# "Opening Up Set-Tops Would Be Too Costly"



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

For years now, TiVo owners have capitalized on laws imposed on cable companies to provide access to their programming utilizing separable security, facilitating the use of the subscriber's own host device, specifically, in our case, our TiVos, of course. During that time, however, satellite services have enjoyed waiver from the added cost and trouble associated with complying with such a requirement. And now, yet again, DirecTV is claiming that complying "would be too costly". It's nothing but a lame excuse. They put up weak arguments about satellite is different, but in the end, everything is different from everything else, and in this day and age with widespread broadband access, the excuses are now nothing but attempts to capitalize on the waiver as a cost advantage over their competitors, the cable companies.

This unfair favoritism by the FCC should stop. Either all providers should be made to comply, or no providers should be made to comply... one or the other!

So next time you think to complain about some difficulty getting your TiVo HD to work with your cable company, think about how much easier it is than to get your TiVo HD to work *with your satellite provider*. That'll help keep things in perspective.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/440763-DirecTV_Opening_Up_Set_Tops_Would_Be_Too_Costly.php


----------



## LifeIsABeach (Feb 28, 2001)

Well, the FCC has admitted that cable cards are a failure. Perhaps if they come up with another solution hopefully they will force the satallite companites to comply.

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=438541


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I doubt it. Despite the change in regime, it seems to me that there is still an anti-cable/pro-satellite bias at the FCC.


----------



## SCSIRAID (Feb 2, 2003)

bicker said:


> I doubt it. Despite the change in regime, it seems to me that there is still an anti-cable/pro-satellite bias at the FCC.


It certainly seems that way based on this case. What was the rationale as to why DBS was exempted from separable security?


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

One should not forget to include those telecoms that provide television service, U-verse and FiOS.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

FiOS at least is complying.

DBS was originally exempted because it was an insignificant player in the industry and a burgeoning source of competition, and likely wouldn't survive if burdened by regulation from the outset. Is DirecTV still insignificant?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> FiOS at least is complying.
> 
> DBS was originally exempted because it was an insignificant player in the industry and a burgeoning source of competition, and likely wouldn't survive if burdened by regulation from the outset. Is DirecTV still insignificant?


I would say they are doing pretty well now, in part thanks to that waiver. Did the FCC sya the waiver was to be permanent or was there a time period or other conditions attached to it?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

The waiver is indefinite.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

It certainly is not an equal footing, shouldn't all providers play by the same set of rules? Makes sense to me, favoritism should not be allowed. Forcing equal rules to apply to all would be a lawsuit I would like to see. Though a judge may just muck that up too.


----------



## qz3fwd (Jul 6, 2007)

LifeIsABeach said:


> Well, the FCC has admitted that cable cards are a failure. Perhaps if they come up with another solution hopefully they will force the satallite companites to comply.
> 
> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=438541


Well, didnt the FCC allow the cable industry to engineer the seperable security mandate themselves, which they didnt want, and so it is no coincidence it is not supported by those companies who they themselves designed the damn thing. Did the FCC tell them to "use a PCMIA card, and require technicians to make a house visit to setup the cards which they know little to nothing about........"? I doubt it, but wasnt around when this all was negotiated.

You can blame the industry for torpedoeing the whole thing and the FCC for allowing the fox to guard the hen house.

Cable should be made to follow the same rules-I agree.


----------



## gastrof (Oct 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> For years now, TiVo owners have capitalized on laws imposed on cable companies to provide access to their programming utilizing separable security, facilitating the use of the subscriber's own host device, specifically, in our case, our TiVos, of course. During that time, however, satellite services have enjoyed waiver from the added cost and trouble associated with complying with such a requirement. And now, yet again, DirecTV is claiming that complying "would be too costly". It's nothing but a lame excuse. They put up weak arguments about satellite is different, but in the end, everything is different from everything else, and in this day and age with widespread broadband access, the excuses are now nothing but attempts to capitalize on the waiver as a cost advantage over their competitors, the cable companies.
> 
> This unfair favoritism by the FCC should stop. Either all providers should be made to comply, or no providers should be made to comply... one or the other!
> 
> ...


The cable companies are evil.

For years we've been able to use our own equipment, at least for what's sometimes called "extended basic". Now, with TVs and devices being able to do "in the clear" QAM, what do they try to do? Encrypt everything they can and force us to use their equipment for everything, cripling our own recording devices (unless they're one of the few with cable card slots).

This isn't the time to focus attention on the satellite companies. Not if it's to distract from what the cable companies are doing.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

Why do you people want satellite user to suffer same fiasco as you did? I don't give a crap about 3rd parties like TiVo making satellite receivers. CE manufacturers besides TiVo don't give a crap either. There are only 2 satellite providers and both of the make excellent DVRs that are far superior to any TiVo or Moxi. Both satellite providers do excellent job providing me services I want. Why should they be forced to use cable cards or similar nuisance when nobody except for Tivo users want them?


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

gastrof said:


> The cable companies are evil.
> 
> For years we've been able to use our own equipment, at least for what's sometimes called "extended basic". Now, with TVs and devices being able to do "in the clear" QAM, what do they try to do? Encrypt everything they can and force us to use their equipment for everything, cripling our own recording devices (unless they're one of the few with cable card slots).
> 
> This isn't the time to focus attention on the satellite companies. Not if it's to distract from what the cable companies are doing.


Umm, I don't really like the (cable) digital transition either (but finally got cablecards for one Tivo, and admittedly am starting to think about getting them for the other -- the picture usually *is* better even on my really old TV.. and I don't get *that* many dropouts, though I will always think that analog snow is less bad than digital dropouts)...

But at least in many places, "extended basic" and the entry digital package are the same price.

and if they are going to have distinctions between basic, extended basic, etc., they have to have some way so that people don't get what they're not paying for, don't they?

Don't get me wrong, I STILL would prefer clear QAM mapping on Tivos... I think there's only 1-2 channels I regularly record on that I now have access to with cablecards. (Note I said regularly.. I sporadically record others.)


----------



## Enrique (May 15, 2006)

samo said:


> Why do you people want satellite user to suffer same fiasco as you did? I don't give a crap about 3rd parties like TiVo making satellite receivers. CE manufacturers besides TiVo don't give a crap either. There are only 2 satellite providers and both of the make excellent DVRs that are far superior to any TiVo or Moxi. Both satellite providers do excellent job providing me services I want. Why should they be forced to use cable cards or similar nuisance when nobody except for Tivo users want them?


+1 On every point.:up:


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

samo said:


> Why do you people want satellite user to suffer same fiasco as you did? I don't give a crap about 3rd parties like TiVo making satellite receivers. CE manufacturers besides TiVo don't give a crap either. There are only 2 satellite providers and both of the make excellent DVRs that are far superior to any TiVo or Moxi. Both satellite providers do excellent job providing me services I want. Why should they be forced to use cable cards or similar nuisance when nobody except for Tivo users want them?


In my opinion, it would foster competition.
As it stands now, CE manufacturers don't want to jump in the pool because of all the restrictions and individual standards.
If the FCC could come up with a set of standards, grow some balls and force all providers to follow them, more manufacturers might be willing to get their feet wet.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

steve614 said:


> more manufacturers *might* be willing to get their feet wet.


Might is a key word. Manufacturers are not going to invest money and jump into market that does not want their product. Satellite users are happy with what they get and are not going to pay for something they get for free or at very reasonable cost from the providers. As a matter of fact, cable users did not and will not switch to TiVo or cable card enabled TVs for the same reasons. And from what I read cable DVRs really suck and are leased for much more than satellite DVRs. Competition is only good for the consumers if it provides consumers with a better product at better price. Forcing satellite companies to adapt new standard will increase cost to all satellite users and will only benefit companies like TiVo who will be be able to come up with a new hype for the Wall Street and print more stock certificates. No legit company will be stupid enough to invest into venture that is doomed to fail.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

gastrof said:


> The cable companies are evil.


Totally ridiculous. You just don't like the fact that you don't own one.



gastrof said:


> For years we've been able to use our own equipment


Not on satellite service. If you want to label some companies as evil, you must start with DirecTV and Dish Network. Otherwise, you're just allowing personal enmity to trump rational logic.



gastrof said:


> This isn't the time to focus attention on the satellite companies. Not if it's to distract from what the cable companies are doing.


That's insane. The cable companies are providing some measure of open-access; the satellite service are providing *none*. Fairness demands that open-access focus be placed totally on the satellite services until they at least come *close* to providing as much open-access at cable companies do now.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

steve614 said:


> If the FCC could come up with a set of standards, grow some balls and force all providers to follow them, more manufacturers might be willing to get their feet wet.


:up: :up:


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

samo said:


> . . . .There are only 2 satellite providers and both of the make excellent DVRs that are far superior to any TiVo . . .


Is this true? I have never used a DVR from a satellite provider. I know the SA DVR provided by my cable company was sub standard compared to my Tivo.


----------



## gastrof (Oct 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> Totally ridiculous. You just don't like the fact that you don't own one...




Tell us another one, cable boy.


----------



## superflysocal (Nov 26, 2009)

In the end, aren't satellite in general less expensive than cable. I pay over 150 for tv+internet and most of my friends pay in excess of $200 a month. I'm talking normal paying consumers who don't call retention to threaten to quit.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

For years we've been able to use our own equipment 


bicker said:


> Not on satellite service. If you want to label some companies as evil, you must start with DirecTV and Dish Network. Otherwise, you're just allowing personal enmity to trump rational logic.


Nonsense. You just don't know what you are talking about. For years satellite companies allowed (actually required) you to purchase your own equipment. I still have 4 DishDvrs that are purchased and 2 R10s from DirecTV. Only lately they switched to the leased model to reduce an entry price point and to combat piracy. You still can purchase HR21 from DirecTV if you are willing to pay more than twice as much as a leased unit.


> That's insane. The cable companies are providing some measure of open-access; the satellite service are providing *none*. Fairness demands that open-access focus be placed totally on the satellite services until they at least come *close* to providing as much open-access at cable companies do now.


Sure, make the open standard that every pirate will be able to use. Satellite companies change access cards and technology all the time to fight the piracy and unlike cable companies they don't get the opportunity to cut the cable.
Make the standard that they have to follow and they lose the last chance to stop theft of signal. With SDV and TA widely used cable companies have 2-way communication with the box and at least some control over cable card use, satellite can not do that. What fairness are you talking about? Repeat of the stupidity of cable cards that nobody wants except for TiVo users? There are 300K Tivo cable card users and 130 million TV households who don't give a crap about TiVo. How is it fair to force everybody suffer so TiVo users can order pizza from their TV?


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

waynomo said:


> Is this true? I have never used a DVR from a satellite provider. I know the SA DVR provided by my cable company was sub standard compared to my Tivo.


Shall we just say that Samo has some non-standard views on what makes a good DVR? He is way on the end of the spectrum in wanting his DVR to be a straight VCR replacement (eg Wishlists? Bah humbug!)

(I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm misrepresenting his views!)


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

gastrof said:


> Tell us another one, cable boy.


If you're going to stoop to name-calling, then you are going to have to call me "FiOS boy" now.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

samo said:


> You just don't know what you are talking about. For years satellite companies allowed (actually required) you to purchase your own equipment.


*Not* the equipment of your own choosing, which is what is relevant here in the *TiVo* Community Forum!



samo said:


> Sure, make the open standard that every pirate will be able to use.


That logic argues for doing *away* with the existing mandate on cable companies. It doesn't defend the waiver granted to satellite companies.



samo said:


> Make the standard that they have to follow and they lose the last chance to stop theft of signal.


Again, that logic argues for doing *away* with the existing mandate on cable companies. It doesn't defend the waiver granted to satellite companies.



samo said:


> How is it fair to force everybody suffer so TiVo users can order pizza from their TV?


Again, that logic argues for doing *away* with the existing mandate on cable companies. It doesn't defend the waiver granted to satellite companies.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

gastrof said:


> The cable companies are evil.
> 
> For years we've been able to use our own equipment, at least for what's sometimes called "extended basic". Now, with TVs and devices being able to do "in the clear" QAM, what do they try to do? Encrypt everything they can and force us to use their equipment for everything, cripling our own recording devices (unless they're one of the few with cable card slots).
> 
> This isn't the time to focus attention on the satellite companies. Not if it's to distract from what the cable companies are doing.


I agree. Even an analog VCR cannot be used anymore unless you are sitting in front of the TV when the show comes on or you are willing to leave the cable box tuned to the channel you want to record on until it is recorded.

Cable Card needs to be fixed to give the customer the rights they have enjoyed for decades before we start worrying about Sat.

If the FCC decides to work on a new standard however Sat providers need to be included in the conversation but a neutral third party needs to do the development this time around.


----------



## SCSIRAID (Feb 2, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> I agree. Even an analog VCR cannot be used anymore unless you are sitting in front of the TV when the show comes on or you are willing to leave the cable box tuned to the channel you want to record on until it is recorded.
> 
> Cable Card needs to be fixed to give the customer the rights they have enjoyed for decades before we start worrying about Sat.
> 
> If the FCC decides to work on a new standard however Sat providers need to be included in the conversation but a neutral third party needs to do the development this time around.


And while we talk about 'rights'... darnit... I have a RIGHT to use my token ring card in my computer... how dare they put an ethernet port on the cable modem.

The words 'i have the right to....' is way overused in this country.... pet peeve of mine.


----------



## schwinn (Sep 18, 2004)

Stormspace said:


> I agree. Even an analog VCR cannot be used anymore unless you are sitting in front of the TV when the show comes on or you are willing to leave the cable box tuned to the channel you want to record on until it is recorded.
> 
> Cable Card needs to be fixed to give the customer the rights they have enjoyed for decades before we start worrying about Sat.
> 
> If the FCC decides to work on a new standard however Sat providers need to be included in the conversation but a neutral third party needs to do the development this time around.


The first step is to have a system that works for everything. The cable companies borked cablecards on purpose, by providing "extra features" via a cable box that you can't get with cable cards. In other words, quite simply, they exploited a loophole in the cable-card mandate, by developing extra services that were purposely NOT cable-card compatible. (Don't complain to me about cable-cards only being a one-way standard, so you can't get VOD on them - the cable card was developed by the cable industry... if they were REALLY interested in preserving that capability, they would have created another version that provides 2-way capability long ago...)

So, the first step is, force ALL functionality to go through a separable device (not just "today's" functionality). Then, let the electronics companies make their boxes to accept these devices, and retail ALL functionality of a cable box. No more loopholes and games.

The cable company is then more than welcome to continue renting out their own boxes (with separable devices in them) and continue that scheme. Again, as long as their boxes don't provide any more capability than what you can get from a user-owned device.

Frankly, due to their intentional screwing of the cablecard standard (remember THEY developed it) I think we should have the electronics companies develop the next standard (or someone not in the cable industry). Allow them the input to the device, but don't let them dictate it... and then have a true-standard that the cablecoms have to adhere to. They don't deserve a second chance to screw over their customers... they've already done enough of that.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

SCSIRAID said:


> And while we talk about 'rights'... darnit... I have a RIGHT to use my token ring card in my computer... how dare they put an ethernet port on the cable modem.
> 
> The words 'i have the right to....' is way overused in this country.... pet peeve of mine.


You can still use your token ring card if you install an ethernet bridge and it will work fine, so your rights are protected.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

I propose the thesis that we (the American people and TiVo lovers) would be better off if the FCC *didn't* try to foster "video device innovation". The CableCARD/Tuning Adapter history does not engender confidence they can make things better by such "innovative" regulation. What if they had never mandated "separable security" ? We wouldn't have the TiVo Series 3 but that doesn't prove things would be worse overall -- you have to consider what might have emerged instead -- perhaps from TiVo, or not. I'm not convinced that the feasibility of a *consumer-friendly *DVR that interoperates *reliably* with all digital cable systems has been proved by the existence of the Series 3 models. I suspect such devices are practically unrealizable. And then if you want one that not only does that but interoperates with all satellite and internet video services -- good luck!


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

SCSIRAID said:


> The words 'i have the right to....' is way overused in this country.... pet peeve of mine.


:up: :up:

... especially since most of the time I see that phrase used, especially online, there is no such right as what is asserted.


----------



## schwinn (Sep 18, 2004)

dlfl said:


> I propose the thesis that we (the American people and TiVo lovers) would be better off if the FCC *didn't* try to foster "video device innovation". The CableCARD/Tuning Adapter history does not engender confidence they can make things better by such "innovative" regulation. What if they had never mandated "separable security" ? We wouldn't have the TiVo Series 3 but that doesn't prove things would be worse overall -- you have to consider what might have emerged instead -- perhaps from TiVo, or not. I'm not convinced that the feasibility of a *consumer-friendly *DVR that interoperates *reliably* with all digital cable systems has been proved by the existence of the Series 3 models. I suspect such devices are practically unrealizable. And then if you want one that not only does that but interoperates with all satellite and internet video services -- good luck!


I don't think so. There's no reason the FCC can't mandate some security system that everyone can use. The technology is there to make this happen, and the mandate simply makes the companies adhere to the technology.

Remember, the FCC mandated "a type of cable card" not THE cable cards that we have in our hands today. The cable industry created the design behind it, and screwed it up (intentionally).

If the FCC had never mandated separable security, we wouldn't have S3s or THDs, and as soon as the cable companies could, they would have switched over to an encrypted "everything" system which would have made all the existing analog stuff obsolete. DVRs would have been effectively killed, and the cablecos would have been cheering because they can lock you into their watching pattern (ie live TV) while refusing to innovate. The only reason they made DVRs is because their lawsuits failed to kill them, and they had no other choice... Tivo became a recognized term/function before it was killed.

Just look at the history of the matter, and you'll see that the industry has had zero innovation on their own... innovating requires competition and expenditures... the cable industry wants neither, because they already have a pretty good lockdown today.

I hope that the FCC gets off their butts and puts line-sharing back on them... competition is good.


----------



## cram501 (Oct 23, 2002)

samo said:


> Make the standard that they have to follow and they lose the last chance to stop theft of signal. With SDV and TA widely used cable companies have 2-way communication with the box and at least some control over cable card use, satellite can not do that. What fairness are you talking about? Repeat of the stupidity of cable cards that nobody wants except for TiVo users? There are 300K Tivo cable card users and 130 million TV households who don't give a crap about TiVo. How is it fair to force everybody suffer so TiVo users can order pizza from their TV?


Theft of signal has nothing to do with open standards or the quality of the current DVR's available on satellite. It's about fostering competition among all providers. With competition we all win.

The standard should not have been developed by a cable owned consortium/company/?? or with the limitations currently imposed (one way, true2way, etc..). The DBS companies should not have been given an unlimited waiver.

The open standard has nothing to do with Tivo directly. There needs to be more competition and interest in developing third party devices. You may be happy with Tivo, Dish DVR, Direct TV DVR, or <insert manufacturer here>, but that doesn't mean I would be happy with it. We all have different likes, dislikes, and needs. Competition would hopefully fill that need if the ability to offer these devices was easier and maybe cheaper(?).


----------



## bigpuma (Aug 12, 2003)

CrispyCritter said:


> Shall we just say that Samo has some non-standard views on what makes a good DVR? He is way on the end of the spectrum in wanting his DVR to be a straight VCR replacement (eg Wishlists? Bah humbug!)
> 
> (I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm misrepresenting his views!)


As someone who has used both a Series 3 TiVo and older DirecTivos as well as the HR20 and HR21 I think the two devices are more similar than different. At this point I don't see any advantage of the Series 3 that would make me want to pay extra for it and it would take a lot more than that to get me to move to our local cable company.

The HR20 has 2 90 minute buffers, MRV (if you are doing the beta testing), I can stream netflix movies, and of course it does all of the basic "VCR" DVR functions as well. Of course the opinion about which DVR is better is subjective and certain features are more important to some than others like the fact that the HR2x limits the number of series to 50. So YMMV.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

bigpuma said:


> As someone who has used both a Series 3 TiVo and older DirecTivos as well as the HR20 and HR21 I think the two devices are more similar than different. At this point I don't see any advantage of the Series 3 that would make me want to pay extra for it and it would take a lot more than that to get me to move to our local cable company.
> 
> The HR20 has 2 90 minute buffers, MRV (if you are doing the beta testing), I can stream netflix movies, and of course it does all of the basic "VCR" DVR functions as well. Of course the opinion about which DVR is better is subjective and certain features are more important to some than others like the fact that the HR2x limits the number of series to 50. So YMMV.


I completely agree with your position; for pure TV purposes I see only minor differences between the TiVo and upper end satellite DVRs - I prefer the TiVo but YMMV. (TiVo offers much more than the other DVRs in terms of other connectivity, like Netflix, downloads. and music, that are important to me, but that I accept are not pure TV functions).

However, Samo doesn't agree, and considers the satellite DVRs "far superior", and it's that which I was objecting to. Despite arguing that for many years, he has never been convincing.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

superflysocal said:


> In the end, aren't satellite in general less expensive than cable. I pay over 150 for tv+internet and most of my friends pay in excess of $200 a month. I'm talking normal paying consumers who don't call retention to threaten to quit.


Satellite services have very high startup costs (launching a satelite isn't cheap), but very low ongoing costs because was a bird is up there's no maintenance costs on it.

Cable on the other hand has high startup costs and high maintenance costs since thousands of miles of cable need to be maintained.

Programming costs being equal, satellite is cheaper to provide so they can charge a lower rate. Cable counters this by being able to provide Internet and phone services or buy actually owning cable channels in order to decrease programming costs (and gain revenue selling the channels to Satellite providers).



Stormspace said:


> I agree. Even an analog VCR cannot be used anymore unless you are sitting in front of the TV when the show comes on or you are willing to leave the cable box tuned to the channel you want to record on until it is recorded.


My Motorola box with Comcast has the feature where I can set it to change channels at specific times. It's for people with VCRs, but I used to use it with my old S2 to protect against lost recordings do to incorrect channel changes.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

bicker said:


> [Again, that logic argues for doing *away* with the existing mandate on cable companies. It doesn't defend the waiver granted to satellite companies.


Absolutely. The existing mandate is ridiculous, does not benefit consumers nor CE manufacturers except for TiVo. It cost money to cable companies (and ultimately translates into higher monthly fees to everybody while benefits very few)


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

CrispyCritter said:


> However, Samo doesn't agree, and considers the satellite DVRs "far superior", and it's that which I was objecting to. Despite arguing that for many years, he has never been convincing.


You got that right, I will never be able to convince hard core TiVo lovers. Not my intent either. I just voice my opinion. I don't order pizza from TV and "wishlist"equivalent on satellite DVRs works just fine for me. I did change my opinion about the best DVR on a market lately. I used to say that VIP7XX are the best and HR2X are closed second. Now I reversed it. With all the improvements to HR2X, VIP7XX are the close second. TiVo is still distant third.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

samo said:


> Absolutely. The existing mandate is ridiculous, does not benefit consumers nor CE manufacturers except for TiVo. It cost money to cable companies (and ultimately translates into higher monthly fees to everybody while benefits very few)


In my estimation, it isn't the mandate that's the problem but the way it was implemented. It could have been done in a way that kept costs down and was convenient for everyone involved, in which case a lot more people would be using it today. Unfortunately, CableCARD was an obviously half-hearted attempt, with predictable results.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Brainiac 5 said:


> .......... Unfortunately, CableCARD was an obviously half-hearted attempt, with predictable results.


Not to mention the Tuning Adapters, although the main problems may be in the cable delivery systems rather than with the device itself.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

bicker said:


> :up: :up:
> 
> ... especially since most of the time I see that phrase used, especially online, there is no such right as what is asserted.


What was I thinking?? And here I thought the sony Betamax decision gave with the RIGHT to record television.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

samo said:


> How is it fair to force everybody suffer so TiVo users can order pizza from their TV?


because it would not be about the FCC mandate to foster innovation and more diverse business opportunities. Why would any of the big CE companies not be interested when they could make a box that works for both the huge markets of cable and DBS. 

And of course the cable card solution was really bad, that is why the FCC with some new "not my idea" people are looking to change it.

oh and the theft of service argument - how weak is that one?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

samo said:


> I don't order pizza from TV


continued use of one of the lesser used less useful features just hurts your credibility, such as it is with your obvious agenda here.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

ZeoTiVo said:


> . Why would any of the big CE companies not be interested when they could make a box that works for both the huge markets of cable and DBS.


Because if 80 million households market is not big enough to attract legit companies to built DVR for cable, another 30 million satellite users don't make any difference. Few companies tried the market with cable card ready TVs and quickly pulled out because nobody wanted to pay extra for something nobody needs. Same reason unlocked cell phones will never take off. Most people would rather stick with a provider and cheap subsidized hardware than have an ability to switch providers and use their own hardware.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

ZeoTiVo said:


> continued use of one of the lesser used less useful features just hurts your credibility, such as it is with your obvious agenda here.


Of course I have an agenda - I don't want FCC to mess with my satellite. If you are willing to put up with cable card and TA mess just to use few special features that TiVo has - more power to you. Just face it - majority of people do not care about them. If they did, TiVo would be partnering with every cable and satellite company by now. There is no money to be made by offering TiVo as premium service. Comcast knows it by now. DirecTV is partnering with TiVo just because it is cheaper than a lawsuit. I'm willing to bet that if new DirecTV Tivo eventually makes it to the market it will have similar negligible interest from the consumers as Comcast TiVo has.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Meanwhile, I don't have an agenda other than fairness, since what I'm advocating doesn't help me personally, at all, and is solely a reflection of what is fair, and not just fair to both cable and satellite subscribers, but also to OTA viewers, and to the people who own the companies providing such services, and to people who own the companies feeding content into the system. In the end, the law isn't supposed to reflect what is good for one group, but rather what is most fair taking into consideration all of them.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

samo said:


> With all the improvements to HR2X, VIP7XX are the close second. TiVo is still distant third.


Total BS. Back it up with specific reasons why sat DVRs are better, because I ain't buying it. 
IMO, locked-in provider DVRs (cable or sat) are not better, just easier for people to afford and not worry about replacing. Feature-wise on an overall basis, they all come in worse off than a Tivo. Might not be the features you care about...


----------



## Enrique (May 15, 2006)

slowbiscuit said:


> Total BS. Back it up with specific reasons why sat DVRs are better *easier for people to afford and not worry about replacing.*


There you go. I love not having to worry about what happens if my DVR dies and if I have the cash to replace it then and there(And not having to fork over $300 a box to start with).

For me, that more then makes up for any little perceived short coming.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

I agree with what bicker said.

I don't have a dog in this fight either, but I think everyone ''playing in the sandbox'' needs to start following the same rules.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

bicker said:


> In the end, the law isn't *supposed* to reflect what is good for one group, but rather what is most fair taking into consideration all of them.


Name single law enacted lately that didn't have special interest group behind it. Life is unfair, I'm sure you know it. And this country runs on the golden rule - ones who have gold rule.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Enrique said:


> There you go. I love not having to worry about what happens if my DVR dies and if I have the cash to replace it then and there(And not having to fork over $300 a box to start with).
> 
> For me, that more then makes up for any little perceived short coming.


More expensive over time with much less functionality != better, but to each his own.


----------



## Enrique (May 15, 2006)

slowbiscuit said:


> More expensive over time with much less functionality != better, but to each his own.


 More expensive over time? Tivo charges 12.95 for the first DVR and 9.95(Which they up from $6.95) there after. If my house was full Tivo I would be paying $40.00 a month, with DirecTV it's only $6 for the whole home.

If you'd like to explain yourself more then maybe I can know what your talking about.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

Wow, what a major generalization!



samo said:


> Why do you people want satellite user to suffer same fiasco as you did? I don't give a crap about 3rd parties like TiVo making satellite receivers. CE manufacturers besides TiVo don't give a crap either. There are only 2 satellite providers and both of the make excellent DVRs that are far superior to any TiVo or Moxi. Both satellite providers do excellent job providing me services I want. Why should they be forced to use cable cards or similar nuisance when nobody except for Tivo users want them?


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

Enrique said:


> More expensive over time? Tivo charges 12.95 for the first DVR and 9.95(Which they up from $6.95) there after. If my house was full Tivo I would be paying $40.00 a month, with DirecTV it's only $6 for the whole home.
> 
> If you'd like to explain yourself more then maybe I can know what your talking about.


I can't speak for what slowbiscuit had in mind, but I should point out that TiVo also offers lifetime service.


----------



## Enrique (May 15, 2006)

Brainiac 5 said:


> I can't speak for what slowbiscuit had in mind, but I should point out that TiVo also offers lifetime service.


True(But that's still not "getting more expensive over time" it's a fixed cost), My point being is both have their pluses and minuses. Like I said early in the thread, to me they're both about equal.

The only really truly bad DVRs is the one offered by the Cable companies.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

samo said:


> Comcast knows it by now. DirecTV is partnering with TiVo just because it is cheaper than a lawsuit. I'm willing to bet that if new DirecTV Tivo eventually makes it to the market it will have similar negligible interest from the consumers as Comcast TiVo has.


two different things. Comcast tried to get the TiVo software running on their piece of crap DVR hardware. The hardware is what is hurting Comcast TiVo rollout and who wants crap hardware that can not run the DVR app properly.

Now you point to DirectTV and TiVo. You are aware of the TiVo numbers on DirectTV when those units were available, correct. Clearly Tivo was a big hit on DirectTV, even without those 'other features' you find so negligible. You really need some better arguments if you expect anyone to take you seriously.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Now you point to DirectTV and TiVo. You are aware of the TiVo numbers on DirectTV when those units were available, correct. Clearly Tivo was a big hit on DirectTV, even without those 'other features' you find so negligible. You really need some better arguments if you expect anyone to take you seriously.


Of course I know all it is to know about DirecTivos. I still have two of them. The first DirecTV DVR with 2 tuners was UltimateTV, TiVo took almost a year to activate the second tuner. Microsoft dropped UltimateTV for whatever reason (most likely because it wasn't making enough money to justify it existence) and of course DirecTiVo took off because it was only DVR offered by DirecTV until few years ago. It had nothing to do with how good or bad DirecTiVo was - it was the only choice for new subs. Then DirecTV dropped TiVo in favor of their own and NDS DVRs. They sold millions more units. Again, not because they were good or bad. Now situation is very different. HR2X DVRs are excellent. For TiVo to compete with them they would have to perform a minor miracle. IMHO TiVo does not have a talent or ingenuity to do that any longer. But time will tell. We don't have to wait for new DirecTiVo much longer if you believe TiVo's CEO.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

samo said:


> I'm willing to bet that if new DirecTV Tivo eventually makes it to the market it will have similar negligible interest from the consumers as Comcast TiVo has.


OK, Samo. I've got $20 that says you're wrong. Do you agree?

I'm interpreting "Comcast TiVo" to be the present TiVo software on Motorola(?) hardware being marketed by Comcast in Boston and may be expanding to New England at the moment or soon (I haven't kept track). I'm not interpreting it as including the new hardware that TiVo is developing for Comcast that will probably be tru2way.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

samo said:


> Of course I have an agenda - I don't want FCC to mess with my satellite. If you are willing to put up with cable card and TA mess just to use few special features that TiVo has - more power to you. Just face it - majority of people do not care about them.


People want convenience and confidence that their device will work reliably. The low demand for DVR alternatives is largely because cable and satellite companies have made sure that off the shelf CE devices cannot offer those attributes.

If the FCC could craft a new regulation that would mandate a level playing field in those areas then we would see much greater interest from CE manufacturers in providing receiver and DVR alternatives.

With satellite now accounting for around a third of all pay TV subscribers there really is no reason that they should be excluded from such a mandate.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

nrc said:


> People want convenience and confidence that their device will work reliably. The low demand for DVR alternatives is largely because cable and satellite companies have made sure that off the shelf CE devices cannot offer those attributes.
> 
> If the FCC could craft a new regulation that would mandate a level playing field in those areas then we would see much greater interest from CE manufacturers in providing receiver and DVR alternatives.
> 
> With satellite now accounting for around a third of all pay TV subscribers there really is no reason that they should be excluded from such a mandate.


I would like to see the FCC "mandate" that Time Warner and TiVo (with CableCARD's and Tuning Adapters) provide "convenience and confidence that their device will work reliably." They can't and/or won't enforce this, and anything they try to "mandate" that flies in the face of free market economic incentives also will receive the same grudging compliance.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Enrique said:


> More expensive over time? Tivo charges 12.95 for the first DVR and 9.95(Which they up from $6.95) there after. If my house was full Tivo I would be paying $40.00 a month, with DirecTV it's only $6 for the whole home.
> 
> If you'd like to explain yourself more then maybe I can know what your talking about.


 Explained this way too often. Get a new Tivo HD for $225, add lifetime for $330 from ebay seller = $555. Comcast HD DVR rental is $17/mo. here. Do the math, on Comcast the Tivo will pay for itself in less than 3 years.

You can't generalize and say that the Tivo is more expensive than renting, in fact on cable it's usually not after 3 years. On satellite you also have to factor in the lease cost of the box and the 2 year contract you have to sign to get it, but a Tivo HD has *nothing* to do with satellite so it's an apples and oranges comparison anyway. I'm not sure why you're even bothering to post that you love your sat DVR here because it doesn't have anything to do with a Tivo.

But again, if you're happy with what they stick you with, then more power to you. I like choices.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

orangeboy said:


> One should not forget to include those telecoms that provide television service, U-verse and FiOS.


Verizon FiOS is a cable company. Under local franchise agreements they are treated as such.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

Enrique said:


> More expensive over time? Tivo charges 12.95 for the first DVR and 9.95(Which they up from $6.95) there after. If my house was full Tivo I would be paying $40.00 a month, with DirecTV it's only $6 for the whole home.
> 
> If you'd like to explain yourself more then maybe I can know what your talking about.


With DirecTV don't you pay a mirroring fee for each receiver? With my cable company I only pay 50 cents additional outlet fee. Cablecards were purchased so there's no monthly ongoing equipment cost.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

Raj said:


> With DirecTV don't you pay a mirroring fee for each receiver? With my cable company I only pay 50 cents additional outlet fee. Cablecards were purchased so there's no monthly ongoing equipment cost.


IIRC with DirecTV it's $5/month for each extra receiver (DVR or not). (There is also a $5/month DVR fee but it's a flat fee, not per DVR)


----------



## Enrique (May 15, 2006)

slowbiscuit said:


> I'm not sure why you're even bothering to post that you love your sat DVR here because it doesn't have anything to do with a Tivo.
> 
> But again, if you're happy with what they stick you with, then more power to you. I like choices.


It's not that I'm happy or not, it's just when people talk about both(Tivo or DirecTV or even other DVRs(As I have used most of them) I want people reading the replies to be fully informed and not have just Tivo devotees in their ear.

If you choose Tivo and love it good for you, but I don't see the need to go out and bash other DVRs, as most of them are really good.

Like I've said The only really truly bad DVRs(I've used)are the one offered by the Cable companies(That don't offer Tivo).

And just to note at the start of 2010 I will be switch back to Time Warner cable and using Windows Media Center as my PVR(And waiting for Ceton's Cable Cards to come out).


----------



## bigpuma (Aug 12, 2003)

Raj said:


> With DirecTV don't you pay a mirroring fee for each receiver? With my cable company I only pay 50 cents additional outlet fee. Cablecards were purchased so there's no monthly ongoing equipment cost.


Part of the problem is that it varies so much. My father is charged $6.95 per M/S cable card in each of his 3 HD TiVos, and he doesn't have the option to purchase one. It is very difficult to generalize as each cable company and in fact each area can vary so much in terms of cable card installation and cost. My dad was able to go down to the local comcast office and pick up a card and we installed it ourselves.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Enrique said:


> And just to note at the start of 2010 I will be switch back to Time Warner cable and using Windows Media Center as my PVR(And waiting for Ceton's Cable Cards to come out).


Good for you, I'll be looking into the same setup myself. I like Tivo but if I can run my whole house with a 4-tuner HTPC and some extenders I'll come out much cheaper per month, with more features available (and no ads). I'm just not sure how well the Xbox360s will work as extenders, but they're certainly cheap enough now.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

DirecTV says that the new FCC push to bust open video should only apply to cable:

"DirecTV has been making the rounds at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), telling staffers in the various Commissioner offices that Chairman Genachowski's idea for cracking open TV is terrific&#8230; so long as it applies only to cable. DirecTV wants an exemption, just like it currently has one from the CableCARD mandate."


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

The irony is that DTV and Dish for that matter used cards all along. They had competition with settop boxes and then stopped. It's not a technology problem granted their were hackers but that is no different with or without tivo.

Locking down those choices is bad for the consumer and bad for innovation. By allowing us to have a choices in the platform we are not locked into vendor media. That's what it's all about. They don't want our eyeballs on internet media unless we pay them. That is anticompetitive.

They are all very afraid that we will use set-top boxes to stream straight from the content providers. Why do you think it is so difficult for Apple and others to be able to stream/provide cable content like HBO because the cable companies are using their might to stop it. That is collusion and anti-competitive. They like their old business models and don't want to change. The only thing two things DTV has going for it is their sports packages and consistent delivery. IE the satellite. They do not have internet unless they partner with a competitor. Eventually they and linear cable will be considered old.

It makes no sense to stream all the channels at once. When they have wildly different viewships and besides we all want to time shift anyways.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

zalusky said:


> That is collusion


No it isn't.


zalusky said:


> and anti-competitive.


I agree that what DirecTV and Dish Network are trying to do, i.e., keep their waiver, is anti-competitive, because it gives those two suppliers an unfair advantage. Getting rid of the mandate, entirely, though, would not necessarily be anti-competitive, since there are a number of providers sufficient to constitute competition (at a minimum, the local cable company and two satellite service providers, serving every municipality in the country).

Our ability to purchase our own host devices doesn't constitute "competition". It constitutes consumer power, which is not something that is necessarily a responsibility of government to provide. If we really want it, we should be able to incentivize it by our willingness to pay a lot more for it. If we don't, then it isn't something we deserve. Now, if the CE manufacturers start complaining that the service providers aren't given them a chance to compete for business as the service provider's vendor for service provider-provided equipment, then *they* can take that up with the FTC.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

gastrof said:


> The cable companies are evil.
> 
> For years we've been able to use our own equipment, at least for what's sometimes called "extended basic". Now, with TVs and devices being able to do "in the clear" QAM, what do they try to do? Encrypt everything they can and force us to use their equipment for everything, cripling our own recording devices (unless they're one of the few with cable card slots).
> 
> This isn't the time to focus attention on the satellite companies. Not if it's to distract from what the cable companies are doing.


No kidding.

This morning I called my cable company about two of my local channels saying "searching for signal." They had the nerve to tell me that the local channels are scrambled and give me the standard response that the cablecards were to blame. Bullcrap. Cablecards are not required for local channels, and if I can't pick up those two channels on a QAM tuner my cablecards are not to blame!!!

Then they had the nerve to tell me that a truck roll would cost $26 to diagnose the problem. WTF? The problem is in your own network! Why are you charging me?

I would like to see some sort of opencable mandate for DBS providers, but I don't think we should be focusing solely on them. We need to go after the monopolistic practices of cable companies as well.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

bicker said:


> No it isn't. I agree that what DirecTV and Dish Network are trying to do, i.e., keep their waiver, is anti-competitive, because it gives those two suppliers an unfair advantage. Getting rid of the mandate, entirely, though, would not necessarily be anti-competitive, since there are a number of providers sufficient to constitute competition (at a minimum, the local cable company and two satellite service providers, serving every municipality in the country).
> 
> Our ability to purchase our own host devices doesn't constitute "competition". It constitutes consumer power, which is not something that is necessarily a responsibility of government to provide. If we really want it, we should be able to incentivize it by our willingness to pay a lot more for it. If we don't, then it isn't something we deserve. Now, if the CE manufacturers start complaining that the service providers aren't given them a chance to compete for business as the service provider's vendor for service provider-provided equipment, then *they* can take that up with the FTC.


I would say it's collusion because in this sense they are working with the cable companies to tell the media companies through the back door to not allow their media IE HBO to be streamed through other avenues. HBO would lose a lot of customers if CABLE and the satellites decided not to carry them and they have played chicken in the past. Although they have to do is send the same message.

They are very afraid of that door being opened since the only real value add they have is high def (which is only temporary) and sports contract (which people also don't DVR).

The competitor settop boxes provide a window to that world with Netflix/Amazon/etc streaming.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

zalusky said:


> I would say it's collusion because in this sense they are working with the cable companies to tell the media companies through the back door to not allow their media IE HBO to be streamed through other avenues.


Even if it is as bad as you claim (and I think you're just making that up, actually), that isn't collusion. I'm sorry but you're simply wrong about that. We're talking about regulations and government agencies and business, in this thread. It is essential to be accurate, in the use of any terms that could even be remotely thought-of by a casual reader in legal terms.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> Our ability to purchase our own host devices doesn't constitute "competition". It constitutes consumer power, which is not something that is necessarily a responsibility of government to provide. If we really want it, we should be able to incentivize it by our willingness to pay a lot more for it. If we don't, then it isn't something we deserve. Now, if the CE manufacturers start complaining that the service providers aren't given them a chance to compete for business as the service provider's vendor for service provider-provided equipment, then *they* can take that up with the FTC.


I agree with the above but I also think the FCC was given a mandate by Congress to foster business growth by opening up broadcast systems to allow 3rd party devices to make use of the broadcast stream while adding other value for consumers that does indeed open up the wallets and promote economic growth.

THe first go at it fell woefully short amid bungled handling of the self interests of those involved. That does not mean the mandate goes away nor does it mean the mandate is not achievable. It simply means that the FCC needs to fix its mess by getting all parties involved in a better solution.
The FTC is available for complaints but Congress has clearly handed this specific situation over to the FCC.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

bicker said:


> Even if it is as bad as you claim (and I think you're just making that up, actually), that isn't collusion. I'm sorry but you're simply wrong about that. We're talking about regulations and government agencies and business, in this thread. It is essential to be accurate, in the use of any terms that could even be remotely thought-of by a casual reader in legal terms.


Fair enough. I am referring to the word in a conversational sense not in a strict court of law. I do believe however that they are making an effort to stiffle new competition by preventing alternate media delivery and controlling the box is one of the vehicles and hinting to the media providers is a second vehicle.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

zalusky said:


> I am referring to the word in a conversational sense not in a strict court of law.


Conversation warrants accuracy, too. Collusion still means something specific.



zalusky said:


> I do believe however that they are making an effort to stiffle new competition by preventing alternate media delivery and controlling the box is one of the vehicles and hinting to the media providers is a second vehicle.


Using similar logic you can label all good business decisions as "stiffling competition".


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Enrique said:


> More expensive over time? Tivo charges 12.95 for the first DVR and 9.95(Which they up from $6.95) there after. If my house was full Tivo I would be paying $40.00 a month, with DirecTV it's only $6 for the whole home.
> 
> If you'd like to explain yourself more then maybe I can know what your talking about.


Don't foget cablecard rentals. That was nearly $10/mo for my single Series 3...


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> THe first go at it fell woefully short amid bungled handling of the self interests of those involved. That does not mean the mandate goes away nor does it mean the mandate is not achievable.


Sure it does! The first process took forever and the companies involved didn't actually directly compete with each other. Let's bring in REAL competitors (not just DBS, but Verizon, AT&T, NBC/Fox/ABC (Hulu), Google/Youtube, etc.) and see if they can hammer out a more complex solution FASTER!

Then, we can watch as each new box struggles to work with each service provider, just as Tivo did with the Verizon pixelization issue for over a year. And as they are doing with the tuning adapter today. And Youtube. Because making something "open" doesn't mean it will work right away. Or ever.

Then, when the boxes are all built, we can watch as consumers have to decide whether to:

- buy an $800 DVR that supports all providers but only most of the features, and only has a 90-day full/ 1 year partial warranty,

- buy a $500 DVR that supports one provider, but only most of the features, and only has a 90-day full/ 1 year partial warranty,

- lease the DVR for $20/month that has all the features and an unlimited warranty.

And that decision gets multiplied by the number of TVs they own.

Then, when no one buys the Swiss Army DVR, we can bet on how long it will be before they aren't produced anymore. My bet is 24 months.

I do agree that forcing cable to "open" while others don't is unfair. So they shouldn't bother.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

bicker said:


> Conversation warrants accuracy, too. Collusion still means something specific.
> 
> Using similar logic you can label all good business decisions as "stiffling competition".


It's one thing to create a new product and hope people choose it because it's better and it's another thing to use your monopoly position to make it difficult for people to use another product.

It may be a good business decision for that one company and a bad scenario for other companies and the consumer. Some people want the free market to simply slug it out and others want the government to maintain a fair field to fight in.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

Adam1115 said:


> Don't foget cablecard rentals. That was nearly $10/mo for my single Series 3...


Wow that's highway robbery. Here it's $3/month.


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

Raj said:


> Wow that's highway robbery. Here it's $3/month.


And here my m-card from Comcast is free (included in Digital Outlet charge).


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

zalusky said:


> It's one thing to create a new product and hope people choose it because it's better and it's another thing to use your monopoly position to make it difficult for people to use another product.


Yet more FUD -- again, essentially bandying about a legal accusation, for which there is no defensible justification for casting, hiding (again) perhaps behind the guise of claiming it is "conversational" use of the word. Silly.

The US Court of Appeals told the FCC earlier this year that it is a grave error to fail to consider satellite services as competition for cable. Please stop spreading misinformation.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

bicker said:


> Yet more FUD -- again, essentially bandying about a legal accusation, for which there is no defensible justification for casting, hiding (again) perhaps behind the guise of claiming it is "conversational" use of the word. Silly.
> 
> The US Court of Appeals told the FCC earlier this year that it is a grave error to fail to consider satellite services as competition for cable. Please stop spreading misinformation.


I have friends that worked at Tivo and I was told by them that DTV did not want to entertain technology that allowed you to look at stuff that took your eyes off of them. Which is why we never saw things like photos, music, let alone the Netflix stuff from them on the DTV Tivo boxes even though it was readily available on the standalone boxes. They then eliminated Tivo in the follow on sat technology so they had total control.

Maybe that will change on the new Tivo boxes, I haven't seen them or talked to these guys in a few years.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

zalusky said:


> I have friends that worked at Tivo and I was told by them that DTV did not want to entertain technology that allowed you to look at stuff that took your eyes off of them. Which is why we never saw things like photos, music, let alone the Netflix stuff from them on the DTV Tivo boxes even though it was readily available on the standalone boxes.


Tell your friend at TiVo that he/she is full of crap. Current DirecTv boxes HR2X series allow for photos, music or just about anything else that you can send from your computer using PlayOn software. It is not like DirecTV all the sudden decided to allow you to look at stuff, they just either did not like TiVo implementation or figured that support cost could not be justified.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

zalusky said:


> I have friends that worked at Tivo and I was told by them that DTV did not want to entertain technology that allowed you to look at stuff that took your eyes off of them. Which is why we never saw things like photos, music, let alone the Netflix stuff from them on the DTV Tivo boxes even though it was readily available on the standalone boxes. They then eliminated Tivo in the follow on sat technology so they had total control.


_(Without regard to the content of what you've said.)_ Thanks for sticking with truly "conversational" language. :up:


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

samo said:


> Tell your friend at TiVo that he/she is full of crap. Current DirecTv boxes HR2X series allow for photos, music or just about anything else that you can send from your computer using PlayOn software. It is not like DirecTV all the sudden decided to allow you to look at stuff, they just either did not like TiVo implementation or figured that support cost could not be justified.


DTV boxes can do that but boxes made by competitors were not allowed to do that which is my point about stifling competition from a point of control.

I am also referring to experiences a few years ago when I was a DTV customer and had the HR150 and HDVR2 units. DTV had final say to what was allowed in the DTV TIVO boxes versus the standalone boxes. The decisions to what was in and was out was partially a concern about people hacking in and stealing content to the point there was talk about using coax for MRV but never to use the ethernet stack (at the time). But I was also told they wanted us to only access their content. I could see this on boxes made they them but why should they have this say on boxes made by a third party unless they wanted to stifle competitive media providers.

This is similar to the cell phone providers who crippled bluetooth because they wanted you to use minutes to transfer photos versus bluetooth. Fortunately that dam finally broke open.

I cannot speak for today because:
1) I am no longer a customer
2) I don't have knowledge of the current state of those platforms.
3) Ownership at DTV has changed
4) I haven't spoken to my friend who is in management and not a CSR type for a number of years.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

Adam1115 said:


> Don't foget cablecard rentals. That was nearly $10/mo for my single Series 3...


And while you're at it don't forget the lease fee for your additional DTV boxes. Or their $10 HD charge. Or the extra that you pay not having internet bundled with your programming service.

Bottom line for me, $20 less per month for cable and TiVo, and was before DTV raised their prices three times.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

nrc said:


> And while you're at it don't forget the lease fee for your additional DTV boxes. Or their $10 HD charge. Or the extra that you pay not having internet bundled with your programming service.
> 
> Bottom line for me, $20 less per month for cable and TiVo, and was before DTV raised their prices three times.


It is funny how people nickel and dime to prove what service is cheaper. Triple play, Satellite/DSL bundle, cost over next 3 years, OTA plus Netflix etc.
The bottom line, programming is different. Internet speeds are different, local cost for just about anything is different. There is no such a thing as cheapest way to go nor is such a thing as the best deal.
If you need NFL Sunday ticket or International programming cost is irrelevant. If you happy to watch network trash, OTA is a way to go.
You can not compare the cost without knowing what the needs of each individual user are. And each individual user can claim that he got the best overall deal.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

You're using the word "need" and it's really "want". None is necessarily "needed" but it is a question of what you "want".



samo said:


> It is funny how people nickel and dime to prove what service is cheaper. Triple play, Satellite/DSL bundle, cost over next 3 years, OTA plus Netflix etc.
> The bottom line, programming is different. Internet speeds are different, local cost for just about anything is different. There is no such a thing as cheapest way to go nor is such a thing as the best deal.
> If you need NFL Sunday ticket or International programming cost is irrelevant. If you happy to watch network trash, OTA is a way to go.
> You can not compare the cost without knowing what the needs of each individual user are. And each individual user can claim that he got the best overall deal.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

magnus said:


> You're using the word "need" and it's really "want". None is necessarily "needed" but it is a question of what you "want".


Agree, distance between "need" and "want" is inversely proportional to the size of your pocketbook.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

nrc said:


> And while you're at it don't forget the lease fee for your additional DTV boxes. Or their $10 HD charge. Or the extra that you pay not having internet bundled with your programming service.
> 
> Bottom line for me, $20 less per month for cable and TiVo, and was before DTV raised their prices three times.


Ok, so say cablecards are roughly equal to lease fees (even though it is free on the first receiver) and Comcast also charges an HD charge.

I'm getting about 40 HD channels vs. about 10 with Comcast. My same 1 TB DVR holds about 3 times a TiVo.... (Mpeg4) Mpeg2 compression is better also.

And I've replaced my $22.90 in TiVo charges with a $5.99 DVR charge.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

BobCamp1 said:


> Sure it does! The first process took forever and the companies involved didn't actually directly compete with each other. Let's bring in REAL competitors (not just DBS, but Verizon, AT&T, NBC/Fox/ABC (Hulu), Google/Youtube, etc.) and see if they can hammer out a more complex solution FASTER!


It is only content providers that would require the use of their hardware and standard just to access the signal that need to get standardized. So folks like DirectTV, DISH, cable companies, Verizon and maybe AT&T Uverse. The rest are IP based (things like ABC.COM) and they can show up on most any 3rd party hardware without requiring extra hardware.

So this is not about specifically forcing Hulu to show up on the TV more directly but about there being some standard that would allow a 3rd party access to the format that Hulu chooses.

So really no need to make it more complicated from a standards process than 1. This is how security is done and there is a way for the consumer to get that security enabled on their device 2. This is how the content is accessed and displayed.

this standard can involve differences for type of service, EG cable card is not getting you Hulu or abc.com but it is the security nechanism for cable and then sat card uses this mechanism. etc..

It is not a few months work by any means, more like years again since the first go round was so botched up. Still it is worth it in the long run to create a standard. Standards is what made the internet work and we all can easily see the innovation and fostering of economic activity that took place within those standards. we simply need the same for broadcasting content


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

magnus said:


> You're using the word "need" and it's really "want".


This is often the issue, in discussions like this. We consumers seem all-too-often unable to conceive of something that we "want" being anything other than "needed". Good point.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

Adam1115 said:


> Ok, so say cablecards are roughly equal to lease fees (even though it is free on the first receiver) and Comcast also charges an HD charge.
> 
> I'm getting about 40 HD channels vs. about 10 with Comcast. My same 1 TB DVR holds about 3 times a TiVo.... (Mpeg4) Mpeg2 compression is better also.
> 
> And I've replaced my $22.90 in TiVo charges with a $5.99 DVR charge.


All these debates over cost come down to local franchise comparisons.

I get over 76 HD channels (I just counted those with HD in their name, plus the local broadcast channels) with Comcast, as well as 7 OTA HD channels on my TiVo. I'm not counting any premium channels (HBO, Showtime, etc) at all - I don't subscribe to any.

I have 4 cablecards and Comcast is charging me nothing for them, and never have. I am not being charged any additional outlet fees - my belief is that I should be charged $10 for one, but I'm not positive about that since I have a 10-year-old old Comcast plan that I don't know the details for.

I have no HD charge - as far as I know nobody is correctly paying Comcast a separate HD charge (a small number of folks are mistakingly being charged for it)

My HD TiVo boxes are ancient lifetime subs (2000 and 2001, transferred later); I am paying TiVo $6.95 per month for 2 of my S2 boxes. I've got a lot more disk space on my TiVos than you do.

MY local franchise is obviously a much better deal than your local franchise. I think you'd agree that financially I'd be crazy to change to DirecTV. But I don't claim at all that that means Comcast is better than DirecTV. It is all local.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> ...........It is not a few months work by any means, more like years again since the first go round was so botched up. Still it is worth it in the long run to create a standard. Standards is what made the internet work and we all can easily see the innovation and fostering of economic activity that took place within those standards. we simply need the same for broadcasting content


OK, standards are great. But what is the argument for having *government* define and impose them? Were the "internet" standards defined and imposed by the government? (This is not a rhetorical question. I suspect the answer is "no", but I'm not sure. I realize the govenment paid for Al Gore to invent it. ) Other de facto standards to consider are the Windows OS'es and MS Office applications. These evolved without government direction and serve the useful purposes of standards for a huge segment of their markets.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

dlfl said:


> OK, standards are great. But what is the argument for having *government* define and impose them? Were the "internet" standards defined and imposed by the government? (This is not a rhetorical question. I suspect the answer is "no", but I'm not sure. I realize the govenment paid for Al Gore to invent it. ) Other de facto standards to consider are the Windows OS'es and MS Office applications. These evolved without government direction and serve the useful purposes of standards for a huge segment of their markets.


Actually the US government kind of did define the original Internet standards though somewhat indirectly. The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the group that develops Internet standards, was originally solely funded by the US Government. Non governmentent entities weren't involved until 1991. Today it is only partially funded by the government and is a public group run by volunteers.

Actually CableLABS should have been modeled after the IETF since it is open to anyone to submit a standard proposal which if good enough has the potential to be adopted as a standard. As opposed to CableLABS which is a closed group made up of cable companies.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Adam1115 said:


> Don't foget cablecard rentals. That was nearly $10/mo for my single Series 3...


For your area/system, maybe. Comcast doesn't charge for M-cards here.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

samo said:


> You can not compare the cost without knowing what the needs of each individual user are. And each individual user can claim that he got the best overall deal.


Just like how you cannot say that sat DVR's are better than Tivo - each user's needs are different.


----------



## fasTLane (Nov 25, 2005)

slowbiscuit said:


> Just like how you cannot say that sat DVR's are better than Tivo - each user's needs are different.


+1


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

morac said:


> Actually the US government kind of did define the original Internet standards though somewhat indirectly.


Indeed, and not so indirectly. The Internet was originally created by researchers funded by the government, who invented all the original underlying standards. It was run for many, many years as a government project before it was opened up for anyone to use.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

dlfl said:


> OK, standards are great. But what is the argument for having *government* define and impose them?


Someone has to. You've seen the result of leaving it up to the cable industry - CableCARD. The government sets standards for over-the-air transmission (ATSC). In other countries, governments set GSM as the standard for cell phones, which has benefited them greatly vs. our blocks of incompatible networks.



> Were the "internet" standards defined and imposed by the government?


Yes - see the posts above. Although it wasn't so much a matter of imposing them, as that the government built the network to work that way and then everyone else joined in later to the already existing network.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Brainiac 5 said:


> Someone has to. You've seen the result of leaving it up to the cable industry - CableCARD.


CableCard does work, sort of. I think the majority of the CC issues involve the hardware they are used with and the people implementing them.

Cablecard was also developed by cable companies and to impose the cable card standard on Sat companies doesn't seem right or fair. So, would a separate standard for sat STB's be in order? Or perhaps make the Cablecard/SatCard slots separate from the box similar to the way tuning adapters are now so that the two standards could coexist?

I think we are stuck with CableCard for the present and it's up to the FCC to make it work better either via clarification of the guidelines or new regulation.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

There is no FCC requirement that all service providers use CableCARD, specifically. The FCC requires *separable security*. Each service provider could have implemented their own solution, as long as its interface was publicly available to CE manufacturers to build their hardware in accordance with. (This is why DCAS is a perfectly acceptable alternative to CableCARD.)


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

dlfl said:


> OK, standards are great. But what is the argument for having government define and impose them?





Brainiac 5 said:


> Someone has to. You've seen the result of leaving it up to the cable industry - CableCARD. The government sets standards for over-the-air transmission (ATSC). In other countries, governments set GSM as the standard for cell phones, which has benefited them greatly vs. our blocks of incompatible networks.
> .......


Of course someone has to but (I still wonder) why the government? I gave a couple of de-facto examples (Windows OS and Office Apps). How about also PCI bus standards, SATA interface standards and USB standards? Surely the government didn't define or impose these, correct?

The Internet standards were developed by researchers who happened to be funded by the government, not by a government commission such as the FCC, and as you said not so much imposed by the government.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> CableCard does work, sort of. I think the majority of the CC issues involve the hardware they are used with and the people implementing them.


It _can_ work, certainly, and in many cases does. However, there's a lot that's bad about the whole concept. The cable companies would like to go to downloadable security, which would make a lot more sense - presumably no one would have to come to your house, there would be no hardware card to rent (although that's not certain), etc. Perhaps since they actually want that, the cable companies could indeed come up with a reasonable standard.



> Cablecard was also developed by cable companies and to impose the cable card standard on Sat companies doesn't seem right or fair.


I think something new would be needed. (Or as Bicker points out, they could use a standard of their own.)



> I think we are stuck with CableCard for the present and it's up to the FCC to make it work better either via clarification of the guidelines or new regulation.


Considering how long it took to get CableCARD out, I agree, we're stuck with it for now. I think things are improving with it, but it would be nice to have something better eventually.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

However, based on the law (as I outlined above), we aren't _really_ "stuck" with CableCARD. As soon as an download-able approach becomes viable, I bet that CableCARD's days will be numbered. It is possible that service providers will have to give 30 days notice, and more likely we'll have many months notice, but at some point support for CableCARD may simply be discontinued, simultaneous with nothing more than a firmware update on (perhaps tru2way-compatible) service provider-provided equipment, as long as the specifications for the interface have been published.

(Proactively anticipating a reply to that.... ) Remember; the mandate is separable security controlling access to the linear services we subscribe to, not our personal choice of the user-interface providing us access to the linear services we subscribe to.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Brainiac 5 said:


> I think something new would be needed. (Or as Bicker points out, they could use a standard of their own.)


I'm not a satellite user, but an open standard that third party manufacturers could use to interface with Satellite would seem to be a good thing. How about mandatory licensing for the current technology? That way anyone could use it, they'd just have to pay a regulated fee to include it in their devices.

It would mean for companies like TiVo that they would have to carry a Cable compatible box as well as a Satellite compatible box. I have at least two friends that would go back to using TiVo's on Direct/Dish if the HD product line was compatible.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

bicker said:


> (Proactively anticipating a reply to that.... ) Remember; the mandate is separable security controlling access to the linear services we subscribe to, not our personal choice of the user-interface providing us access to the linear services we subscribe to.


Don't think that would fly with regulators. The FCC is already concerned that the current regs haven't worked as forseen, they aren't going to allow the few devices that did *try* to get on board to fail because the standard changed. I think it's more likely we'll see an evolution of the CableCard that maintains a backwards compatibility with the previous technology or a lock in period will be enforced preventing cable companies from discontinuing CC for a number of years.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

dlfl said:


> Of course someone has to but (I still wonder) why the government?


I'm not at all sure it should be _designed_ by the government, but it's not a bad idea for the government to choose a standard and mandate it. ATSC, for instance, was designed by a consortium of companies and adopted as the standard by the government. It would be a mess if every network had a completely different transmission standard.



> I gave a couple of de-facto examples (Windows OS and Office Apps).


I wouldn't call those standards, they're just cases where one company has so much of the market that you can just assume everyone else is using the same product as you. The equivalent for cable would be if one cable company had almost all the customers in the US (which I don't think can ever happen for regulatory reasons).



> How about also PCI bus standards, SATA interface standards and USB standards? Surely the government didn't define or impose these, correct?


No, they didn't. The difference there is that the companies involved WANT a standard. Cable and satellite are perfectly happy having their own proprietary systems and aren't really interested in having a standard.



> The Internet standards were developed by researchers who happened to be funded by the government, not by a government commission such as the FCC, and as you said not so much imposed by the government.


True, although I wouldn't say "happened to be" funded by the government; the development was driven by the government. I'd say the result of that effort eventually just happened to be useful to parties other than the government and the researchers involved.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> I'm not a satellite user, but an open standard that third party manufacturers could use to interface with Satellite would seem to be a good thing. How about mandatory licensing for the current technology? That way anyone could use it, they'd just have to pay a regulated fee to include it in their devices.


Perhaps that might be possible, since satellite already uses a separate card for security.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> Don't think that would fly with regulators.


I know you hope that it won't. The FCC *already made *this decision, and in the opposite direction than you're hoping:

> ...[T]he rule should be interpreted to require the physical separation of conditional access and other navigation functions only in the case of hardware-oriented conditional access solutions or other approaches that may preclude common reliance on the same security technology and conditional access interface. Downloadable security comports with the rule's ban on the inclusion of conditional access and other functions in a "single integrated device" because, by definition, the conditional access functionality of a device with downloadable security is not activated until it is downloaded to the box by the cable operator. To the extent a downloadable security or other similar solution provides for common reliance, as contemplated herein, we would consider the box to have a severable security component...


[FCC's Second Report and Order]​


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> I know you hope that it won't. The FCC *already made *this decision, and in the opposite direction than you're hoping:[FCC's Second Report and Order]​


Can you provide a link to this please? (Sorry if I missed it earlier in the thread.)


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

TiVo, Sony and a few other companies have responded to the FCC's request for comments on the issue and came up with a fairly good idea, "Gateways". IT would work no matter who provides your TV service. See my post about it here.

Whether it's something that will ever be implemented is hard to say, but the idea has merit.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I pulled it from this FCC release. 
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-67A1.pdf
It's in the notes.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

bicker said:


> I know you hope that it won't. The FCC *already made *this decision, and in the opposite direction than you're hoping:[FCC's Second Report and Order]​


It looks like that just applies to one supplier with regard to their own card they developed on their own. In recent news, the FCC was concerned about downloadable security because of the licensing conditions of Tru2Way.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

bicker said:


> I know you hope that it won't. The FCC *already made *this decision, and in the opposite direction than you're hoping:[FCC's Second Report and Order]​


But that quote just says that the FCC found that downloadable security does not automatically violate the rules which require seperatable security.

It makes no statement as to whether or not cable companies are allowed to discontinue support for existing cable card hardware.

So I don't see where it is really much of a refutation of Stormface's hope that the FCC won't allow cable operators to abandon the existing base of cable card users/devices.

(It also make no statment that about who can control/create the UI on one of these downloadable security boxes. And so doesn't provide a lot of support for, or against, your claim that the requirement is access to the service, not access to our choice of UI)


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

dlfl said:


> OK, standards are great. But what is the argument for having *government* define and impose them?


Well, I suppose the best argument is that the related industries tried for over 20 years to come up with a set of standards and failed miserably. Even under federal mandate, it took almost another 10 years for a solution to be hammered out, and all three major players are *STILL* fighting tooth and nail over the situation.



dlfl said:


> Were the "internet" standards defined and imposed by the government? (This is not a rhetorical question. I suspect the answer is "no", but I'm not sure.


In essence, yes. The internet grew out of ARPANET, which was in essence a military project handed out by DARPA in the 1960s. It was partially opened up for public use in the 1980s, and privatized in the 1990s.



dlfl said:


> Other de facto standards to consider are the Windows OS'es and MS Office applications.


Otherwise known as the lousiest, most overpriced, buggiest, and most downright obtuse software on the planet? I also feel compelled to point out Microsoft was the very last major player on the internet bandwagon. Everyone else had very well developed TCP/IP stacks built into their OSs, but MS didn't even really get into the internet arena until 1995. Even so, they still did not have a decent networking solution until 2002, and then only because they finally threw up their hands and licensed the networking kernel from BSD, as I recall.



dlfl said:


> These evolved without government direction and serve the useful purposes of standards for a huge segment of their markets.


Microsoft wouldn't know a standard if it bit them in the tucus. They can't even adhere to their own proprietary specifications and protocols, and the MS suite of applications have far more problems than TiVo could even imagine. Thinking the situation would have (or worse, did) developed reasonably underr Microsoft's control is sheer folly. Bill Gates himself pretty much said it all: "640K out to be enough for anybody".


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Jonathan_S said:


> It makes no statement as to whether or not cable companies are allowed to discontinue support for existing cable card hardware.


Nothing makes any statement about that. In the absence of law, there is no prohibition. That's the way the law works. If something is to be not-allowed, then that must be _specified._ Essentially, what I'm reading is that because it is something that subscribers don't like, it must be illegal. 



Jonathan_S said:


> (It also make no statment that about who can control/create the UI on one of these downloadable security boxes. And so doesn't provide a lot of support for, or against, your claim that the requirement is access to the service, not access to our choice of UI)


Read the original mandate.

Some of this stuff goes back so far that folks really should bring themselves up to speed with the basic regulations that are applicable here.


----------



## grooves12 (Sep 25, 2001)

samo said:


> Because if 80 million households market is not big enough to attract legit companies to built DVR for cable, another 30 million satellite users don't make any difference. Few companies tried the market with cable card ready TVs and quickly pulled out because nobody wanted to pay extra for something nobody needs. Same reason unlocked cell phones will never take off. Most people would rather stick with a provider and cheap subsidized hardware than have an ability to switch providers and use their own hardware.


True... if you are paying the same price for service. But, the current model of Cell service builds the handset subsidy into your monthly price. So, if you bring your own hardware, you are essentially throwing money away.

Logically, your monthly price should be cheaper if the carrier isn't subsidizing your hardware. Which is exactly what T-mobile is now doing. If you go off contract you get a break on your monthly bill. This will place contract-free cell phones on even footing with subsidized carrier-sold handsets.

If rumors are true and Google releases a popular unsubsidized phone and it can be combined with a cheaper monthly service, I think you will see a lot of people will find value in that, and go that route.

The same kind of changes could happen in the cable industry if they are forced on them. The current landscape is pretty similar. You are paying MORE to bring your own hardware to a cable company. Which, is why it hasn't been widely accepted. But, if customers had an alternative at a cheaper price or a better solution at the same price, you would see more customers adopt 3rd party alternatives.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

Brainiac 5 said:


> The cable companies would like to go to downloadable security, which would make a lot more sense - presumably no one would have to come to your house, there would be no hardware card to rent (although that's not certain), etc.


If the above makes "a lot more sense", it only demonstrates how successful the cable companies "big lie" has been. You've been duped.

DirecTV doesn't need "to come to your house" in order to update your separable security. The USPS delivers it at negligible cost. It's so cheap that they don't need "to rent" it to you, either. The cost is low enough that it can be part of the $5/mo they charge for an extra receiver.

In my area Comcast charges $30 for unreturned CableCARDs, so we know the "rent" on them is nothing but a scam. At least they only charge about $2/mo, FiOS charges $4/mo.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> If the above makes "a lot more sense", it only demonstrates how successful the cable companies "big lie" has been. You've been duped.


I don't know if there's a "big lie," but of course you're right, they don't need to send anyone to your house since we know that all they do is insert the card and call in some numbers.



> DirecTV doesn't need "to come to your house" in order to update your separable security. The USPS delivers it at negligible cost. It's so cheap that they don't need "to rent" it to you, either. The cost is low enough that it can be part of the $5/mo they charge for an extra receiver.


Well, that also makes a lot more sense than CableCARD. I'd believe that CableCARDs are more expensive than what DirecTV uses, which is just one of the bad things about it.



> In my area Comcast charges $30 for unreturned CableCARDs, so we know the "rent" on them is nothing but a scam. At least they only charge about $2/mo, FiOS charges $4/mo.


Yes, I wish they would just let us *buy* the CableCARDs where I live. Part of the idea of buying your own hardware is not having to rent something from the cable company, after all.


----------

