sports so that $36 is just a waste to me.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> Where did that quote come from?


http://www.gainspeed.com/wp-content...rum-Migrating-to-IP-Video_SCTE-2013-Paper.pdf


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> I'd gladly drop ESPN if they'd knock $36 off my cable bill. I don't watch sports so that $36 is just a waste to me.


Ditto. OK, I might watch the end of the Sunday round of 1 or 2 golf tournaments a year but that's usually after the handoff from the Golf Channel to whatever broadcast network carries it (I can't even tell you which one that is!).

Scott


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

You guys just don't get it. They don't care what you watch they want the same amount of money where it's ala cartel or bundles. They are not going to shrink their revenue regardless of the packaging unless they have no choice.


----------



## BadMouth (Mar 1, 2016)

zalusky said:


> You guys just don't get it. They don't care what you watch they want the same amount of money where it's ala cartel or bundles. They are not going to shrink their revenue regardless of the packaging unless they have no choice.


Worst quarter for paid TV subscriptions points to a cord cutting future

They're going to have to find a way to offer a better value.

My cell phone service only costs $5 a month more than it did 20 years ago and there wasn't any high speed data included back then. ($35 plan on Cricket which is owned by AT&T and uses their network).

Cable TV in the same time period has seen consistent price hikes to the point of it just not being worth the asking price anymore. It's overpriced, plain and simple.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

lpwcomp said:


> http://www.gainspeed.com/wp-content...rum-Migrating-to-IP-Video_SCTE-2013-Paper.pdf


That's from 2013, so I'm betting those figures are out of date.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

vvvvc


BadMouth said:


> Worst quarter for paid TV subscriptions points to a cord cutting future
> 
> They're going to have to find a way to offer a better value.
> 
> ...


The Pay TV industry has already changed. It's called OTT traditional cable replacement services. We are up to what 5 of them already? and more will show up. It is the way Pay TV is going to offer lower cost options.

Don't like anything AT&T is offering via their traditional Uverse or Direct TV satellite services, no problem, pick AT&T's OTT streaming service. Same for Dishnetwork and in a few years my guess is several other major traditional pay TV providers will be doing the same thing.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

BadMouth said:


> Worst quarter for paid TV subscriptions points to a cord cutting future
> 
> They're going to have to find a way to offer a better value.


They still have a monopoly on the internet connection people need to watch those OTT services. So worse case they dump the TV part and just start charging people $100/mo for internet instead. They'll get their money one way or the other.

I personally think we'll eventually get to a point where the cable companies spin off their TV service into an OTT app and charge separately for it and their internet. Then they can offer their TV service nationwide as something akin to PSVue or DirecTV Now, but still make all their money off the internet connections people need to watcH. With net neutrality going away they'll even be able to use slimy techniques where their own TV apps get priority and don't count toward caps.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> That's from 2013, so I'm betting those figures are out of date.


Undoubtedly. I was just proposing it as a reason for them to move to the equivalent of SDV when they convert to IP. There is no technical requirement to do so.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

sfhub said:


> Tell Trump his TiVo won't work anymore and he'll tweet something.


Tell him Mavrick is dead and he'll Tweet Sen. McCain condolences.


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

foghorn2 said:


> Tell him Mavrick is dead and he'll Tweet Sen. McCain condolences.


Not sure you've been following along...


----------



## ajwees41 (May 7, 2006)

mattyro7878 said:


> With the entire TV watching population using IPTV is there any chance the system couldn't handle it? Maybe half the country watching the Game of thrones Premiere through thier routers will be too much on the systems? Possibly forcing mso's back to qam and cc?


how are dish and directv delivered? is it IPTV or or some other way?


----------



## sfhub (Jan 6, 2007)

foghorn2 said:


> Tell him Mavrick is dead and he'll Tweet Sen. McCain condolences.


Not dead
Tom Cruise Announces Top Gun 2 Title, Promises There Will Be Jets


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

ajwees41 said:


> how are dish and directv delivered? is it IPTV or or some other way?


It's linear. Like QAM but using a different modulation standard. I believe DirecTV uses ACM modulation and Dish uses 8PSK.


----------



## HobokenSkier (Oct 14, 2015)

zalusky said:


> You guys just don't get it. They don't care what you watch they want the same amount of money where it's ala cartel or bundles. They are not going to shrink their revenue regardless of the packaging unless they have no choice.


They? But taking a Netflix bill of $120 a year from me for ESPN when I couldn't even tell you the channel number is markedly unfair.
It over inflates stadium costs and sports salaries.
I'd prefer to direct my ESPN bill to SHO. There is some stuff packed into the basic price that should be alacarte.

This flip side of these prices shows that Hbo or SHO not being premium bit being socialist could be available to all for $2-3 a month.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Dan203 said:


> I'd gladly drop ESPN if they'd knock $36 off my cable bill. I don't watch sports so that $36 is just a waste to me.


agreed - i watch tennis (6 weeks yearly on espn), and the Olympics (network), so i could reduce my espn charges by about 90% if it were a la carte.


----------



## ajwees41 (May 7, 2006)

seems like not all is lost they added the Opera TV app launch point to the video providers menu lol


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

ajwees41 said:


> seems like not all is lost they added the Opera TV app launch point to the video providers menu lol


Yeah, I saw that. But if you remove the check mark it goes away from Find and My Shows..


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

JoeKustra said:


> Yeah, I saw that. But if you remove the check mark it goes away from Find and My Shows..


... but it will remain under "Apps" (or "Apps & Games," as the case may be).

p.s. I hadn't realized that the "Add & Manage Apps" dialog was accessible at the bottom of the "Find TV, Movies, and Videos" panel.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

The minis now can change the apps from that menu.


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

foghorn2 said:


> The minis now can change the apps from that menu.


How long has that been the case? And is the Apps list now custom per device or still global for a given host DVR?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

krkaufman said:


> How long has that been the case? And is the Apps list now custom per device or still global for a given host DVR?


I tried my Mini and I don't have that option. Does it require a software update?


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> I tried my Mini and I don't have that option. Does it require a software update?


If it rolled-out with the Opera TV app, today, you may need to force TiVo service connections for both your host DVR and your Mini, and reboot the Mini, for the option to appear (I speculate, not having heard back on when the option was added).


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

You're looking at the bottom of the "Find TV, Movies, & Videos" list, right?

Also, my Mini s/w version: 20.7.1.RC2-01-6-A93.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

Whatever you change on the mini will change the host and vice versa.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

krkaufman said:


> You're looking at the bottom of the "Find TV, Movies, & Videos" list, right?
> 
> Also, my Mini s/w version: 20.7.1.RC2-01-6-A93.


I forced a couple calls and rebooted, still nothing. And weirdly my software version seems to be newer then yours...

20.7.1.RC14-01-6-A92


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

krkaufman said:


> ... but it will remain under "Apps" (or "Apps & Games," as the case may be).
> p.s. I hadn't realized that the "Add & Manage Apps" dialog was accessible at the bottom of the "Find TV, Movies, and Videos" panel.


If you have any video providers checked, the management option is to the right of Find. However, if you remove ALL video providers the management option is removed. You then have to go back to the old option under Channels to add a provider and get it back. It's a feature or a bug.

BTW, Opera TV has always been an App. It was just added to video providers.


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

krkaufman said:


> Also, my Mini s/w version: 20.7.1.RC2-01-6-A93.





Dan203 said:


> 20.7.1.RC14-01-6-A92


Hmmm... Mini v1 vs v2 difference?



Dan203 said:


> I forced a couple calls and rebooted, still nothing.


Did you first force the service connections on the host DVR, verifying the host DVR has the new Opera TV app (access)?


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

krkaufman said:


> Hmmm... Mini v1 vs v2 difference?
> Did you first force the service connections on the host DVR, verifying the host DVR has the new Opera TV app (access)?


Both my v1 and v2 Mini units are running RC2. Both have Opera TV in the Apps (no Games on a Mini). Since their host has no checked video providers, I don't have Opera under Find or My Shows.

I switched a Mini to my other Roamio with Amazon and Opera TV is accessible as a video provider under Find and can be checked. No restarts or connections needed BTW.


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

davezatz said:


> Ah well, I hope the 4K Mini and voice remote actually make it to market.


Further digging seems to suggest Mini 4K and voice remote are locked, will ship to retail - largely given minimal additional expenditures as these are being developed for MSO. Most roadmaps don't see many dramatic changes those first 12 months post acquisition - it takes that long to integrate the teams and take stock of what you have. So short-term seems to be the killing of Mavrik and limited retail marketing expenditures. We shall see what 2018 brings...


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

krkaufman said:


> Hmmm... Mini v1 vs v2 difference?
> 
> Did you first force the service connections on the host DVR, verifying the host DVR has the new Opera TV app (access)?


Both had the Opera app, but the Mini didn't have the option at the bottom to select apps. The TiVo does, but it's had that for a while.


----------

