# HDTV & Cable: Switched Digital, CableCARD, and Series3



## megazone (Mar 3, 2002)

USA Today has an article on the issues facing the cable companies with the growth in HDTV. Basically, they're feeling a bandwidth squeeze which makes it hard to add more HD content, and they're facing competition from satellite and telco services like FIOS.

So they have two options - free up bandwidth or make more efficient use of what they have.

The first option means killing analog channels and moving them to digital. Each analog channel can be swapped for 10 digital SD channels or 3 digital HD channels. The upside to this is that it works with all of the 'Digital Cable Ready' systems that have been sold, because it works with today's CableCARD system. Which means this is better for the Series3 hopefuls. The downside is that 'Cable Ready' analog tuners, found on just about everything, including the new S2DT, will have less and less content available. More and more content would require a cable box, or a new Digital Cable Ready tuner.

The second option is Switched Digital. This is how SBC/AT&Ts fiber system works, and it is being trialed by some cable companies. Time Warner has big plans to roll this out across their system. With Switched digital, instead of all of the digital channels coming into your home and your tuner picking the one you want, the channels are only sent over the high speed fiber to your neighborhood. Your STB talks to the local switch, and only the channel(s) you're watching are sent over the coax into your home. This allows for many more channels to be carried, since only the total number of unique, simultaneously viewed channels is impacted by the limit on the coax. The advantage is that the cable provider can still carry a full suite of analog content, and thus avoid upsetting millions of users who don't have, or want, an STB and who use the tuner in their DVR, VCR, TV, etc. It also allows them to, potentially, offer more variety in content because they aren't bandwidth constrained in what they add. The downside is that this requires bidirectional communication with the cable network, and this is not compatible with today's Digital Cable Ready tuners, nor CableCARD 1.0 - which also means this won't work with the Series3. This would require the bidirectional features of the oft-delayed CableCARD 2.0, which seems a long way from being settled.

It isn't necessarily all or nothing. Cable MSOs can do a bit of both - remove some analog channels and offer an expanded 'standard' tier of digital channels for Digital Cable Ready tuners, and then offer additional content - less popular channels, premium channels, VoD, etc, - via switched digital.

Fiber-to-the-home systems like FIOS don't have to worry because they have incredible levels of bandwidth into the home, so they can carry a full spectrum of channels without resorting to Switched Digital. And they've never had analog channels to worry about with a legacy market.

SBC/AT&Ts system is designed to be less costly than FIOS - they're basically running fiber to the neighborhood, then VDSL from there into the home over the existing copper phone wires. This is even more bandwidth constrained than cable, hence switched digital is a key feature of this architecture.

Cable companies are in the middle ground. Some have started looking at extending their fiber into the home, since they've already run fiber into the neighborhoods for the most part, but that's a huge investment.

Unfortunately Switched Digital offers a less expensive solution for most cable MSOs. So it may catch on, though the FCC hasn't chimed in on what this means with regard to the CableCARD mandate. If it does catch on, it could be bad news to first generation Digital Cable Ready products, like the Series3.


----------



## andyf (Feb 23, 2000)

So if I'm reading you right, those people fortunate enough to have FIOS service, or soon to have it, should be OK with the Series 3, right?


----------



## jfh3 (Apr 15, 2004)

megazone said:


> Unfortunately Switched Digital offers a less expensive solution for most cable MSOs. So it may catch on, though the FCC hasn't chimed in on what this means with regard to the CableCARD mandate. If it does catch on, it could be bad news to first generation Digital Cable Ready products, like the Series3.


I don't see how the FCC would just sit back and let the MSOs just give them the finger regarding CableCard.


----------



## DCIFRTHS (Jan 6, 2000)

jfh3 said:


> I don't see how the FCC would just sit back and let the MSOs just give them the finger regarding CableCard.


That's exactly what they would be doing, and it certainly should not be permitted to happen. Basically, Cable Card 1.x users are in the cross-hairs because they are the minority.


----------



## DCIFRTHS (Jan 6, 2000)

megazone said:


> USA Today has an article on the issues facing the cable companies with the growth in HDTV. Basically, they're feeling a bandwidth squeeze which makes it hard to add more HD content, and they're facing competition from satellite and telco services like FIOS.
> 
> So they have two options - free up bandwidth or make more efficient use of what they have. ...


So where does the coax get maxed out? The run to the house that uses RG6? I don't know the specs, but I can't imagine that the larger trunks that carry the signals to a multi dwelling unit (MDU) would get maxed out.

Cablevision is my provider. Their system has fiber right to the node, and the nodes are upgradeable, so more fiber can be added as needed. On the output side, they add additional trunks. Does this cost money? Of course. Should the cable companies be required to do this instead of breaking existing cable card installations? I would say yes. Hopefully the FCC steps in and requires them to do so.


----------



## mikebridge (Sep 18, 2000)

isn't the FCC mandating a switch over to digital only broadcasts anyways?


----------



## DCIFRTHS (Jan 6, 2000)

This has probably been stated before, but if the cable companies are allowed in implement switched video, then they have killed the S3 before it's even released. Correct me if I am wrong, and I really hope that I am.


----------



## DCIFRTHS (Jan 6, 2000)

mikebridge said:


> isn't the FCC mandating a switch over to digital only broadcasts anyways?


I think that's only for over-the-air broadcasts.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

megazone said:


> So they have two options - free up bandwidth or make more efficient use of what they have.
> 
> (...)
> 
> The second option is Switched Digital.


SDV is just one way (but not the only way) for cable to "make more efficient use of what they have". Some other possibilities include:
AVCs (H.264, VC-1, etc.)
1+ GHz RF
1024QAM
etc
Of course, everything comes with advantages and disadvantages. In addition to not being compatible with current CableCard devices (like SDV), the above options aren't even compatible with cable's existing STBs (unlike SDV).


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

DCIFRTHS said:


> So where does the coax get maxed out?


Companies have shown off 3+GHz RF systems.


DCIFRTHS said:


> Should the cable companies be required to do this instead of breaking existing cable card installations? I would say yes. Hopefully the FCC steps in and requires them to do so.


Anything over 860MHz would "break" existing CableCard installations. Manufacturers are only using 860MHz tuners.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

megazone said:


> Fiber-to-the-home systems like FIOS don't have to worry because they have incredible levels of bandwidth into the home, so they can carry a full spectrum of channels without resorting to Switched Digital. And they've never had analog channels to worry about with a legacy market.


Oh, and not quite sure what you mean by "incredible levels of bandwidth into the home".

Verizon is using 860MHz RF overlay at 1550nm for all linear channels (with MPEG2 via 256QAM for digital channels and AM/VSB for analog channels ... 860MHz is exactly the same as many cable plants ... although there are lots of 750MHz plants ... and still a few plants at 550MHz (and below). However, for plants below 860MHz ... upgrading to 860MHz is always an option.

Now, one place Verizon does have a bandwidth advantage is while cable also uses that 860MHz for data, voice, VOD and other things ... Verizon is only putting linear channels on the 860MHz. A cable plant may have to allocate 6MHz for data, 6MHz for voice, and 12MHz for VOD ... leaving them only 836Mhz for linear channels. Verizon carries voice, data, and VOD (via IP) over a seperate wavelength. Verizon could use that extra 24MHz for:
4 Analog channels
8 Digital HD channels
40 Digital SD channels
Or, of course, some mix of the above. But that's it ... 8 HD channels is the advantage Verizon has over a typical, upgraded cable plant (without resorting to IPTV, Switched Bradcasts, AVCs, and other options cable has ... all of which are incompatible with existing CableCard products too).

Verizon's big savings right now comes from the fact that they are supporting a _limited_ set of analog channels (Yes, Verizon has "legacy" analog channels). They are allocating space for 50 ... but in most markets seem to have about 20 or so. While cable is still supporting 60, 70, 80+ analog channels ...


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

dt_dc said:


> A cable plant may have to allocate 6MHz for data, 6MHz for voice, and 12MHz for VOD ... leaving them only 836Mhz for linear channels.


 I was shocked to find out that in my Cox Orange County market they currently have 7 RF channels (6MHz each) employed for VOD!! At least in my neighborhood it's very rare they are all active at the same time and even in heavy use times only 3 or 4 sub-channels being used, and we're talking about a 750MHz system. Neighborhood upgrades are ongoing to boost system bandwidth to 860MHz but I would expect going down to 3 RF channels for VOD would be more than enough, especially since there isn't any HD VOD being offered.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

moyekj said:


> I was shocked to find out that in my Cox Orange County market they currently have 7 RF channels (6MHz each) employed for VOD!! At least in my neighborhood it's very rare they are all active at the same time and even in heavy use times only 3 or 4 sub-channels being used, and we're talking about a 750MHz system. Neighborhood upgrades are ongoing to boost system bandwidth to 860MHz but I would expect going down to 3 RF channels for VOD would be more than enough, especially since there isn't any HD VOD being offered.


Yah, the numbers above were made up. To really know what a cable company needs to allocate you need to know the customers per node / service group, traffic patterns, whether they can share bandwidth between multiple narrowcast applications, etc.

Which actually brings up another big thing cable can do to maximize bandwidth ... "node splitting". Allows you to minimize the bandwidth on narrowcast applications (VOD, SDV, data, voice, etc.)

I was getting alot of "service unavailable" messages with Cox Fairfax VOD for a while ... which then stopped. Wonder if Cox bumped up their VOD allocation everywhere. Although, they also moved some analog channels over to digital (and haven't replaced them with anything yet). If you've got the extra slots, no reason not to allocate them to VOD ... especially if you've got multi-use equipment and are planning on adding more switched services than linear broadcasts going formward ...

Anyway, my main point is that Verizon doesn't have some sort of "unlimited" capacity for linear broadcast channels that some people portray. They've currently got the same 860MHz RF many cable plants have (although, cable does have to skim some off the top for VOD, voice and data which Verizon doesn't have to do).


----------



## megazone (Mar 3, 2002)

andyf said:


> So if I'm reading you right, those people fortunate enough to have FIOS service, or soon to have it, should be OK with the Series 3, right?


That's unclear. Right now to use FIOS you *must* use the STB they provide, which is a variant of a Motorola 6412 IIRC. Now, since they're basically sending a standard cable signal over fiber, in theory they could provide an interface that outputs 'standard digital cable over coax' to support CableCARD devices.

However, today, no, the Series3 will not work with FIOS as they only support their own STB/DVR and require its use for all video services. And, because they aren't a cable provider, they are not required to support CableCARD.


----------



## megazone (Mar 3, 2002)

jfh3 said:


> I don't see how the FCC would just sit back and let the MSOs just give them the finger regarding CableCard.


Well, they are so far. There are test deployments of Switched Digital out there and the FCC hasn't complained. The cable industry is promising that CableCARD 2.0 will support SD, and I'm sure it will, and I expect the FCC to allow Switched Digital rollouts based on that. That WILL leave CC1.0 devices high and dry, but they're a minority. If the FCC is faced with stranding all of the 'cable ready' customers or stranding just the early 'digital cable ready' customers - the choice is fairly clear. There are a hell of a lot more 'cable ready' tuners out there. And that's the choice cable MSOs are turning this into - either they drop analog or they go SD, or some mix - which is honestly the most likely option for now for many MSOs.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

This is such a crock. Cable companies have tons of options for freeing up bandwidth for HD. Heck according to that article a single analog channel can hold 3 HD channels. Getting rid of just a few of the crap channels, like QVC, HSN, C-SPAN, C-SPAN2, etc..., will free up enough bandwidth to offer a dozen HD channels which are 100% compatible with CableCARD.

The cable companies are just using this as an excuse to deploy SDV and break CableCARD so that they can make more money off STB rentals. Companies like Time Warner are making this painfully obvious by using SDV for HD channels, instead of the lesser used SD channels, even though the vast majority of CableCARD users are owners of HDTVs with CableCARD slots built in.

Dan


----------



## megazone (Mar 3, 2002)

Just to not be a complete doomsayer - there are possibilities. TiVo could develop an external CC2.0 box that sits in-line on the cable input to the S3 and is connected to the S3's USB port for control, etc. The S3 would tell it what to tune, and it would handle the bidirectional communication. It *might* even be possible to keep the CC2.0 in the S3 and use an external box for any functionality the S3 can't support, like DOCSIS, etc. There are ways around these issues.


----------



## megazone (Mar 3, 2002)

DCIFRTHS said:


> So where does the coax get maxed out? The run to the house that uses RG6? I don't know the specs, but I can't imagine that the larger trunks that carry the signals to a multi dwelling unit (MDU) would get maxed out.


From what I've read, the lines to the home and/or the coax runs around the neighborhood max out. Newer cable plants have fiber out to a neighborhood distribution point, and then usually have coax on the poles, or in the ground, with the branches to each house.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

That's true, but TiVo has never been one for breakout boxes. It's much more likely that they'll release a CableCARD 2.0 compatible unit when that specification is finalized.

And what about CableCARD 2.0? It's been delayed repeatedly, and last I heard was no where near being finalized. Which means there is going to be a gap of several years where consumers once again have no choice but to get a cable company STB if they want to get all their channels. :down:

Personally I think the FCC needs to step up and either stop SDV or speed up CableCARD 2.0. Perhaps mandate that cable companies have to stop SDV deployment until CableCARD 2.0 is finalized. CableCARD 1.0 products, like the S3, will still be SOL but at least there wont be that gap where we're back to square one.

Dan


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

All the above comments show why the the Series 3 will have problems as cable customers do not own the cable boxes so if the standard changes the cable co. will provide them with a new cable box. Also your leaving out not getting On Demand which most of my friends use with their cable box, the Series 3 will not have On Demand because it takes two way communication to get it. Most people will not try to figure this out, they will just take what the cable co. gives them ( people on this from are not the most people I am talking about). How could you recommend a Series 3 to a non technical friend or parent when you know the risks that may come up in the near future. The old S 2 or S 1 for that matter were almost as easy as a VCR to hook up to any cable outlet no problem didn't have to call the Cable Co.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

lessd I see what you are saying for the average consumer, but then again the S3 is targeting more the high end user crowd. I doubt the average person you are alluding to would want to fork out the seemingly high price the S3 will command. From personal experience and from a few accounts I've heard from others VOD quality is very marginal. i.e. I would rather go the Netflix route and rent the DVD than watch it via VOD any day since DVD quality is so much better. Plus it works out cheaper that way as VOD movies typically are around $4-5 each which I find quite absurd. The whole time-shifting and trick play aspect of VOD is pointless since we already use a DVR for those capabilites - and much more effectively. In short I could care less about VOD so that's not an issue for me and I suspect many others as well.


----------



## megazone (Mar 3, 2002)

mikebridge said:


> isn't the FCC mandating a switch over to digital only broadcasts anyways?


Only for OTA. Over-the-air NTSC is being phased on and all OTA is going to ATSC. But there is no mandate for cable to drop analog.

I actually think a number of cable MSOs will try to keep analog because it could be a selling point for those with analog systems when NTSC goes away. They can market basic cable to those people cheap - and once cable is in the house they'll do upsell to convince people to get a cable box, digital cable, DVRs, etc.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

moyekj said:


> lessd I see what you are saying for the average consumer, but then again the S3 is targeting more the high end user crowd. I doubt the average person you are alluding to would want to fork out the seemingly high price the S3 will command. From personal experience and from a few accounts I've heard from others VOD quality is very marginal. i.e. I would rather go the Netflix route and rent the DVD than watch it via VOD any day since DVD quality is so much better. Plus it works out cheaper that way as VOD movies typically are around $4-5 each which I find quite absurd. The whole time-shifting and trick play aspect of VOD is pointless since we already use a DVR for those capabilites - and much more effectively. In short I could care less about VOD so that's not an issue for me and I suspect many others as well.


I not talking about pay VOD the VOD I am talking about is the free stuff we get. I use Netflex also but many people just sit down to watch TV and see what on, free VOD is a nice service for them. 
I also think a low volume of Series 3 sales would not be what TiVo wants.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

The government is supose to be subsidizing ATSC tuners up to $300 per household once the mandate kicks in, so most people who still use OTA will be covered without the need to switch to cable.

Personally I think the cable companies should take the opertunity to switch over to all digital as well. Once people get away from the idea of analog it'll fade away, and then they'll have enough bandwidth to offer every channel they have in HD with some to spare.

Dan


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

lessd said:


> I not talking about pay VOD the VOD I am talking about is the free stuff we get. I use Netflex also but many people just sit down to watch TV and see what on, free VOD is a nice service for them.


My TiVos have been fairly inactive since the TV season ended, so I've actually be using this feature quite a bit lately. The movies are not the greatest quality, but they're convenient to watch. In fact after we upgrade to Series 3 units I'll probably still keep a STB around just so we have access to VOD if we want it.

Dan


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> My TiVos have been fairly inactive since the TV season ended, so I've actually be using this feature quite a bit lately. The movies are not the greatest quality, but they're convenient to watch. In fact after we upgrade to Series 3 units I'll probably still keep a STB around just so we have access to VOD if we want it.
> 
> Dan


But will the average consumer do that have both a S 3 and Cable box ?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

You have to keep in mind that the Series 3 is not aimed at the "average consumer". It's aimed at the high end enthusiast market. Those people are use to pushing the limits of technology, and dealing with the limitations. 

As it is now TiVos are not good for PPV/VOD anyway. You can't order PPV or VOD directly from from a TiVo, and if you do it via the cable box, and that cable box is connected to a TiVo, you run the risk of it being interrupted by a Suggestion or scheduled recording. 

Dan


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

Exactly the point I was making to lessd above. The "average consumer" would probably be perfectly satisfied with the cable company current HD DVR solution (and many won't even have a DVR at all). At least initially I believe most S3 sales will be from current Tivo customers (including many who may switch from DirecTV back to cable) and the more informed/high end crowd already familiar with DVR technology.


----------



## Maxnl (Jan 7, 2006)

I guess I fall in the crack of this, as we are the leftover TCI customers still using an A/B system on Comcast, where the B cable has only analog TV channels (people in our city not wanting all digital) and cable A having digital cable and internet. So there is not competition with bandwidth between HD/Digital/Internet and Analog TV. (The old A/B system is still in place because of TCI's franchise agreement with the city)
It was only a couple of months ago, however, that they started broadcasting all channels in digital, thus removing the need for the B cable for a digital box (and making the area CC compliant)


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

megazone said:


> . . . With Switched digital, . . . Your STB talks to the local switch, and only the channel(s) you're watching are sent over the coax into your home. . . . The advantage is that the cable provider can still carry a full suite of analog content, and thus avoid upsetting millions of users who don't have, or want, an STB and who use the tuner in their DVR, VCR, TV, etc.


I'm a little confused after reading these sentences from your post. I hope I didn't accidentally edit out the answer when quoting your post, but I read your full post about 5 times and kept returning to the lines I quoted above.

My take of what you're saying is that users need to have a STB with two-way communication to watch Switched Digital channels. Then you go on to say that this will keep users who don't want to use a STB happy, as they can still use the analog tuner in a DVR/VCR/TV. But those tuners are not two-way, so they wouldn't be able to acess the Switched Digital channels, so why would the users who dont want a STB be happy? Did I miss something?


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

drew2k, I think the point was that through the use of SDV there can be enough bandwidth savings to allow digital and analog channels to co-exist. i.e. the implication being that without employing SDV one might have to drop analog channels in order to add digital ones.


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

DCIFRTHS said:


> This has probably been stated before, but if the cable companies are allowed in implement switched video, then they have killed the S3 before it's even released. Correct me if I am wrong, and I really hope that I am.


As you say, this could potentially diminish the attractiveness of the S3 if the TiVo can't tune to the switched digital channels.

I'm not someone who advocates legal action, but I wonder if TiVo has grounds to file some sort of preemptive complaint with the FCC and/or the FTC as to whether the use of switched digital will impede or affect Tivo sales. Could the move to switched digital by the cable industry be seen as an anti-competitive when it comes to DVRs?


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

moyekj said:


> drew2k, I think the point was that through the use of SDV there can be enough bandwidth savings to allow digital and analog channels to co-exist. i.e. the implication being that without employing SDV one might have to drop analog channels in order to add digital ones.


Ah. Peaceful coexistence. Got it. Thanks for giving me another way to look at this. Ideally, the "analog" customers would keep their existing analog channel line-ups as is, and most likely never see any new channels, as these would only be added on switched digital channels, which require a bi-directional STB.

For some reason I thought some of the analog channels would have to be converted to switched digital, making some customers unhappy because they'd be losing channels, but after reading further, I see that that would only happen when the cable company was already maxed out, and most companies aren't there yet.


----------



## RARamaker (Dec 1, 2000)

What happened to the deadline for Cable companies to start using CableCards in there own products? That would make SDV go away or get CC2.0 finalized.

Russ


----------



## m_jonis (Jan 3, 2002)

megazone said:


> That's unclear. Right now to use FIOS you *must* use the STB they provide, which is a variant of a Motorola 6412 IIRC. Now, since they're basically sending a standard cable signal over fiber, in theory they could provide an interface that outputs 'standard digital cable over coax' to support CableCARD devices.
> 
> However, today, no, the Series3 will not work with FIOS as they only support their own STB/DVR and require its use for all video services. And, because they aren't a cable provider, they are not required to support CableCARD.


Not quite true. In SOME markets, Verizon is offering Cable Card. You do NOT need a Verizon STB if all you want is the analog channels, OR they offer cable card in your area.

There ARE a few (a FEW, mind you) FIOS areas that have cable card. Check out the avsforums.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Dan203 said:


> The government is supose to be subsidizing ATSC tuners up to $300 per household once the mandate kicks in, so most people who still use OTA will be covered without the need to switch to cable.


Where do you get the $300 number? I thought it was at most 2 $40 rebates per household.


----------



## m_jonis (Jan 3, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> That's true, but TiVo has never been one for breakout boxes. It's much more likely that they'll release a CableCARD 2.0 compatible unit when that specification is finalized.
> 
> And what about CableCARD 2.0? It's been delayed repeatedly, and last I heard was no where near being finalized. Which means there is going to be a gap of several years where consumers once again have no choice but to get a cable company STB if they want to get all their channels. :down:
> 
> ...


the cable card 2.0 spec has been finalized

It's just a matter of the cable companies, etc. getting the actual hardware out there.

http://arstechnica.com/guides/other/cablecard.ars

What I'm wondering is that if the Tivo has been certified by CableLabs is would they certify something that wasn't Cable Card 2.0 yet?

So if the 2.0 spec is finalized, and it allows for 2-way communication, then I guess the real issue is "does the Series 3 conform to the cable card 2.0 spec?"

IMO it would seem kinda pointless if the Series 3 didn't do that (not saying that a cable card 2.0 card would ever come out or come out shortly--just that it COULD support it when it came out).


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

RARamaker said:


> What happened to the deadline for Cable companies to start using CableCards in there own products?


July 1, 2007 ... although that could certainly get pushed back (again).


RARamaker said:


> That would make SDV go away or get CC2.0 finalized.


No, it wouldn't.

Cable companies don't need to deploy a box that can access SDV on every system in the county ... they only need a box that can access SDV on their own system. They can do that right now with existing CableCards and boxes from their traditional vendors.

The problem is for a third party to make a box that will access SDV on every cable plant that can be sold directly to consumers ... that requires the two-way specs and the CEA / NCTA agreement to be finalized.


----------



## gconnery (Mar 31, 2006)

Its unfortunate the S3 isn't going to have a STB input and IR control because of issues like this. If it DID you could ignore them at first, but eventually if some of the channels you wanted to record were moved to switched digital, you could record them via the STB. And if everything went to ****, you would still have a single-tuner HD capable DVR by using the STB. 

Course then it would need its own MPEG/AVC encoder, extra inputs on the back, IR control etc. but most of this is just silicon and software that Tivo presumably has their hands on. Other than all the extra connectors of course.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

megazone said:


> And, because they aren't a cable provider, they are not required to support CableCARD.


Verizon operates a cable system providing a cable service (as defined by the FCC ... for now), and have agreed to comply with FCC requirements for consumer electronic equipment and technical standards.


> Cable Franchise Agreement by and between Fairfax County, Virginia and Verizon Virginia Inc.
> 
> WHEREAS, the FTTP Network will occupy the Public Rights-of-Way within the County, and Franchisee desires to use portions of the FTTP Network once installed to provide Cable Services
> 
> ...


Which makes them subject to FCC CableCard requirements such as:


> TITLE 47--TELECOMMUNICATION
> 
> CHAPTER I--FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (CONTINUED)
> 
> ...


That being said, they are a Cable System subject to "Effective Competition" under FCC regulations which may (or may not) relieve them from CableCard requirements. The FCC is intentionally vague on that particular point.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

m_jonis said:


> the cable card 2.0 spec has been finalized
> 
> It's just a matter of the cable companies, etc. getting the actual hardware out there.


The current status of the CableCARD 2.0 specification is "Issued". Which means it's finished enough that they can start qualifing hardware against it, but it is not finalized. It's not finalized until they mark it as "Closed". Until that happens cable companies wont even consider supporting it. And even when it does they are under no mandate to support CableCARD 2.0, so they can drag their feet on it as long as they want. Heck the multi-stream specification has been "Closed" since March of last year and we still haven't seen them available yet. They're supose to be available sometime this year, but that's still 1.5+ years after the spec was finalized. Which means even if the CableCARD 2.0 specification was marked "Closed" tomorrow it could still be 2008 before we see actual deployment. The only thing that might speed that up is if the FCC holds fast to that July 2007 mandate that forces cable companies to start deploying STBs that use CableCARDs. Then the cable companies would have to deploy CableCARD 2.0 so they could continue to use services like PPV, VOD and even switched digital.

However even if that happens it wont help the Series 3 any. Unless of course TiVo had the foresight to add all the hardware required to make the S3 CableCARD 2.0 compliant and simply needs a software update to enable it. Which is still something we can all hope for.

Dan


----------



## DCIFRTHS (Jan 6, 2000)

Dan203 said:


> ... Personally I think the FCC needs to step up and either stop SDV or speed up CableCARD 2.0. Perhaps mandate that cable companies have to stop SDV deployment until CableCARD 2.0 is finalized. CableCARD 1.0 products, like the S3, will still be SOL but at least there wont be that gap where we're back to square one.
> 
> Dan


I think that's a great compromise, and an excellent idea.


----------



## DCIFRTHS (Jan 6, 2000)

Maxnl said:


> I guess I fall in the crack of this, as we are the leftover TCI customers still using an A/B system on Comcast, where the B cable has only analog TV channels (people in our city not wanting all digital) and cable A having digital cable and internet. So there is not competition with bandwidth between HD/Digital/Internet and Analog TV. (The old A/B system is still in place because of TCI's franchise agreement with the city)
> It was only a couple of months ago, however, that they started broadcasting all channels in digital, thus removing the need for the B cable for a digital box (and making the area CC compliant)


In what area are you located? I am also live in former TCI territory. It is now Cablevision, but I don't think it was ever an A/B system.


----------



## DCIFRTHS (Jan 6, 2000)

dt_dc said:


> ... Cable companies don't need to deploy a box that can access SDV on every system in the county ... they only need a box that can access SDV on their own system. They can do that right now with existing CableCards and boxes from their traditional vendors.


Really? How does this work?


----------



## megazone (Mar 3, 2002)

m_jonis said:


> Not quite true. In SOME markets, Verizon is offering Cable Card. You do NOT need a Verizon STB if all you want is the analog channels, OR they offer cable card in your area.
> 
> There ARE a few (a FEW, mind you) FIOS areas that have cable card. Check out the avsforums.


That's good news - I got my info from Verizon's FIOS website, which repeatedly states the STB is required on a few pages.


----------



## puckettcg (Feb 10, 2006)

I'm sure, somewhere, in one of the replies/posts, the answer to my question has been thoroughly explained. I'm not as tech savvy as those on this board - and this is as clear as mud. 

If there is a cablecard mandate, then how is it that cable companies can implement a strategy (SDV) that doesn't support cablecard? If the cable card 1.0 can support SDV, then how come the CC1.0 can be supported if its simply plugged into a TV, but not if its plugged into the back of the S3?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

puckettcg said:


> If there is a cablecard mandate, then how is it that cable companies can implement a strategy (SDV) that doesn't support cablecard? If the cable card 1.0 can support SDV, then how come the CC1.0 can be supported if its simply plugged into a TV, but not if its plugged into the back of the S3?


Even us more technical people are wondering that. CableCARD 1.0 is unidirectional, and as such can NOT support SDV in any device. The cable companies seem to be using the fact that CableCARD 2.0 will support SDV as an excuse to start rolling it out now. However even in the best case scenarios CableCARD 2.0 is a year from deployment, and probably more like 2+ years. Which means that we're now back to point where if you want access to all the channels you pay for in your monthly cable bill you're forced to rent a STB from the cable company. This is the same situation that CableCARD technology was developed, and mandated, to eliminate. And cable companies, especially Time Warner, are using new technology to simply skate around the law. 

The only positive side to all this is that currently the only cable company with serious plans to roll out SDV is Time Warner. All the other cable companies are looking at it, some are even planning trials, but most probably wont have full scale deployment until after cableCARD 2.0 is ready. So for the vast majority of people it's not really an issue. However for those people in TW territory, or in the trial areas of the other cable coompanies, it sucks because it really limits their options especially with regards to TiVo.

Dan


----------



## Maxnl (Jan 7, 2006)

DCIFRTHS said:


> In what area are you located? I am also live in former TCI territory. It is now Cablevision, but I don't think it was ever an A/B system.


Just outside of Detroit, it was the only way TCI could get a franchise with the city. All the public access and ppv/premium channels were on the A cable, and they still have to hook up both cables for a new installation, even though most people only use digital.

We still only have analog, and using cable A is still the only way to get CSpan2 and public access (requiring an analog cable box) but I noted on the bill that they charged 4.80 for the box rental. When I called up comcast to ask why in order to receive all the channels on basic cable we have to pay for the only box we rent, (this was a month before they went all digital on cable A) and she looked into the franchise agreement and told me it was the only way they were able to get cable access to the area at the time and they can't do anything until the agreement expires. I don't think any analog channels come through that cable anymore, and we still don't get cspan2 or public access.

The rep was also "kind enough" to inform me that with digital cable one box was included for free so we could get all the channels we subscribe to. Go figure.

Before they went all digital there weren't any dual tuner DVRs in the area either. In the past couple of months they seem to have been making many improvements. I think it may have something to do with that huge $$$ plan they had in detroit with all the outages they had there.


----------



## ADent (Jan 7, 2000)

gconnery said:


> Its unfortunate the S3 isn't going to have a STB input and IR control because of issues like this. If it DID you could ignore them at first, but eventually if some of the channels you wanted to record were moved to switched digital, you could record them via the STB. And if everything went to ****, you would still have a single-tuner HD capable DVR by using the STB.


Just buy a S2 (or S2 DT) since there is no way to encode HDTV from the uncompressed (analog or DVI) STB outputs cheaply today.

So no CableCard means no HDTV recorder on cable.


----------



## ADent (Jan 7, 2000)

Write the FCC.

Here is a link to a post with the appropriate links: http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=4043894&&#post4043894 .


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Actually cable HD STBs are required to have an active FireWire port for recording to devices like DVHS decks. So it's possible TiVo could support that protocol on a standalone HD device. However the whole purpose of CableCARD is to get away from external STBs and IR blasters. They shouldn't have to resort to acting like a DVHS deck just to support HD. :down:

Dan


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

A lot of you seem to be suggesting that the government should force cable companies to support cable card 1.0 forever. Or at least until Tivo no longer needs it. 

That doesn't seem like a good free market policy to me. If the cable company can get 25% more channels by implementing SDV then I say go for it. There are very smart engineeers at Tivo (look at all the patents they hold), I'm sure they will figure out a way to support it.

Besides I don't see many people complaining that the S3 won't support any satellite provider?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

The problem is not specific to TiVo. The problem is that the cable companies are implimenting new technology for which there is no way for any 3rd party company to impliment. WHich means once again we're back in a position where the only way to get all the channels that you pay for is by forking out even more money for a rented STB.

The whole point of CableCARD was to make it so people could buy "digital cable ready" products. And now before CableCARD even has a chance to take off the cable companies are already crippeling it by switching to SDV. Not only that it seems like it's intentional, since instead of switching more of the lesser watched SD digital channels over to SDV, they're moving all the HD channels. Even though the vast majority of CableCARD users are interested in HD, since as of right now CableCARD is primarily built into HDTVs. 

Plus it's not like they don't have other options. Like the article said eliminating just one analog channel frees up enough bandwidth for 3 HD channels or about a dozen SD digital channels. They could move just a couple of the lesser watched analog channels over to digital and have plenty of bandwidth to not need SDV at all.

To me this seems like a blaten attempt to get around the CableCARD mandate and force people to start renting their STBs again. :down:

Edit: And like I said in a previous post, I think the FCC should step in and force cable companies to deploy CableCARD 2.0 before continuing with SDV. That wont help Series 3 units at all, since they're still unidirectional, but at least consumers will continue to have a choice.

Dan


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> Actually cable HD STBs are required to have an active FireWire port for recording to devices like DVHS decks. So it's possible TiVo could support that protocol on a standalone HD device. However the whole purpose of CableCARD is to get away from external STBs and IR blasters.


BTW, Firewire has always been seen in the CableCard preceedings as a way to provision for future technology with current devices. Back in 2000 ... the FCC was actually breaking digital cable ready products into three categories ... their "Digital Cable Ready 1-2-3" idea ...

Unidirectional, Unidirectional with Firewire, and Bidirectional ...



> FCC Report and Order
> In the Matter of Compatibility Between Cable Systems and Consumer Electronics Equipment
> Adopted: September 14, 2000
> 
> ...


This was re-affirmed when the FCC approved the proposed regulations from the CEA/NCTC for unidirectional equipment ...


> FCC Second Report and Order
> In the Matter of Compatibility Between Cable Systems and Consumer Electronics Equipment
> Adopted: September 10, 2003
> 
> ...


For those talking about the FCC ... and those talking about external add-ons ...

Firewire has always been seen as the way to build a one-way box today that could still access SDV and other future / advanced / interactive / two-way services tommorrow ...

Oh, and under the current specs / proposals ... all future two-way boxes are required to have Firewire. So you wouldn't have to keep renting a cable box ... or buy a special add-on from Tivo. Once the two-way specs / negotiations are done ... you could buy any two-way box (from Sony, Samsung, whomever) and hook it up via Firewire.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

The other big unknown (to me at least) is exactly how the S3 will deal with DRM - specifically 5C protected content. For example, I would assume that 5C=1 (copy once) protected content (which most premium channels such as HBO employ) should be able to be recorded by Tivo. But would those 5C=1 recordings cripple MRV or TivoToGo for those recordings? i.e. will recording to the Tivo constitute as your 1 copy such that you cannot transfer it to any other device? We have already seen 5C=1 flag cripple the "hacks" for firewire captures from cable company DVRs to a PC (though DVHS recorders still work).


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> Actually cable HD STBs are required to have an active FireWire port for recording to devices like DVHS decks. So it's possible TiVo could support that protocol on a standalone HD device. However the whole purpose of CableCARD is to get away from external STBs and IR blasters.


Oh, and you wouldn't need IR blasters with Firewire. Cable boxes (and future two-way boxes under the current specs) are required to support basic AVC commands via Firewire. Namely ... Status, On, Off, and channel changing. So a Tivo connected via Firewire to a cable STB (or future two way box) would be able to check if the box was on ... turn it on if it wasn't ... request a channel ... and record away ... all via Firewire.


----------



## jfh3 (Apr 15, 2004)

dt_dc said:


> Oh, and you wouldn't need IR blasters with Firewire. Cable boxes (and future two-way boxes under the current specs) are required to support basic AVC commands via Firewire. Namely ... Status, On, Off, and channel changing. So a Tivo connected via Firewire to a cable STB (or future two way box) would be able to check if the box was on ... turn it on if it wasn't ... request a channel ... and record away ... all via Firewire.


But that requires a Tivo with firewire support, which doesn't exist (and presumably still won't when the S3 is release).


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

jfh3 said:


> But that requires a Tivo with firewire support, which doesn't exist (and presumably still won't when the S3 is release).


Yes, well ... it is Tivo's option to include Firewire input (or not) on the S3.

But getting back to comments like:


jfh3 said:


> I don't see how the FCC would just sit back and let the MSOs just give them the finger regarding CableCard.


CE companies have the option to support Firewire or not ... the "insurance policy" as the FCC referred to it ... to access advanced / interactive / future services (like SDV, but also 1024QAM, 1+GHZ RF, and a whole host of other future possibilities cable companies are always kicking around) from the cable company's own boxes or future two-way boxes at retail ...

This has been part of the CableCard discussions / preceedings at the FCC since the begining ...

That's part of the reason why the one-way rules included mandatory support for it by cable companies ...

That's part of the reason why Firewire support goes beyond just video/audio out and includes AVC commands (on / off / channel change / etc) ...

This is exactly the kind of stuff the flipping connection was meant for in the first place ...

But ultimately yes, it's Tivo's option.

Note: Not to say Firewire is all laughs and cherries and the solution to Peace on Earth. There's various issues with a Firewire solution too but anyway ... this is what it was meant for any why it was provided as an option for CE companies by mandating cable support.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Even if TiVo did include firewire inputs on the Series 3, which based on the CES photos they're not going to do, the user would have to get two cable STBs to support the dual tuner functionality. That's considerably more expensive then just renting a couple of CableCARDs for $1.50 each.

I know that firewire was the "insurance policy" for the FCC, but it seems like a ****ty solution when it still requires a STB.

Dan


----------



## jfh3 (Apr 15, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> Even if TiVo did include firewire inputs on the Series 3, which based on the CES photos they're not going to do, the user would have to get two cable STBs to support the dual tuner functionality. That's considerably more expensive then just renting a couple of CableCARDs for $1.50 each.
> 
> I know that firewire was the "insurance policy" for the FCC, but it seems like a ****ty solution when it still requires a STB.
> 
> Dan


It's certainly not a great solution, but, unless Tivo knows the S3 will be CC2 capable/upgradable, let's hope there's a FW port on the back, so there is some future possibility that I can be used.

They put the USB ports on long before they were used - why not Firewire, especially if it could prevent the box from be quickly obsoleted?


----------



## terryfoster (Jul 21, 2003)

jfh3 said:


> They put the USB ports on long before they were used - why not Firewire...


because "FireWire ports [are] more costly to implement than USB ports, in part due to their per-port licence fee (between 75 cents and $1.50 in bulk licenses), and the more complex circuitry the controller required."

Referenced: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB#FireWire


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

jfh3 said:


> It's certainly not a great solution, but, unless Tivo knows the S3 will be CC2 capable/upgradable, let's hope there's a FW port on the back, so there is some future possibility that I can be used.
> 
> They put the USB ports on long before they were used - why not Firewire, especially if it could prevent the box from be quickly obsoleted?


Well the prototype shown as CES did NOT have firewire, so unless they've revised the hardware since then (doubtful) then this is going to be a CableCARD only device. It's possible it could have the hardware needs to be upgraded to a CableCARD 2.0 device down the road, but we wont know that until they're released and someone cracks one open.

Dan


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

jfh3 said:


> unless Tivo knows the S3 will be CC2 capable/upgradable, let's hope there's a FW port on the back, so there is some future possibility that I can be used





Dan203 said:


> It's possible it could have the hardware needs to be upgraded to a CableCARD 2.0 device down the road, but we wont know that until they're released and someone cracks one open.


BTW, Firewire is one of the (hardware) requirements for two-way devices (as always, under the current specs, subject to change, yada yada yada).

No Firewire = no CableLabs certification as a two-way host = no upstream signaling via QPSK or DOCSIS (other hardware required for two-way hosts) will be recognized = no upgradeability to two-way functionality.


Dan203 said:


> Well the prototype shown as CES did NOT have firewire


In addition, Tivo also hasn't joined the 1394ta. Not required, but it's only $10k and something most established companies do when implementing Firewire. Nor have I seem any mention of them licensing 1394 or DTCP or any of the other things (not sure if there's some AVC or HAVi license in there too) you'd want to do ...

These can be kept quiet with non disclosure requests of course ... but ... most companies don't.

Oh yah, and you can add DTCP (and maybe HAVi) licensing costs in there too ... on top of the licensing costs terryfoster mentioned above.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

So it looks like the Series 3 will be CableCARD 1.0 only and those in areas with SDV will simply be SOL.  

Luckily I live in Charter territory, and in a small market, so they probably wont start using SDV in my are for at least a few years. By that time hopefully CableCARD 2.0 will be established and TiVo will have come out with a CableCARD 2.0 device I can use instead. It would suck if they suddenly moved all the HD channels to SDV and TiVo had no box available to access them.

Dan


----------



## jfh3 (Apr 15, 2004)

Sigh.

Guess I'd better keep one of my lifetime gift cards around for a Series 3+ 

Sure doesn't sound like Firewire is in the cards anytime soon.

Hopefully, we'll have the next gen hardware before Comcast decides to do SDV in my area.


----------



## SurfPine (Dec 3, 2004)

FYI, SDV is not a conspiracy to rid cablecard. Switched digital has been around for about 4 years, ask Big Band Networks and Scientific Atlanta (oops, Cisco). Digital Simulcast is changing analog cable as well. Do a search.

Cable is trying to free up bandwidth to offer more advertiser supported OnDemand services before content houses start delivering their content straight to consumers and before Telco deploys in mass numbers. Ask Time Warner's executive staff or better yet, search their comments from the National Show this year. Wake up. Cable is a business and does have a right to make a profit regardless of people's whiny complaints. If you don't like it, don't buy it. It's just TV!


----------



## btwyx (Jan 16, 2003)

terryfoster said:


> because "FireWire ports [are] more costly to implement than USB ports, in part due to their per-port licence fee (between 75 cents and $1.50 in bulk licenses), and the more complex circuitry the controller required."
> 
> Referenced: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB#FireWire


Someone should fix that entry, the licence is 25 cents a system (not port). http://www.mpegla.com/1394/

Strange Wikipedia also gets that right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FireWire#History


----------



## Agent86 (Jan 18, 2002)

I think the solution is to drop the analog channels and switch to a fully digital environment. Just recently companies like Motorola and Scientific Atlanta have started to make "digital only" set top boxes. I know there is some test market for Comcast that is fully digital, and they rent the boxes there for $1.99 a month.

In my market, with Comcast, we have full digital simulcast. So if you have a CableCard or set top box, you are actually ALWAYS watching a digital channel. As far as your CableCard TV or set top box knows, there are no analog channels. Hopefully this is a tip of the cards.

The best time to do a switchover would probably be when the digital broadcast switch happens. "Joe Six Pack" will be expecting this digital transition, and the cable company telling him that he will need to get a digital box to continue receiving service will make sense - even if the two transitions aren't technically related.

For the cable companies, they get a TON of bandwidth back and can start advertising that they offer a "digital picture and sound" like the DBS companies do today. Meanwhile, this path also satisfies folks with CableCard 1.0 hardware, and keeps the bandwidth flowing until CableCard 2.0 (or whatever follows it) appears and gets widely distributed. Then they can start rolling out SDV if they really want to.

Hopefully, in the next few years before this switch would need to be done, they can develop a set top box that would be digital only and would down-res HD signals. Then the cable companies can get even more bandwidth by doing outright channel "swapping". Drop NBC/CBS/ABC analog and only carry the HD versions. The HD folks see it in HD, and the SD folks have boxes that downscale the picture for their display.


----------



## DCIFRTHS (Jan 6, 2000)

SurfPine said:


> FYI, SDV is not a conspiracy to rid cablecard. Switched digital has been around for about 4 years, ask Big Band Networks and Scientific Atlanta (oops, Cisco). Digital Simulcast is changing analog cable as well. Do a search.
> 
> Cable is trying to free up bandwidth to offer more advertiser supported OnDemand services before content houses start delivering their content straight to consumers and before Telco deploys in mass numbers. Ask Time Warner's executive staff or better yet, search their comments from the National Show this year. Wake up. Cable is a business and does have a right to make a profit regardless of people's whiny complaints. If you don't like it, don't buy it. It's just TV!


Well, the problem with your simple solution is that the cable companies are monopolies in their geographic areas of operation. No I can't get a Dish. I have no view of the Southern sky. What other choice, besides abstinence from my favorite shows, do I have? Rhetorical question. Please don't bore me with your answer.

The Dolan family is a good place to start if you are concerned with the cable companies profits. Do a search.

If you don't like the "whining" in this thread, then don't read it.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

Agent86 said:


> I think the solution is to drop the analog channels and switch to a fully digital environment.


 Ability to split your cable drop and run into many rooms in a house without needing a set top box for each is still a big enticement for many and is actually a selling feature of cable over satellite. Also, digital does not automatically mean better - in fact for most broadcast SD digital it usually means it's worse. HD is certainly better than analog of course but most of broadcast SD digital looks much worse than most of the analog channels because cable companies cram too many SD digital per RF channel - up to 16 in my market making it look like a gooey mpeg2 artifacting mess. A nice clean analog signal free of mpeg2 limitations blows away most of the SD digital stuff out there. A full complement of 70 odd analog channels certainly doesn't make sense for cable companies to carry too much longer, but a core set of analog for the most popular channels can actually be a good marketing tact for cable companies for many years to come.


----------



## SurfPine (Dec 3, 2004)

DCIFRTHS said:


> Well, the problem with your simple solution is that the cable companies are monopolies in their geographic areas of operation. No I can't get a Dish. I have no view of the Southern sky. What other choice, besides abstinence from my favorite shows, do I have? Rhetorical question. Please don't bore me with your answer.
> 
> The Dolan family is a good place to start if you are concerned with the cable companies profits. Do a search.
> 
> If you don't like the "whining" in this thread, then don't read it.


So, it is the cable co's fault that you chose to live in an area where you can't see satellite? And that makes cable a monopoly? Call the gov't, you are on to something they will want to know about.

Does not your telco provide you with broadcast and OnDemand service? Not yet, call the gov't because they will want to know about that as well.

What system are you on, DAC or DNCS? Does anyone know what companies provide SDV for which digital system? Be careful. What other concerns should you have about SDV that have not been mentioned? Is that less boring for you? Never mind, I already know your answer. Remeber, it is just TV. Don't ruin your life over it.


----------



## jacksonian (Nov 3, 2003)

This bites. I've got TWC. I don't know if/when they've talked about switched digital for my area, but I'd hate to invest in a Series 3 and then have my channels disappear. What's even worse is that the DVR that my local TWC uses is the SA8300 with SARA, the worst interface on the planet. 

Depeding on what they're offering, this could push me over the edge toward satellite.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

SurfPine said:


> FYI, SDV is not a conspiracy to rid cablecard. Switched digital has been around for about 4 years, ask Big Band Networks and Scientific Atlanta (oops, Cisco). Digital Simulcast is changing analog cable as well. Do a search.


I know the technology is not a conspiracy, in fact it's very sound technology and makes a lot of sense for lesser watched channels. However TWC putting all the HDTV channels on SDV, when they know full well that it's going to break CableCARD seems a little suspect. They know that the vast majority of CableCARD users are interested in HDTV, because as of right now CableCARDs are primarily used in HDTVs. But instead of moving a bunch of the lesser watched digital channels over to SDV they moved all the HDTV channels and forced their CableCARD users back into a position where they have to use a leased box to get HDTV. Tell me that's not a ploy.

Dan


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> ... TWC putting all the HDTV channels on SDV, when they know full well that it's going to break CableCARD seems a little suspect. They know that the vast majority of CableCARD users are interested in HDTV, because as of right now CableCARDs are primarily used in HDTVs. But instead of moving a bunch of the lesser watched digital channels over to SDV they moved all the HDTV channels and forced their CableCARD users back into a position where they have to use a leased box to get HDTV. Tell me that's not a ploy.


 :up: :up: :up:

I'd call that unassailable logic.


----------



## jfh3 (Apr 15, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> But instead of moving a bunch of the lesser watched digital channels over to SDV they moved all the HDTV channels and forced their CableCARD users back into a position where they have to use a leased box to get HDTV. Tell me that's not a ploy.


That's not a ploy - that's just a blatent attempt to circumvent the intent of the CableCard standard. 

Or an invitation for all TWC customers to file a complaint with the FCC ...


----------



## JohnTivo (Dec 2, 2002)

jfh3 said:


> That's not a ploy - that's just a blatent attempt to circumvent the intent of the CableCard standard.
> 
> Or an invitation for all TWC customers to file a complaint with the FCC ...


Unfortunately, most people will just roll over and get the STB rather than complain to the FCC... I bet most people do not even understand what the FCC is there for.


----------



## jacksonian (Nov 3, 2003)

I don't know if it's as much "rolling over" as it is not having the time and effort to fight a futile battle.


----------



## DCIFRTHS (Jan 6, 2000)

SurfPine said:


> So, it is the cable co's fault that you chose to live in an area where you can't see satellite? And that makes cable a monopoly?


No. My lack of a view to the southern sky does not make the cable company a monopoly. I don't _think_ I ever implied that, but if that's the conclusion you came to, I won't argue with you, as you seem to have all the answers.



SurfPine said:


> Call the gov't, you are on to something they will want to know about.


Thanks for your advice. It means a lot to me 



SurfPine said:


> Does not your telco provide you with broadcast and OnDemand service? Not yet, call the gov't because they will want to know about that as well.


In my area, they don't have the permits to bury fiber yet, *and* they have been avoiding MDUs. I did "call" the government because, in my opinion, they have been picking and choosing the easiest installation locations to save money. I would explain why it's so hard to install Verizon's service in MDUs, but you are so enlightened, that I know it's not necessary. In the off chance that you _don't_ know, do a search.



SurfPine said:


> What system are you on, DAC or DNCS? Does anyone know what companies provide SDV for which digital system? Be careful. What other concerns should you have about SDV that have not been mentioned? Is that less boring for you? Never mind, I already know your answer. Remeber, it is just TV. Don't ruin your life over it.


You came to this thread trying to make it into something it's not. There are no _X-Files_ here. Just plain old-fashioned bullying of the customer. In their attempt to save bandwidth, the cable companies know that when they break third party solutions to their product, CableCARD 1.x products, the solution is to rent/lease you _their_ hardware solution. How _convenient_ is that?

I'd be happy if you just moved along, but I don't suppose Christmas will come in June this year...


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

JohnTivo said:


> I bet most people do not even understand what the FCC is there for.


Sadly, this includes the current FCC commissioners.



Dan203 said:


> Getting rid of just a few of the crap channels, like QVC, HSN, C-SPAN, C-SPAN2, etc..., will free up enough bandwidth to offer a dozen HD channels which are 100% compatible with CableCARD.


Whoa there. I'm with you on QVC and HSN, but the C-SPAN channels are among the most important on TV.


----------



## DCIFRTHS (Jan 6, 2000)

JohnTivo said:


> Unfortunately, most people will just roll over and get the STB rather than complain to the FCC... I bet most people do not even understand what the FCC is there for.


That's why threads like this are good. It can help people to understand the technology that companies are considering, the impact it will have on them, and the resources available for them to express their opinions. If they then feel that something is amiss, they can follow up using their newly found knowledge


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

And it's not just the monthly rental fee they're after here either. When someone has a leased STB they also have access to premium services such as VOD and PPV, both of which are big money makers for cable companies. Cable companies only offer CableCARD because they have to, and using SDV in this mannor is just a way to skirt the law and limit it's deployment.

Dan


----------



## DCIFRTHS (Jan 6, 2000)

wmcbrine said:


> Sadly, this includes the current FCC commissioners.
> 
> Whoa there. I'm with you on QVC and HSN, but the C-SPAN channels are among the most important on TV.


My freind's wife would not be happy if QVC and HSN were blown away...


----------



## DCIFRTHS (Jan 6, 2000)

Dan203 said:


> And it's not just the monthly rental fee they're after here either. When someone has a leased STB they also have access to premium services such as VOD and PPV, both of which are big money makers for cable companies. Cable companies only offer CableCARD because they have to, and using SDV in this mannor is just a way to skirt the law and limit it's deployment.
> 
> Dan


Good point. I forgot to add VOD and PPV to my post.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

I would love to go along with the belief that cable companies did this to intentionally break third party devices and render cable card 1.x useless. Unfortunately the percentage of third party devices out there doing HD and cable card is probably close to non-existent today. Even when the S3 ships the percentage of people with one won't even register on the radar screen. I doubt it was a planned conspiracy.


----------



## DCIFRTHS (Jan 6, 2000)

HiDefGator said:


> I would love to go along with the belief that cable companies did this to intentionally break third party devices and render cable card 1.x useless. Unfortunately the percentage of third party devices out there doing HD and cable card is probably close to non-existent today. Even when the S3 ships the percentage of people with one won't even register on the radar screen. I doubt it was a planned conspiracy.


Regardless of the reason, it's the result that counts. CableCARD 1.x will break if switched digital is deployed. IMO, *that's* what this thread is about.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

HiDefGator said:


> I would love to go along with the belief that cable companies did this to intentionally break third party devices and render cable card 1.x useless. Unfortunately the percentage of third party devices out there doing HD and cable card is probably close to non-existent today. Even when the S3 ships the percentage of people with one won't even register on the radar screen. I doubt it was a planned conspiracy.


Actually according to the CEA more then a million devices with CableCARD solts have been sold to date. That's still a fairly small number, but it's not chump change either. If all one million were using a CableCARD which only cost $1.50 per month instead of STBs which cost $10 a month, that's a collective loss of $8.5 million dollars per month. Throw in the fact that those people wont be able to access premium services like VOD and PPV and that number would probably grow by at least 50%.

The numbers are small now, but CableCARD is gaining ground and SDV is just the thing to stop it.

Like I said above, if SDV is not being used to block CableCARD then why is TW using it for HD channels instead of lesser watched digital channels? It would have the same net result and they could keep everyone happy.

Dan


----------



## SurfPine (Dec 3, 2004)

DCIFRTHS said:


> You came to this thread trying to make it into something it's not. There are no _X-Files_ here. Just plain old-fashioned bullying of the customer. In their attempt to save bandwidth, the cable companies know that when they break third party solutions to their product, CableCARD 1.x products, the solution is to rent/lease you _their_ hardware solution. How _convenient_ is that?


    Just pointing out the non-sense as I see it. Thank you...


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> Actually according to the CEA more then a million devices with CableCARD solts have been sold to date.
> Dan


And how many of those million (mostly TV's) actually have a cable card in them today? Compared to the 75+ million cable customers.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

HiDefGator said:


> And how many of those million (mostly TV's) actually have a cable card in them today? Compared to the 75+ million cable customers.


Around 150,000 ...

As of Feb. 28th:
Top 6 cable companies (with 80% of cable subs) - 126,000 CableCards deployed
Top 10 cable companies (with 89% of cable subs) - 141,000 CableCards deployed

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518332453

Oh, and there's only about 65.5 million cable video subs:
http://www.ncta.com/ContentView.aspx?contentId=54


----------



## segaily (Aug 3, 2003)

If the cable companies are putting local HD channels on SDV then I would think it would break all the TV's that have a QAM tuner to tune the local channels. If that is correct then even people without a cable card would loose channels.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

segaily said:


> If the cable companies are putting local HD channels on SDV then I would think it would break all the TV's that have a QAM tuner to tune the local channels. If that is correct then even people without a cable card would loose channels.


 Exactly, I think this is the real motivation to put HD locals on SDV. By FCC regulations they are not allowed to encrypt HD locals so this would be the next best way to stop "freeloaders" (they want you to subscribe to their digital/HD service not just stick with basic package). Of course with unencrypted QAM and assuming someone in your neighborhood is watching the HD channel of interest under SDV you would still be able to find the channel, but it likely would move around a lot making it worthless - kind of like what VOD freeloading is now with unencrypted QAM.


----------



## DCIFRTHS (Jan 6, 2000)

dt_dc said:


> Around 150,000 ...
> 
> As of Feb. 28th:
> Top 6 cable companies (with 80% of cable subs) - 126,000 CableCards deployed
> ...


Interesting document. Very good spin control by Mr. Goldberg. My cable company is one of the "big six", and it took me about an hour, and several transfers to explain to them what it was that I wanted, and that yes, Cablevision does indeed offer it.

Do you know if there are documents stating the number of DVRs in use?


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

DCIFRTHS said:


> Do you know if there are documents stating the number of DVRs in use?


Not consolodated like the above. You get various industry estimates, and occasionally a company will release it's numbers.


----------



## jfh3 (Apr 15, 2004)

DCIFRTHS said:


> My freind's wife would not be happy if QVC and HSN were blown away...


Just tell your friend that he can use all the money he saves to buy a Series 3.


----------



## jfh3 (Apr 15, 2004)

HiDefGator said:


> And how many of those million (mostly TV's) actually have a cable card in them today? Compared to the 75+ million cable customers.


The number of TVs with CableCard slots is probably irrelevant.

TVs with CableCard slots are relatively new, most with HD. I'm guessing that most of those users also have/want a DVR and generally watch TV through a DVR and not the internal tuner.

The only DVR I'm aware of with a CableCard slot is the single-tuner Sony DHG, which was discontinued almost on release.

Given the small numbers of CableCards in use to date, I'm sure the Series 3 will be responsible for a significant jump in the number of CableCards actually installed/used by consumers.

If Tivo releases the Series 3 in September, in October the MSOs are going to wonder why demand for CableCards shot through the roof. I hope Tivo is considering some sort of educational program for the MSOs.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Considering TiVo only has about 5 million subscribers total, 2/3 of which are actually DirecTV users, I doubt sales of Series 3 units is going to big enough for the MSOs to notice a spike in CableCARD demand.

Although I really hope I'm wrong! 

Edit: I forgot they actually require two CableCARDs per TiVo, so maybe they will notice when a bunch of people start ordering them in pairs. 

Dan


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

I can picture the S3 coming out and within a month the cable companies have cable cards on backorder. Not because they sold that many S3's but because the cable companies only stocked a few dozen.


----------



## Gene S (Feb 11, 2003)

segaily said:


> If the cable companies are putting local HD channels on SDV then I would think it would break all the TV's that have a QAM tuner to tune the local channels. If that is correct then even people without a cable card would loose channels.


My cable company (TimeWarner) uses SDV, and the HD locals are NOT switched. Although most of the HD Digital Tier is. But you are correct, if they become "switched" it would kill the point of QAM tuners. But there is probably a rule or reg built in somewhere to prevent them from doing so. Probably implied in the "Must be sent in the clear." part of it. (Meaning they can't scramble the channel or put it in a pay tier of cable.)


----------



## Welshdog (Jan 4, 2005)

Here in Austin this is what TW has on their website concerning CableCard:

http://www.timewarnercable.com/austin/products/cablecard.html

i notice that they claim HDTV is available with CableCard. I understand Austin is one of the SDV test markets so I wonder how they make this work?


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

Here's further confirmation that Cox is planning to use switched digital to carry additional HDTV channels. And notice how they brush off the issue of non-compatibility with existing cable cards as if it's no big deal:
http://www.digitalstraighttalk.com/2006/06/hdtv_capacity_theres_more_to_t.shtml#more


----------



## DCIFRTHS (Jan 6, 2000)

moyekj said:


> Here's further confirmation that Cox is planning to use switched digital to carry additional HDTV channels. And notice how they brush off the issue of non-compatibility with existing cable cards as if it's no big deal:
> http://www.digitalstraighttalk.com/2006/06/hdtv_capacity_theres_more_to_t.shtml#more


Ironically, it seems that the only "solution" that would hurt / inhibit existing CableCARD devices is the switched video option. Node splitting, utilizing 256 QAM and upgrading the networks to 860 MHz should have no negative effect on existing CC installations.

Please correct me if I am worng.


----------



## zync (Feb 22, 2003)

Welshdog said:


> i notice that they claim HDTV is available with CableCard. I understand Austin is one of the SDV test markets so I wonder how they make this work?


They said HDTV was available, but they didn't say all HDTV was available.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

DCIFRTHS said:


> Ironically, it seems that the only "solution" that would hurt / inhibit existing CableCARD devices is the switched video option. Node splitting, utilizing 256 QAM and upgrading the networks to 860 MHz should have no negative effect on existing CC installations.
> 
> Please correct me if I am worng.


 That's right, only the switched digital implementation affects existing CC implementation, the other changes would be just fine.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

DCIFRTHS said:


> Ironically, it seems that the only "solution" that would hurt / inhibit existing CableCARD devices is the switched video option. Node splitting, utilizing 256 QAM and upgrading the networks to 860 MHz should have no negative effect on existing CC installations.


Perhaps "suspiciously" is a better word than "ironically" in this case?

We need an FCC that will do its job and stop this nonsense.


----------



## andydumi (Jun 26, 2006)

does the Series3 have support for cablecard 2? Or will it have 2 cable card 1.0 slots?
How else might it record two shows at once from digital cable? 

I dont suppose they expect us to have two cable boxes and a series 3 hooked up.

I know series 3 is not out yet, so be nice.


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

No. It does (I know this is factually incorrect but it does answer the question). You wouldn't be able to. No, because a S3 won't work with cableboxes at all.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

DCIFRTHS said:


> Ironically, it seems that the only "solution" that would hurt / inhibit existing CableCARD devices is the switched video option. Node splitting, utilizing 256 QAM and upgrading the networks to 860 MHz should have no negative effect on existing CC installations.


Yes, but there's only so far you can go with 256QAM and 860MHz ... my (Cox) cable plant is already 256QAM/860MHz.

Other things the cable companies have looked at (instead of / or in addition to switched broadcast) to increase capacity include 1024QAM, 1+GHz RF, AVCs, etc ... none of which would be compatible with existing CableCard equipment.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

I just saw a usage (average and peak users) chart for the top 60 or so channels. I can't post it because it is in a proprietary chart package. One thing is clear to me though, there is no way you could chop off half of the channels without pissing off someone.

For instance, the bottom quarter of the channels include TOON, GOLF, COURT, STYLE, HSN, CMT, MSNBC, ABC-FAM, HN, TVLAND, SPEED and DHC.

I'll bet we can find at least one person on this discussion who would consider each of these channels hi-priority.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

andydumi said:


> does the Series3 have support for cablecard 2? Or will it have 2 cable card 1.0 slots?.


It has two slots. However one of them is compatible with the CaleCARD multi-stream specification which allows a single card to decode multiple streams. If you use that slot with a multi-stream card you simply leave the other slot empty. However this is still a CableCARD 1.0 device so it will NOT support any of the two-way communication stuff in the CableCARD 2.0 specification.

Dan


----------



## andydumi (Jun 26, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> It has two slots. However one of them is compatible with the CaleCARD multi-stream specification which allows a single card to decode multiple streams. If you use that slot with a multi-stream card you simply leave the other slot empty. However this is still a CableCARD 1.0 device so it will NOT support any of the two-way communication stuff in the CableCARD 2.0 specification.
> 
> Dan


thanks for the clear response.

so cablecards 1.0 can still do multiple decoding (i read somewhere up to 5 channels at once) whereas the 2.0 adds bidirectional communications to enable PPV and OnDemand.

So will a single card work for 3 decoded signals? 2 to be recorded and 1 watched, or will it be like the Series2DT which only has two tuners, either watch 1, record 1, or record 2, but not three total.


----------



## JohnTivo (Dec 2, 2002)

The multistream card or 2 single 1.0 cards will allow: Watch Live 1, Record 1; or Watch 1 Recorded Show, Record 2 Shows.


----------



## btwyx (Jan 16, 2003)

andydumi said:


> So will a single card work for 3 decoded signals? 2 to be recorded and 1 watched, or will it be like the Series2DT which only has two tuners, either watch 1, record 1, or record 2, but not three total.


Unless things have radically changed (and I don't think they have), the constraint is not the number of tuners, but the number of recordings you can make at once.

With a TiVo to watch something "Live" it has to be recorded to the hard drive and then played back with the minimum delay. Or in otherwords, you never watch "Live" its always recorded.

You can record 2 things and watch one recording. (There is no facility for making 3 recordings at once.)


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

andydumi said:


> thanks for the clear response.
> 
> so cablecards 1.0 can still do multiple decoding (i read somewhere up to 5 channels at once) whereas the 2.0 adds bidirectional communications to enable PPV and OnDemand.


Not current 1.0 cards, future ones will. 2.0 card will supposedly be multistream,as well as bidirectional.


> So will a single card work for 3 decoded signals? 2 to be recorded and 1 watched, or will it be like the Series2DT which only has two tuners, either watch 1, record 1, or record 2, but not three total.


The Series 3 has only two active tuners at a time, so only two channels (from any combination of sources) can be streamed to the HDD at once, from the built in tuners.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

andydumi said:


> So will a single card work for 3 decoded signals? 2 to be recorded and 1 watched, or will it be like the Series2DT which only has two tuners, either watch 1, record 1, or record 2, but not three total.


With two single stream cards, or one multi-stream card, you'll be able to record ANY two channels while simultaneously watching something already recorded in Now Playing. Once the digital stream is passed through the card during the recording process it's re-encrypted in a format TiVo can decode internally, so the card is not needed for playback only recording.

The big difference between this and the S2DT (besides HD) is that it's dual tuners are not restricted in any way. It can record two channels from any source at once, including analog cable, digital cable and ATSC antenna channels. All without the need for any external boxes.

Dan


----------



## andydumi (Jun 26, 2006)

very interesting. 

will there be a direct passthrough, taking the decoded signal from the card and outputting directly to an output but without the 30 minute recording buffer? 
In other words, will there be any output that does not at some point in time get recorded to a hard drive then played back?

The reason i am asking is that right now, i have my Tivo 2 hooked up with a splitter, and the branch that goes directly to TV yields a better picture than the "processed" Tivo picture which is buffered to the hard drive. I am worried that a similar effect may occur with HD transmissions in the future on the Series 3. 

Also on a side note, do we know if the new Tivo 3 will have a larger buffer than 30 minutes and the capability to retain through channel changes? I hate being behind and catching up and then accidentally changing channels and losing 10 minutes of a show.


----------



## Bai Shen (Dec 17, 2004)

So the S3 only supports part of the CC2.0 functionality? Basically the ability to do multiple streams at once, but no bidirectional traffic?


----------



## stevereis (Feb 24, 2006)

andydumi said:


> will there be a direct passthrough, taking the decoded signal from the card and outputting directly to an output but without the 30 minute recording buffer?
> In other words, will there be any output that does not at some point in time get recorded to a hard drive then played back?
> 
> The reason i am asking is that right now, i have my Tivo 2 hooked up with a splitter, and the branch that goes directly to TV yields a better picture than the "processed" Tivo picture which is buffered to the hard drive. I am worried that a similar effect may occur with HD transmissions in the future on the Series 3.


I do not believe there will be a direct passthrough. However, there will be no picture quality loss for digital signals, including HD. The PQ loss you are seeing with SA TiVos is due to that fact that these only take in analog signals, digitize them, and then compress to MPEG-2. They also reduce the frame size(resolution) in the process, especially for the lower quality settings.

With the Series 3, the same will be true, as before, for analog content (analog cable, analog TV signals. However, anything digital (digital cable, OTA ATSC HDTV) will just have the digital stream directly recorded to the HDD and there will be no PQ loss on playback. (This is how the DirecTV TiVos and other satellite and cable DVRs work.)


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bai Shen said:


> So the S3 only supports part of the CC2.0 functionality? Basically the ability to do multiple streams at once, but no bidirectional traffic?


Actually the multi-stream specification was released about a year ago as a suplimant to the original CC1.0 specification. However it's use was not mandated by the FCC, so it hasn't really caught on yet. CC2.0 will require multi-stream support, but it's main focus is bidirectional communication.

Dan


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

andydumi said:


> The reason i am asking is that right now, i have my Tivo 2 hooked up with a splitter, and the branch that goes directly to TV yields a better picture than the "processed" Tivo picture which is buffered to the hard drive. I am worried that a similar effect may occur with HD transmissions in the future on the Series 3.


The Series 3 will record the digital signal directly to the hard drive, so there will be no quality difference between the recorded signal and the original. The only exception will be the analog channels, which will still need to be converted just like current TiVos do.

Dan


----------



## Bai Shen (Dec 17, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> Actually the multi-stream specification was released about a year ago as a suplimant to the original CC1.0 specification. However it's use was not mandated by the FCC, so it hasn't really caught on yet. CC2.0 will require multi-stream support, but it's main focus is bidirectional communication.
> 
> Dan


So the tivo doesn't actually implement the CC2.0 spec?


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

andydumi said:


> very interesting.
> 
> will there be a direct passthrough, taking the decoded signal from the card and outputting directly to an output but without the 30 minute recording buffer?
> In other words, will there be any output that does not at some point in time get recorded to a hard drive then played back?


No. Anything the tuners receive gets written to the HDD.


> The reason i am asking is that right now, i have my Tivo 2 hooked up with a splitter, and the branch that goes directly to TV yields a better picture than the "processed" Tivo picture which is buffered to the hard drive. I am worried that a similar effect may occur with HD transmissions in the future on the Series 3.


Not for digital channels, as the Series 3 will directly record the received digital stream.



> Also on a side note, do we know if the new Tivo 3 will have a larger buffer than 30 minutes and the capability to retain through channel changes? I hate being behind and catching up and then accidentally changing channels and losing 10 minutes of a show.


Likely not


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

Bai Shen said:


> So the tivo doesn't actually implement the CC2.0 spec?


No, as A: the spec isn't finalized, and B: The S3 doesn't have the reverse channel modulator.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bai Shen said:


> So the tivo doesn't actually implement the CC2.0 spec?


Nope! The Series 3 is a CC1.0 device with added support for multi-stream cards. Nothing more.

Dan


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

andydumi said:


> very interesting.
> 
> will there be a direct passthrough, taking the decoded signal from the card and outputting directly to an output but without the 30 minute recording buffer?
> In other words, will there be any output that does not at some point in time get recorded to a hard drive then played back?
> ...


I'd really applaud if both features you'd like to see were offered by TiVo, but the reality is that I don't see that happening. Series 3 most probably will have the same operating features that current TiVo's offer.

LG's standard-def LRM-519 currently offers both features, as well as DVD recording, along with the capability of recording to an external HD through a USB port. Its coax out bypasses the recorder completely and it has a 1.5 hr. recording buffer which is maintained when changing channels. As long as a program is still being displayed in the EPG (the EPG doesn't go back before the current program) the entire amount contained in the 1.5 hr. buffer can be recorded. When a program is over but remains within the 1.5 hr. buffer it can still be watched but can't be converted to a lasting recording.

On the downside, LG's recorder, when recording directly through its otherwise excellent tuner, appears to exhibit black levels which are greyer than other recorders which I've used. Its picture has better contrast when its line input is used with a good source. The biggest fault of the LRM-519 which I've experienced is that its ability to record ongoing propgrams (ala TiVo's _Season Pass_) is undependable. Most hardcore TiVo timeshifters would thus have problems with the LG recorder. I have two of each brand, but I'm a casual timeshifter for whom archiving is more important than timeshifting.

TiVo's Series 3 will offer the capability to record on specially formatted (from TiVo) external eSATA HD's, a feature I'm looking forward to from TiVo. I hope that the price for TiVo's external eSATA formatted HD's will be competitive with similiar sized USB drives.


----------



## Bai Shen (Dec 17, 2004)

classicsat said:


> No, as A: the spec isn't finalized, and B: The S3 doesn't have the reverse channel modulator.


What's a reverse channel modulator?


----------



## andydumi (Jun 26, 2006)

TiVo Troll said:


> TiVo's Series 3 will offer the capability to record on specially formatted (from TiVo) external eSATA HD's, a feature I'm looking forward to from TiVo. I hope that the price for TiVo's external eSATA formatted HD's will be competitive with similiar sized USB drives.


Bah, i was hoping for some universality, simply allow us to add a hardrive of choice in an enclosure and provide a cd/dvd for formatting it in the correct way.
I hope they introduce a standard drive that is sufficiently large (200 or more), otherwise im afraid the external Tivo-only HDs will be very pricy.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

TiVo Troll said:


> ...TiVo's Series 3 will offer the capability to record on specially formatted (from TiVo) external eSATA HD's, a feature I'm looking forward to from TiVo. I hope that the price for TiVo's external eSATA formatted HD's will be competitive with similiar sized USB drives.


I'm not sure that it's *limited to* specially-formatted (from TiVo) eSATA HDs. Maybe Mega can pipe in here, but I don't recall that it was proprietary. I thought it's designed so you can purchase a standard eSATA HD and use it with the Series 3. Once, of course, it's "married" to the Series 3 HD (IDE), then, if you disconnect it, you will likely lose ALL data on both HDs. I may stand corrected on this, however. 

EDIT -- From Mega's report in January...he did say TiVO would be selling an external SATA drive, but whether that means it's proprietary, I don't know for sure..


> the external drive is not removable in the conventional sense. Once it is connected, the OS makes it part of the file system and shows may be recorded using both the internal and external drive - as in the SAME show may have its bits scattered on both. If you disconnect the external drive the unit will cope with it, but any shows recorded with any data on the external drive will vanish. So it isn't something you connect, record to, then take to another unit to watch the shows


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

Bai Shen said:


> What's a reverse channel modulator?


Think of a reverse channel modulator as an upstream transmitter. The S3 is a receiver only.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

Bierboy said:


> I'm not sure that it's *limited to* specially-formatted (from TiVo) eSATA HDs. Maybe Mega can pipe in here, but I don't recall that it was proprietary. I thought it's designed so you can purchase a standard eSATA HD and use it with the Series 3. Once, of course, it's "married" to the Series 3 HD (IDE), then, if you disconnect it, you will likely lose ALL data on both HDs. I may stand corrected on this, however.
> 
> EDIT -- From Mega's report in January...he did say TiVO would be selling an external SATA drive, but whether that means it's proprietary, I don't know for sure..


Thanks for the clarification.

The external eSATA HD option apparently isn't exactly what I had thought and was hoping for. Basically adding such an external HD will offer nothing beyond what an internal HD of the same capacity would offer; sheer size. Adding capacity with the usual hacks (if they still work) would undoubtedly be cheaper and wouldn't run the risk of inadvertantly being disconnected and losing all the recordings. I guess price and simplicity will be the main factors when considering the desirability of adding an external drive.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bai Shen said:


> What's a reverse channel modulator?


It's the component required to transmit data from the TiVo to your cable company. It's basically a chip that converts digital data into a CATV signal then sends it back up the line.

Dan


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

Bai Shen said:


> What's a reverse channel modulator?


Sends data and commands to the cable company, needed for bi-directional features such as VOD, PPV, and switched video.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

Bierboy said:


> I'm not sure that it's *limited to* specially-formatted (from TiVo) eSATA HDs. Maybe Mega can pipe in here, but I don't recall that it was proprietary.


I don't think anbody outside TiVo knows for sure.
IIRC, in the interview with Bob Pony at CES, Bob really didn't say one way or the other if a plain drive will work. Given time, I'd bet Weaknees or PTVUpgrade has something to format retail drives for Series 3.

At absolute most, it could be a special secure media drive formatted by TiVo. At absolute leasd, an normal SATA drive in a case, which is Blessed.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I think the best solution would be to allow the connection of any eSATA drive right out of the box and have the software on the TiVo itself automatically "bless" and format it. This would allow anyone to go to any Best Buy, CompUSA, etc.. pick up an eSATA drive and have an instant TiVo upgrade without any special technical knowledge.

Dan


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

jfh3 said:


> I don't see how the FCC would just sit back and let the MSOs just give them the finger regarding CableCard.


Then you don't know or understand the FCC, as run under the current administration.



JohnTivo said:


> I bet most people do not even understand what the FCC is there for.


I think the point is that reasonable people disagree about what the FCC is there for. The FCC is a political entity. It operates in the public interest, but the members of the public don't necessarily all agree with each other.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> To me this seems like a blaten attempt to get around the CableCARD mandate and force people to start renting their STBs again. :down:


It is pretty dangerous applying a chosen motivation to someone else's actions. Take them at their word: They're applying SDV because of bandwidth issues. They cannot be expected to adopt one the alternative approaches you suggest for reasons that perhaps don't mean much to you, but perhaps do mean something to others, including their suppliers and/or investors. Laws have to be explicit. If the law doesn't say explicitly that SDV, or the effect of SDV, is a violation, then the law is at fault, and that's where our ire should be directed, not a the cable companies.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

DCIFRTHS said:


> If you don't like the "whining" in this thread, then don't read it.


By the same token, if you don't like SurfPine's undercutting of the "whining" in this thread, then don't read it!


----------



## DCIFRTHS (Jan 6, 2000)

bicker said:


> By the same token, if you don't like SurfPine's undercutting of the "whining" in this thread, then don't read it!


I'm guessing you work in the cable industry too


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

DCIFRTHS said:


> I'm guessing you work in the cable industry too


Surely not, and I never have.

I simply disagree with you.


----------



## DCIFRTHS (Jan 6, 2000)

bicker said:


> It is pretty dangerous applying a chosen motivation to someone else's actions. Take them at their word: They're applying SDV because of bandwidth issues. They cannot be expected to adopt one the alternative approaches you suggest for reasons that perhaps don't mean much to you, but perhaps do mean something to others, including their suppliers and/or investors. Laws have to be explicit. If the law doesn't say explicitly that SDV, or the effect of SDV, is a violation, then the law is at fault, and that's where our ire should be directed, not a the cable companies.


Take a business where profit is their only motivation, "at their word"?

That's pretty funny.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Better to take them at their word, than impose your own biased distortion of their actions. 

Especially since you're wrong.


----------



## DCIFRTHS (Jan 6, 2000)

bicker said:


> Better to take them at their word, than impose your own biased distortion of their actions.
> 
> Especially since you're wrong.


Taking them at their word is laying down in the middle of the road waiting to get run over.

I am biased: Based on my agenda. To deny that the cable companies aren't biased, based on their agenda, is just, well, I'd rather not be crude . . .


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I wouldn't suggest that they're not biased by their agenda. Rather, just that their explanation about why they do what they do is more valid than that which you would impose on them by fiat. I'm sure you don't want *me *projecting *why *I think you're saying what you're saying! 

The point is that distorting reality doesn't actually have a constructive purpose. Saying they're mean and nasty doesn't actually help anyone with these issues. Expecting them to blindly act in your own personal self-interest -- well, that would be just plain silly. Rather, understanding their position -- seeing things from their perspective -- _will _help us understand what we can reasonably expect them to do.


----------



## DCIFRTHS (Jan 6, 2000)

bicker said:


> I wouldn't suggest that they're not biased by their agenda. Rather, just that their explanation about why they do what they do is more valid than that which you would impose on them by fiat. I'm sure you don't want *me *projecting *why *I think you're saying what you're saying!


I have no hidden agenda. If you think my motivation is anything more than not having the S3 be dead-in-the-water upon, or shortly after launch, then please state what you think I'm saying.



bicker said:


> The point is that distorting reality doesn't actually have a constructive purpose. Saying they're mean and nasty doesn't actually help anyone with these issues. Expecting them to blindly act in your own personal self-interest -- well, that would be just plain silly. Rather, understanding their position -- seeing things from their perspective -- _will _help us understand what we can reasonably expect them to do.


I don't believe I have distorted reality.

Switched Video will break CableCARD installations based on the 1.0 implementation. 

Deploying Switched Video violates, at least in spirit, the whole reason for mandating the CC spec in the first place. This being the option for customers to subscribe to encrypted programming without being tied to a specific STB.

I'm literally falling asleep as I type. I'll be back later.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> I think the best solution would be to allow the connection of any eSATA drive right out of the box and have the software on the TiVo itself automatically "bless" and format it. This would allow anyone to go to any Best Buy, CompUSA, etc.. pick up an eSATA drive and have an instant TiVo upgrade without any special technical knowledge.
> 
> Dan


Agreed, Dan. Maybe wishful thinking on my part. I guess time will tell!


----------



## andydumi (Jun 26, 2006)

DCIFRTHS said:


> Take a business where profit is their only motivation, "at their word"?


Since every business has profit as their main motivation (except maybe your mom and pop, small, customer-first businesses) i would say the best we can do is accept their excuses but take them with a grain of salt.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

DCIFRTHS said:


> Switched Video will break CableCARD installations based on the 1.0 implementation.
> 
> Deploying Switched Video violates, at least in spirit, the whole reason for mandating the CC spec in the first place. This being the option for customers to subscribe to encrypted programming without being tied to a specific STB.


While that is true, that is not their (primary) motivation to implement SDV, but a secondary benefit.

Its not like they are sitting around devising ways to "break" CC1.0.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> I think the best solution would be to allow the connection of any eSATA drive right out of the box and have the software on the TiVo itself automatically "bless" and format it. This would allow anyone to go to any Best Buy, CompUSA, etc.. pick up an eSATA drive and have an instant TiVo upgrade without any special technical knowledge.
> 
> Dan


Please help me understand the add-on drive concept.

If an external drive is added is it permanently wedded to the internal drive?

If an external drive becomes momentarily disconnected,* or its power plug gets inadvertantly pulled for just a second*, does that mean that all recordings on it, even when parts are on both drives, are lost forever, or can they be recovered?

Is the above true for all types of add on drives, USB as well as eSATA?

On my LRM-519 all I had to do was plug an external USB drive in and in a few seconds got a confirmation screen verifying that it was to used for additional storage. Then a couple of weeks later I got a bigger external USB drive and removed the first one. At that point I checked and verified that none of the recordings' status had changed. (The total time of the recordings wasn't even close to the capacity of the internal drive though.) Then I plugged the new external drive in and once again got the confirmation screen.

Am I right in believing now that nothing is sent to the external drive until the internal drive is full and that once recordings are stored on the external drive it must remain continually connected indefinitely? If so an external drive is certainly easy to set-up but that's its only advantage. It's more expensive than hacking a larger internal drive and provides a less secure location for recordings.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

No one knows for sure how exactly it will work. With current internal hard drive upgrades if you add a second drive it is permenantly married to the original drive and can not be removed without cripeling the TiVo entirely. However according to Megazone TiVoPony indicated that this would not be true of external drives. According to him the TiVo would be able to survive the disconection of the external drive, but he didn't say what would happen to the recordings on that drive or if they would reappear if the drive was reconnected. For specifics like that we'll just have to wait and see.

Also TiVo does NOT support external USB drives. So this eSATA support in the Series 3 will be their first attempt at supporting external storage.

Dan


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> No one knows for sure how exactly it will work. With current internal hard drive upgrades if you add a second drive it is permenantly married to the original drive and can not be removed without cripeling the TiVo entirely. However according to Megazone TiVoPony indicated that this would not be true of external drives. According to him the TiVo would be able to survive the disconection of the external drive, but he didn't say what would happen to the recordings on that drive or if they would reappear if the drive was reconnected. For specifics like that we'll just have to wait and see.
> 
> Also TiVo does NOT support external USB drives. So this eSATA support in the Series 3 will be their first attempt at supporting external storage.
> 
> Dan


Thanks Dan, we'll have to see. At least the possibility of recovery isn't ruled out yet.

I know that Series 3 will be TiVo's first product with external drive capability and that it is eSATA only. That's not really a problem if TiVo's eSATA doesn't come at a premium over other applications.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

I suppose it gets even more complicated if I pull my external drive from one S3 and plug it into another S3. Will the shows on the drive show up or not?

Would there be anyway to tell Tivo to put a show on the external drive vs. the internal drive?

What if both S3's are on the same account?


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

Sounds to me like the external drive is tied solely to 1 S3 and it won't be portable at all. This is how the Scientific Atlanta cable company DVRs with external SATA HDD storage work.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Each TiVo has it's own crypto chip, and every show it records is encrypted using that chip, so it is highly unlikely that you'll be able to move an external drive from one unit to another and have it retain the shows. In fact if you do this it'll probably either refuse to mount the drive or pop up a message asking you if you want to wipe the drive and marry it to this TiVo instead.

As for choosing where shows are stored... TivoPony specifically said that would not be an option. Shows will be spread across both drives as needed just like they would be if you had two internal drives.

Dan


----------



## Dennis Wilkinson (Sep 24, 2001)

Dan203 said:


> As for choosing where shows are stored... TivoPony specifically said that would not be an option. Shows will be spread across both drives as needed just like they would be if you had two internal drives.


If I understood Pony's comments correctly, it sounds like a single show might have data on both drives (like a "RAID 0" stripe set, for example.)

Between crypto, shows split across drives, show data (program info) that may not exist on a different box, and copyright concerns I have a hard time picturing these external drives being portable from box to box _and_ preserving data. I would think they'd have to handle disconnect/reconnect, at least to some degree, just to handle cases such as someone inadvertently powering things up out of sequence or accidentally knocking a cable loose (akin to making the TiVo robust to just yanking the power out of the wall socket.)

Sounds like a convenient, "no geek required" upgrade method, nothing more.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

DCIFRTHS said:


> Switched Video will break CableCARD installations based on the 1.0 implementation.


This is _factual_ information. Good job. :up:

My point, earlier, is that the rest is opinion. Comcast is free to disagree with it, and _they_ are in the best position to know what _their_ "spiritual" intent was. As someone else said, "Its not like they are sitting around devising ways to 'break' CC1.0."

Get some sleep!


----------



## megazone (Mar 3, 2002)

TiVo Troll said:


> If an external drive is added is it permanently wedded to the internal drive?


Based on what I was told at CES, yes. It is simply an easy way for users to add capacity - MOST TiVo users are NOT comfortable opening up the box and adding drives. But just plugging in a cable - anyone can do.



> If an external drive becomes momentarily disconnected,* or its power plug gets inadvertantly pulled for just a second*, does that mean that all recordings on it, even when parts are on both drives, are lost forever, or can they be recovered?


Unknown. But I very much doubt that disconnecting and reconnecting the drive loses anything, that'd be pretty damn stupid design. You can't count on the drive and TiVo powering up together if the power goes out, etc. They aren't going to design something that shaky.



> Is the above true for all types of add on drives, USB as well as eSATA?


TiVo will only support eSATA.



> Am I right in believing now that nothing is sent to the external drive until the internal drive is full and that once recordings are stored on the external drive it must remain continually connected indefinitely?


It is unknown how the drives are used - but the impression I got at CES is that the external drive will be treated just like an internal 'B' drive today, so it may be used even if the 'A' drive is not 100% full. If you disconnect it then any shows that have any of their data on the B drive are not available.


----------



## megazone (Mar 3, 2002)

HiDefGator said:


> I suppose it gets even more complicated if I pull my external drive from one S3 and plug it into another S3. Will the shows on the drive show up or not?


Nope. I was told at CES that the drive is NOT portable between units. Recordings are only usable on the TiVo that recorded them.



> Would there be anyway to tell Tivo to put a show on the external drive vs. the internal drive?


Nope.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

megazone said:


> It is unknown how the drives are used - but the impression I got at CES is that the external drive will be treated just like an internal 'B' drive today, so it may be used even if the 'A' drive is not 100% full. If you disconnect it then any shows that have any of their data on the B drive are not available.


So if you unplug the drive and reboot, will it fsck the drive?* (as you know, one of the scary ideas of how to un-marry a two drive Tivo is to pull one out, let it reboot, and let it fsck the whole drive to supposedly fix it).

If you plug in a new drive, will it marry to the new drive??

So if you unplugged one drive, and were able to add a new B drive (not for intentional swapping purposes since we know that isn't supported), then the parts of the recordings that are on the onboard drive that were parts of the recordings also on the first external drive are now essentially taking up space that will never be recovered. (At least I HOPE that the parts of straddling recordings are not deleted immediately, since you said in your CES coverage that they disappear when you remove the drive.)

I know none of this is real world scenarios, but it's the kind of stuff that may come up for geeks.


----------



## jfh3 (Apr 15, 2004)

megazone said:


> TiVo will only support eSATA.


Does this mean that it's likely the drive in the S3 will be a SATA (rather than the current PATA) drive?


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

jfh3 said:


> Does this mean that it's likely the drive in the S3 will be a SATA (rather than the current PATA) drive?


There is that possibility.


----------



## Dennis Wilkinson (Sep 24, 2001)

jfh3 said:


> Does this mean that it's likely the drive in the S3 will be a SATA (rather than the current PATA) drive?


megazone's original information was that that internal drive was still PATA, despite the eSATA port, at least on the prototype on display at CES.


----------



## megazone (Mar 3, 2002)

Dennis Wilkinson said:


> megazone's original information was that that internal drive was still PATA, despite the eSATA port, at least on the prototype on display at CES.


Right. I asked that question, if the box was all SATA, and was told that the internal drive is PATA.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

megazone said:


> TiVo will only support eSATA.


I understand that. I asked the question about the possible applications of external HD's in a more general context.

Are options with respect to external HD's driven by technical limitations or just potential legal or marketing considerations? IOW, do eSATA HD's have configuration limitations different than USB connected external HD's or is any configuration theoretically possible for both?

If a given eSATA external HD can be separated but then reconnected to the TiVo it's "married" to so that recordings on it remain accessible, is it likely that TiVo will prohibit drive "polygamy" so that a second external HD can't be "married" to a given TiVo until the first external HD is "divorced" and its recordings lost? In that case could the first external HD's total capacity be re-used in another application, including using it to replace that second external HD if it was in turn "divorced' from the TiVo?


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

TiVo Troll said:


> Are options with respect to external HD's driven by technical limitations or just potential legal or marketing considerations? IOW, do eSATA HD's have configuration limitations different than USB connected external HD's or is any configuration theoretically possible for both?


It is a technical imitation. A USB, and likely Firewire drive, would use too much system overhead, so is noy used.
SATA is more direct, so is used.


----------



## mfogarty5 (Apr 27, 2006)

All,

The Director of Marketing for Video Services of Time Warner Cable South Carolina(TWCSC) is a frequent poster in the Columbia, SC section of the Local HDTV Info and Reception forums at avsforum. For those of you following the switched digital issue, Time Warner Cable has implemented SDV in Austin, TX and Columbia, SC. On their cable system, Universal HD is a switched digital channel meaning that it cannot be tuned by a CableCard device like the upcoming TiVo Series 3. 

I can't post the link because I have fewer than 5 posts, so if someone else could paste it in a subsequent post, I would appreciate it. 

I have also reposted my message below that can be found on avsforums.

Diana,

I stumbled across this forum and have been pleasantly surprised to find that the Director of Marketing for Video Services of Time Warner Cable South Carolina(TWCSC) is a frequent poster here. I have spent more hours than I wish to recount reading the postings in this forum and have found the information you provide to be invaluable. It really seems that you are passionate about your work and TWCSC is lucky to have you as an employee.

I live up the road in Charlotte and am a Time Warner Cable North Carolina(TWCNC) subscriber. Unfortunately for us it does not appear that there is a Diana equivalent that posts on the Charlotte HDTV thread here at avsforums so I will pose my questions to you. I currently subscribe to standard analog cable and earthlink high speed internet and pay TWCNC about $100 a month. I also have a separate TiVo subscription that I thoroughly enjoy. I am very interested in buying an HDTV, but after hearing from my colleagues as well as seeing it with my own eyes, I am less than impressed with the Scientific Atlanta 8300(SA 8300) box that both TWCNC and TWCSC provide to their customers. I frequently hear people say that it misses recordings and that they have had to return their SA 8300 multiple times. Fortunately, TiVo is coming out with their own Series 3 HD DVR this fall that accepts cable cards and thus will allow me to access the HD Tier that TWCNC offers. 

This is where a technology called Switched Digital Video(SDV), and your very own TWCSC come in. I have read that TWC is testing SDV in Austin, TX and Columbia, SC. This has been confirmed in this very thread as you have posted here when certain channels were moving to SDV. My concern is that SDV will render the upcoming TiVo HD DVR as well as other CableCard DVRs like those using Microsofts upcoming including Vista operating system, obsolete before they are even released. This is because SDV is incompatible with the current version of the CableCard standard. The Universal HD channel, for example, is only available to TWCSC users who rent a cable box from TWCSC. It is not available to users with CableCard devices.

I have read your posts and understand that you think CableCard technology was obsolete before it was even released, but the fact of the matter is that CableCard does exactly what it was intended to do: allow cable users to watch broadcast channels without a cable box they are forced to lease. I understand that because of their one-way nature, CableCard devices are not be able to access PPV or On Demand channels, but they would be able to access the Universal HD channel if it wasnt using SDV.

I have read comments from TWC Chief Technology Officer, Mike JaJoie and in his words "Once I have the switching fabric in place, I can add as many channels as I want and never overload leading readers to believe that the purpose of SDV is to expand capacity. There are many people, howver, who think that the purpose of SDV is not to expand capacity, but to circumvent the Federal Communications Commissions mandate that cable companies accepts CableCards. Why would a cable company want to circumvent the FCCs CableCard mandate? Simple, because CableCards limit revenue because the subscribers cannot purchase PPV events. 

The issue that rubs people the wrong way here is that cable companies are monopolies that exist only because they are granted franchises by local governments. In other words, they use local governments to shield themselves from competition while at the same time ignoring the Federal governments CableCard mandate by adding HD channels using SDV. 

Please allow me to use an analogy. Lets say that you had just built your dream house including a beautiful new kitchen. You contact the City of Columbia about turning on your water service and they tell you that they offer this great new service called hot water on-demand that pipes hot water directly into your home from the city pump. You no longer need a hot water heater. Sounds great, right? The only problem is that you have to use the sink and faucet that they provide. Can you imagine such a scenario?!? Yet that is exactly what TWCSC is doing by implementing SDV technology. 

The purpose of my post is not just to complain, but to propose a solution to the problem. I understand that you are a marketing person so I will try and relate this in terms of incremental and new revenue. As I stated before, I am a TWCNC analog subscriber here in Charlotte that also subscribes to TiVo. While I understand that SDV has not yet been implemented here, your Chief Technology Officer has publicly stated that he wants to roll it out as soon as possible. The current analog lineup here costs $47.25, the digital package is $62 and the high definition tier is another $6.50. Since I am unwilling to exchange my current analog cable and SD TiVo setup for a HD and SA 8300 setup, TWCNC is forgoing an additional $21.25 in monthly revenue(over a 20% increase from my current cost) by implementing SDV. Second, Im not sure how much you keep up with the satellite companies, but DirecTV is starting to implement MPEG-4 technology and as a result, their current HD TiVo will not work with their new HD channels. As a result, there are numerous forums(avsforum, tivocommunity, dbstalk) where people have publicly stated that they are ready to switch to their local cable provider as soon as the new Series 3 HD TiVo is released. Since these are both HD and DVR customers it is not a stretch to assume that they would be very profitable customers for TWCSC. These same people are not likely to be happy if they switch to TWCSC only to find out that their HD channels cannot be accessed with their new HD TiVo. 

One solution to the problem is to ensure that ALL PPV, OnDemand and Music channels are SDV only. Can you comment on what percentage of TWCSCs PPV, On-Demand and Music channels are SDV? Since these channels couldnt be accessed with a CableCard device anyway, it will not appear as if TWCSC is forcing their customers to rent cable boxes from them. I know that you dont comment on the availability of new HD channels, but can you comment on whether or not new HD channels will be SDV only? 

Another solution is to continue to remove one analog station to make room for 3 HD stations. This is the approach other MSOs like Comcast and Charter are taking,

I would like to finish by stating that I am not insinuating that TWC or TWCSC is purposefully trying to circumvent the FCCs CableCard mandate, but I am stating that implementing SDV can be perceived that way. There are literally hundreds of thousands of people waiting for CableCard DVRs to become reality. This isnt just about TiVo as there are many people who want to plug a CableCard into their Microsoft Vista Media Center PC as well. If TWCSC continues to add new HD channels as SDV only, it will perpetuate the belief that the purpose of SDV is not to increase capacity, but rather to circumvent the Federal Communications Commissions(FCC) decision to allow consumers a choice by mandating the use of Cable Card technology by cable companies.

Again, I was pleased to stumble across this forum and look forward to seeing your response. I hope that you had a good vacation.


----------



## m_jonis (Jan 3, 2002)

I applaud your posting, but unfortunately TW will do what it has stated and the consumer will lose out on this one (Diana at TW just doesn't have the authority to not implement SDV).

The ONLY possible chance anyone has is to bombard the FCC with complaints and emails from thousands of people. And even at that, I highly doubt they'll do anything (the FCC repeatedly caves into the cable industry).

This is why I think this type of technology will basically put a big dent into any Series 3 sales. I personally am not willing to spend that kind of money and have it obsoleted in a short amount of time. Unfortunately Verizon FIOS TV is 2 years away from my area, so I'll just have to suffer with the crappy DVR that TW has (and it IS crappy. The thing is so unreliable you WILL have to rely on your Tivo just to make sure the station is recorded--albeit at SD resolution).


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Complaining about stuff like SDV is really kind of silly. "I want so you should provide..." Huh? Is that writer really that out-of-touch with reality?


----------



## jeffrypennock (May 18, 2006)

So let's make sure that the S3 is as worthless as some people are claiming. To me, the switched digital does seem unfortunate in some ways but also seems like an opportunity to provide us with more programming, maybe even more HD programming.

What we loose: the ability to do everything we'd hoped without an cable boxes.

There is no 100% that the box displayed at CES is the box that we'll all buy in the stores. LOTS of products as CES get modified before they make it to market. There's reason to assume they couldn't install either an HDMI input or a Firewire, right? Then we'd just be connecting our S3's to our HD cable boxes (e.g., the much hated SA 8300) much like we connect our S2's to our SD digital cable boxes now and we'd still have the ability to record from two sources, they just couldn't both be our digital cable (unless we had two boxes connected OR TiVo figured out how to make use of the DT contained within the SA 8300). The cables boxes are a pain and unsightly, and a pure TiVo setup (w/ cablecards) would have been preferable, but have we really lost that much? Or am I not getting some bigger concept here?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I agree. So? We have to have a STB. That's not a big deal. Some of the stuff that has made it into regulations (like cablecard) are so misguided! Let the market determine what is offered and at what price. 

It's called capitalism. Check it out.


----------



## mfogarty5 (Apr 27, 2006)

Bicker,

I am all for capitalism. That's the whole point of my post. Cable companies are ignoring CableCard because they are granted a monopoly status by municipalities.

We have no choice in cable providers.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

mfogarty5 said:


> One solution to the problem is to ensure that ALL PPV, OnDemand and Music channels are SDV only.


A good solution, if they'd accept it (if their intent was really to save bandwidth, and not to try and kill CableCard). But I'm not sure why you include music channels in the group. They don't require two-way communication, do they? And they take up very little bandwidth (audio only).


----------



## SurfPine (Dec 3, 2004)

mfogarty5 said:


> One solution to the problem is to ensure that ALL PPV, OnDemand and Music channels are SDV only.


As previously mentioned, Music channels should not reclaim much bandwidth if they are switched. PPV yes. I do not get why you mention OnDemand unless you are talking other than VoD/SVoD and the such. If you are talking where the signal is broadcast and not true OnDemand. Is there something I am missing here?


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

Do you really believe that cable companies are investing millions of dollars in SDV to make third party cable card 1.0 hardware obsolete? You are delusional. 

There aren't enough cable cards currently manufactured, nor will there be enough S3 sales to make the slightest dent in a cable companies revenue stream. The truth of the matter is they are completely ignoring the affects of their decisions on cable cards because virtually no one uses them today.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

mfogarty5 said:


> We have no choice in cable providers.


I don't know about you, but I don't do business with Comcast because I want a *cable*. (Mental image of my wife and I sitting in our recliners staring at a coax.)

I do business with Comcast because I want *television programming*. And there is no monopoly there: There's healthy competition between (at least) the cable company and satellite providers. Sometimes there is also competition from OTA and telephone companies as well. Even DVDs is competition.


----------



## DCIFRTHS (Jan 6, 2000)

bicker said:


> I don't know about you, but I don't do business with Comcast because I want a *cable*. (Mental image of my wife and I sitting in our recliners staring at a coax.)


  


bicker said:


> I do business with Comcast because I want *television programming*. And there is no monopoly there: There's healthy competition between (at least) the cable company and satellite providers. Sometimes there is also competition from OTA and telephone companies as well. Even DVDs is competition.


Until there are at least two choices of cable providers available to you, there is no direct competition. One provider with no competition sounds like a monopoly to me, but maybe your definition is from another dictionary.

How do you feel about the cable companies being forced to open their lines so that other companies can provide service?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

DCIFRTHS said:


> > There's healthy competition between (at least) the cable company and satellite providers. Sometimes there is also competition from OTA and telephone companies as well. Even DVDs is competition.
> 
> 
> Until there are at least two choices of cable providers available to you, there is no direct competition.


I think you may have forgotten to read the message you replied to.



> One provider with no competition sounds like a monopoly to me, but maybe your definition is from another dictionary.


The definition of competition can be found in the law, which has unequivocally held that satellite service is a competitor to cable companies. You can choose not to be happy about the law, but that doesn't mean it isn't what it is.


----------



## DCIFRTHS (Jan 6, 2000)

bicker said:


> I think you may have forgotten to read the message you replied to.
> 
> The definition of competition can be found in the law, which has unequivocally held that satellite service is a competitor to cable companies. You can choose not to be happy about the law, but that doesn't mean it isn't what it is.


I read it. I think you didn't understand my reply. Satellite providers are not *cable* providers because the *individual* has to install an antenna. When one product is 10 times more accessible than another product, how can that actually be considered competition?

For the last time . . . I am *not* happy about the law - that's my point. It's not a debatable issue. I'm not happy about it, and I'll do what I can to change it.

For the record, I am very happy with my cable company. They offer me excellent service.

You also didn't answer my question about opening up the cable lines like the phone companies were forced to do.


----------



## HomieG (Feb 17, 2003)

The product is the content. The means it gets to you differs between cable and satellite, but the product most definitely is the content (channels, networks, etc.).


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

jeffrypennock said:


> There is no 100% that the box displayed at CES is the box that we'll all buy in the stores. LOTS of products as CES get modified before they make it to market. There's reason to assume they couldn't install either an HDMI input or a Firewire, right? Then we'd just be connecting our S3's to our HD cable boxes (e.g., the much hated SA 8300) much like we connect our S2's to our SD digital cable boxes now and we'd still have the ability to record from two sources, they just couldn't both be our digital cable (unless we had two boxes connected OR TiVo figured out how to make use of the DT contained within the SA 8300). The cables boxes are a pain and unsightly, and a pure TiVo setup (w/ cablecards) would have been preferable, but have we really lost that much? Or am I not getting some bigger concept here?


HDMI in to a TiVo wouldn't do you any good unless you also add an HD-capable MPEG encoder. I'm not sure that firewire has the 'content protection' features that would make it acceptable output from a cable STB.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

HiDefGator said:


> Do you really believe that cable companies are investing millions of dollars in SDV to make third party cable card 1.0 hardware obsolete? You are delusional.
> 
> There aren't enough cable cards currently manufactured, nor will there be enough S3 sales to make the slightest dent in a cable companies revenue stream. The truth of the matter is they are completely ignoring the affects of their decisions on cable cards because virtually no one uses them today.


No wonder, if it's the same as here. I need to buy a new TV (mine died 2 days ago... argh), and called Cox to ask about CableCARD... they said that it's $150 to have it installed, and it has to be done by technician from Cox. Cable box though, has no installation fee, and I can pick up a box myself.

I can understand why CableCARD isn't more popular if that's how it is elsewhere too...


----------



## DCIFRTHS (Jan 6, 2000)

MickeS said:


> No wonder, if it's the same as here. I need to buy a new TV (mine died 2 days ago... argh), and called Cox to ask about CableCARD... they said that it's $150 to have it installed, and it has to be done by technician from Cox. Cable box though, has no installation fee, and I can pick up a box myself.
> 
> I can understand why CableCARD isn't more popular if that's how it is elsewhere too...


In my area. which is served by Cablevision, the install is about $40.00 for the truck roll, and the cards are $1.25 a month. That's cheaper than the STBs they rent.


----------



## btwyx (Jan 16, 2003)

vman41 said:


> I'm not sure that firewire has the 'content protection' features that would make it acceptable output from a cable STB.


FireWire does, its called 5C if I'm remembering right. The last time I read the regulations it seemed to say a cable provider must provide a FireWire capable box if asked for, just like they must provide a CableCard if asked for.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

DCIFRTHS said:


> When one product is 10 times more accessible than another product, how can that actually be considered competition?


You place unwarranted emphasis on this trivial aspect of the issue. I know you don't consider your emphasis unwarranted, or the aspect to be trivial, but that doesn't obviate the fact that, for all intents and purposes, your perspectives on these things aren't compatible with the law.



> For the last time . . . I am *not* happy about the law - that's my point.


I'm sorry you're not happy. About half the people in this country voted for the political party the supports this kind of business-friendly atmosphere. And the other political party is split, pretty-much down the middle, on such issues. So I suspect there isn't much chance of a change.



> You also didn't answer my question about opening up the cable lines like the phone companies were forced to do.


I worked for AT&T at the time of the break-up. I think our stockholders were screwed over by Judge Greene. I believe if government wants to solve a problem they should do it on their own dime, not pass along the costs to a company. That's really a big part of the problem here: Everyone wants things to be their way, but they're unwilling to pay the costs for what they want. It's irresponsible and a bit juvenile, if you ask me.

I'm in favor of the government taking away the ability for localities to prevent companies from installing their own cable television infrastructures. I'm also in favor of cable companies renting their facilities as they see fit at a price that they decide is worth offering such rentals.


----------



## HomieG (Feb 17, 2003)

Bicker, this is not meant to offend, but I do take issue with your statement "About half the people in this country voted for the political party the supports this kind of business-friendly atmosphere."

Actually it was about half the voters, not half the people. And with the continued growing apathy towards goverment, I am not even sure that is representative of the majority of the population...

Just my 2-cents.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

If they don't vote, they have no right to assert that their perspective should matter. So the difference between "half the people" and "half the voters" is effectively irrelevant.


----------



## m_jonis (Jan 3, 2002)

bicker said:


> I agree. So? We have to have a STB. That's not a big deal. Some of the stuff that has made it into regulations (like cablecard) are so misguided! Let the market determine what is offered and at what price.
> 
> It's called capitalism. Check it out.


One of the main features of the S3 was the ability to record two items at once. However, if the cable CO requires that you use a STB, how are you going to record two cable items at the same time? Especially if your Cable Co decides to put all their HD stuff into SDV?


----------



## HomieG (Feb 17, 2003)

bicker said:


> If they don't vote, they have no right to assert that their perspective should matter. So the difference between "half the people" and "half the voters" is effectively irrelevant.


Bleecchhh.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

m_jonis said:


> how are you going to record two cable items at the same time?


You ask that as if being able to do so is a civil right. (It isn't.)

Regardless, it's really TiVo's responsibility to answer that question for you, if they can. Incidentally, my STB has a dual tuner and records two HD programs at once.


----------



## jfh3 (Apr 15, 2004)

m_jonis said:


> One of the main features of the S3 was the ability to record two items at once. However, if the cable CO requires that you use a STB, how are you going to record two cable items at the same time? Especially if your Cable Co decides to put all their HD stuff into SDV?


Well, if you have to use a set top box, you can't use a Series 3 (no way to input a cable box output to Tivo) to record programs anyway.

It's also unlikely that the cable company would put the HD content in SDV (most of the HD content is on broadcast stations (which aren't good candidates for SDV) or ESPN, etc.


----------



## DCIFRTHS (Jan 6, 2000)

bicker said:


> You ask that as if being able to do so is a civil right. (It isn't.)
> 
> Regardless, it's really TiVo's responsibility to answer that question for you, if they can. Incidentally, my STB has a dual tuner and records two HD programs at once.


I realize that you truly believe you are always right, and you are entitled to that opinion, even though you have yet to back it up . . . even once, but what do you have against TiVo?


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

Note that while far from optimal an RF output from a cable box could theoretically be used as input to S3 so that doesn't completely eliminate a cable box from being used with S3 if one is really desperate. (if cable box doesn't have RF output you could use an RF modulator on S-video or composite outputs).


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

bicker said:


> About half the people in this country voted for the political party the supports this kind of business-friendly atmosphere.


A monopoly is not business-friendly. The cable system is a monopoly. Saying that it's not just because there is satellite service available doesn't make it less of a monopoly. For example, the satellite systems can't be used without a set-top box, which cable can, which makes cable significantly different from satellite.

By the way, I ended up buying a "TV" without a tuner, figuring I'll get the S3 when it comes out (I have no cable box now, only using the S2 for tuning) to get HD programming off the air and regular standard def programming via cable directly into the S3. If the cable company starts finding ways to limit the programming for those who do not use the cable-company supplied products, I don't see how that can be seen as business friendly. Well, except towards the one lucky enough to have a monopoly.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

jfh3 said:


> It's also unlikely that the cable company would put the HD content in SDV (most of the HD content is on broadcast stations (which aren't good candidates for SDV) or ESPN, etc.


According to some posters in this thread TWC is actually putting the majority of the HD channels on SDV, including ESPN. That's why I think it's a ploy to limit the usefullness of CableCARD. I mean they know that 99.9% of CableCARDs are deployed for use in HDTVs, and instead of moving a dozen or so of the 200+ digital cable channels to SDV, or eliminating just a couple of analog channels, they decided to move the majority of the HD channels to SDV instead.

Now I'm not saying this is some company wide conspiracy with every TWC employee laughing at CableCARD users. But I do think that when the decision was made someone knew the effect it would have on CableCARD users and chose to proceed because they thought it might result in a few more dollars a month from STB rentals and VOD/PPV.

Dan


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

moyekj said:


> Note that while far from optimal an RF output from a cable box could theoretically be used as input to S3 so that doesn't completely eliminate a cable box from being used with S3 if one is really desperate. (if cable box doesn't have RF output you could use an RF modulator on S-video or composite outputs).


If that's all you want to do then get a S2DT. The S3 will NOT have any way to control an external STB, so the ONLY thing you could do with this setup would be to manually record channel 3/4 in analog quality. With the S2DT you not only get IR/Serial control of the box but you can use the S-Video input to get better quality video and stereo sound.

Dan


----------



## CharlesH (Aug 29, 2002)

Does anyone know how much the cablecos make from STB rental? These boxes cost a couple of hundred dollars, and they have to maintain them, including expensive truck rolls if there are hardware problems. I would have thought that the real $$$ would be in the PPV/VOD products, where they wouldn't have any problem with third-party access devices that let customers buy the cableco's PPV/VOD products. What do they gain by being in the STB rental business?


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> If that's all you want to do then get a S2DT. The S3 will NOT have any way to control an external STB, so the ONLY thing you could do with this setup would be to manually record channel 3/4 in analog quality. With the S2DT you not only get IR/Serial control of the box but you can use the S-Video input to get better quality video and stereo sound.


 Correct. I was merely pointing out that recording from a cable box is not IMPOSSIBLE with the S3 as some have suggested, though for all practical purposes I suppose it is.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

CharlesH said:


> Does anyone know how much the cablecos make from STB rental? These boxes cost a couple of hundred dollars, and they have to maintain them, including expensive truck rolls if there are hardware problems. I would have thought that the real $$$ would be in the PPV/VOD products, where they wouldn't have any problem with third-party access devices that let customers buy the cableco's PPV/VOD products. What do they gain by being in the STB rental business?


PPV and VOD are where the real money is at, and as of right now CableCARD does NOT support either one. The current CableCARD spec is unidirectional, which means that 3rd party devices like the S3 will NOT be able to order PPV or VOD. Once the CableCARD 2.0 specification is finalized that will change, but once that happens SDV will no longer be an issue either.

Dan


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

CharlesH said:


> Does anyone know how much the cablecos make from STB rental? These boxes cost a couple of hundred dollars, and they have to maintain them, including expensive truck rolls if there are hardware problems. I would have thought that the real $$$ would be in the PPV/VOD products, where they wouldn't have any problem with third-party access devices that let customers buy the cableco's PPV/VOD products. What do they gain by being in the STB rental business?


A box lasts quite a while... at $10/month, they'll break even pretty quickly, I think.

But another reason is probably that they can't sell PPV or VOD as easily to people who don't have cable boxes, at least not currently.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

MickeS said:


> A box lasts quite a while... at $10/month, they'll break even pretty quickly, I think.
> 
> But another reason is probably that they can't sell PPV or VOD as easily to people who don't have cable boxes, at least not currently.


 Which is why they "strongly encourage" you to rent their boxes rather than using CableCard. I remember once in their billing breakout it was mentioned part of charge of digital cable is for VOD service. I called to say I don't need or want VOD so please remove that capability and that charge and the response was I had no choice - it's part of digital cable service and cannot be removed. VOD must obviously be a good stream of revenue for them as they have dedicated 7 full QAM 256 channels to it from my headend. The sub-standard video quality (compared to DVDs) and general slowness and limited functionality of the system were enough to put me off their VOD service.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

CharlesH said:


> Does anyone know how much the cablecos make from STB rental? These boxes cost a couple of hundred dollars, and they have to maintain them, including expensive truck rolls if there are hardware problems. I would have thought that the real $$$ would be in the PPV/VOD products, where they wouldn't have any problem with third-party access devices that let customers buy the cableco's PPV/VOD products. What do they gain by being in the STB rental business?


In my area Comcast includes one STB with any level of digital service. Additional digital STB's are $5. each. A dual tuner hi-def DVR STB w/120BG HD cost a flat $10. monthly with no additional outlet fee. Why would I want a Cable Card?

My Series 3 will not be used with a Cable Card. Without a card it will record everything except HBO, which Comcast's DVR can handle easily enough.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

TiVo Troll said:


> In my area Comcast includes one STB with any level of digital service. Additional digital STB's are $5. each. A dual tuner hi-def DVR STB w/120BG HD cost a flat $10. monthly with no additional outlet fee. Why would I want a Cable Card?


In my area CableCARDs cost $1.50 each, the MOXI DVR costs $16.95 per month. So two CableCARDs are considerably cheaper then keeping the MOXI around for HBO.

I plan on activating lifetime service on the S3 units we get, but even if I didn't it would still be cheaper per month to have a S3 with two CableCARDs then it would be to keep the MOXI. (minus the hardware cost of course)

Dan


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

TiVo Troll said:


> In my area Comcast includes one STB with any level of digital service. Additional digital STB's are $5. each. A dual tuner hi-def DVR STB w/120BG HD cost a flat $10. monthly with no additional outlet fee. Why would I want a Cable Card?
> 
> My Series 3 will not be used with a Cable Card. Without a card it will record everything except HBO, which Comcast's DVR can handle easily enough.


Don't tell me you actually think they don't charge you for the cable box? 

But yes, that's the whole point - with a cable card, they still won't drop the charge for the cable box. They don't want to you to get a cable card.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

MickeS said:


> Don't tell me you actually think they don't charge you for the cable box?


What don't you understand about what I posted?



> But yes, that's the whole point - with a cable card, they still won't drop the charge for the cable box. They don't want to you to get a cable card.


Your statement is false. Comcast does NOT charge for *Cable Cards*.


----------



## CharlesH (Aug 29, 2002)

MickeS said:


> But yes, that's the whole point - with a cable card, they still won't drop the charge for the cable box. They don't want to you to get a cable card.


My question really was if it is in the cableco's financial interest to drag their heels to inhibit a technology that supports their PPV/VOD products, such as CableCard 2.0? Do they really find it in their interest to do whatever they can to protect specifically their STB rental business?

SBC used to insist that in order to use their DSL, you were supposed to buy *their* modem and run *their* PPPoE software on your computer. Now they couldn't care less. While they are happy to sell you a modem if you want one, they aren't in the business of selling DSL modems/routers.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

CharlesH said:


> My question really was if it is in the cableco's financial interest to drag their heels to inhibit a technology that supports their PPV/VOD products, such as CableCard 2.0?


They're not really dragging their feet on CC2.0, they're fighting with the CE companies for control. The cable companies want to force OCAP into the CC2.0 specification which would basically make it so all CC2.0 devices would be forced to use a cable company supplied UI for all advanced features. The CE companies, and most rational people, think that's crap and want them to implement some sort of open communication protocol that allows them to tap into the advanced features from their own UI.

I think that ultimately the CE companies will win, since their approach is more in the public interest. But the cable companies aren't going to agree to that unless the absolutely have to.

Dan


----------



## CharlesH (Aug 29, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> They're not really dragging their feet on CC2.0, they're fighting with the CE companies for control. The cable companies want to force OCAP into the CC2.0 specification which would basically make it so all CC2.0 devices would be forced to use a cable company supplied UI for all advanced features. The CE companies, and most rational people, think that's crap and want them to implement some sort of open communication protocol that allows them to tap into the advanced features from their own UI.


What's in it for the cable companies to force the OCAP UI down the consumer's throat? Is there ad revenue or licensing revenue or something like that? In other words, other than satisfying a control-freak urge, what does this do for the cable company's bottom line? They get paid for their PPV/VOD/whatever; what else do they want?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

OCAP insures that the cable company has complete control and that all of their services are offered to the user, complete with the little banner ads surrounding each screen. The communication protocol the CE manufactures want would allow them to design the UI any way they want, with ot without banner ads, and pick and chose which cable services they offer to the users. 

Dan


----------



## m_jonis (Jan 3, 2002)

bicker said:


> You ask that as if being able to do so is a civil right. (It isn't.)
> 
> Regardless, it's really TiVo's responsibility to answer that question for you, if they can. Incidentally, my STB has a dual tuner and records two HD programs at once.


I did? And you know this how?

I was simply stating that was one of the "touted" features of the Series 3 and that with SDV you could no longer do that.

But thanks for being psychic.


----------



## m_jonis (Jan 3, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> PPV and VOD are where the real money is at, and as of right now CableCARD does NOT support either one. The current CableCARD spec is unidirectional, which means that 3rd party devices like the S3 will NOT be able to order PPV or VOD. Once the CableCARD 2.0 specification is finalized that will change, but once that happens SDV will no longer be an issue either.
> 
> Dan


Dan, that's what I thought too, but apparently (if you read earlier in this thread) I'm wrong.

Everyone keeps saying that:

a) CC 2.0 isn't finalized yet, so don't count on it addressing SDV
b) CC 2.0 allows for bi-directional communication, but no requirement to actually do it
c) CC 2.0 still won't allow for SDV to work --something about SDV utilizing OCAP or something
d) Tivo Series 3 will not be CC 2.0 compatible.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I don't know what everyone else is saying, but they're worng. CC2.0 *requires* bidirectional support. (the hardware specification has been issued, they're just working out the software particulars) And since SDV is basically just VOD for live TV, the only thing they need to make SDV work with CableCARD is bidirectional support.

Dan


----------



## m_jonis (Jan 3, 2002)

Thanks Dan.

although when I linked to the Cable Labs site, it does appear that the 2.0 spec is not yet locked down. They list it as "ISSUED" which isn't the final stage. The final stage is "closed" but it's not there yet. Apparently it can still be changed.

Unfortunately (at least TW) I believe has stated they will use OCAP for their SDV. That pretty much whack's the the Tivo right there because OCAP controls the interface (no Tivo for us).

I can always hope I'm wrong. But even if CC 2.0 can do SDV, the Tivo can't do CC 2.0 (Series 3 anyway) or so I'm told.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> In my area CableCARDs cost $1.50 each, the MOXI DVR costs $16.95 per month. So two CableCARDs are considerably cheaper then keeping the MOXI around for HBO.
> 
> I plan on activating lifetime service on the S3 units we get, but even if I didn't it would still be cheaper per month to have a S3 with two CableCARDs then it would be to keep the MOXI. (minus the hardware cost of course)
> 
> Dan


Obviously in your situation it's the right way to go!

Besides premium channels Comcast's STB's (whether or not they are DVR's) access a huge amount of *VOD*, a great deal of which is free. (The link is just to the "A" page!) It definitely makes sense to keep at least the STB that is supplied at no extra cost with digital service.


----------



## jfh3 (Apr 15, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> According to some posters in this thread TWC is actually putting the majority of the HD channels on SDV, including ESPN. That's why I think it's a ploy to limit the usefullness of CableCARD. I mean they know that 99.9% of CableCARDs are deployed for use in HDTVs, and instead of moving a dozen or so of the 200+ digital cable channels to SDV, or eliminating just a couple of analog channels, they decided to move the majority of the HD channels to SDV instead.


Missed that.

If true, I hope there's a Tivo-loving lawyer that will start a class action suit against TWC for deliberately circumventing the intent of CableCards.


----------



## jfh3 (Apr 15, 2004)

TiVo Troll said:


> Without a card it will record everything except HBO, which Comcast's DVR can handle easily enough.


Unless you only get the lifeline tier, I doubt it will record everything other than HBO - can't imagine everything is in the clear.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

m_jonis said:


> although when I linked to the Cable Labs site, it does appear that the 2.0 spec is not yet locked down. They list it as "ISSUED" which isn't the final stage. The final stage is "closed" but it's not there yet. Apparently it can still be changed.


Listed means the hardware is locked down and manufactirers can start devloping devices against the specification. However it wont be closed until they get the software stuff figured out.

Dan


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

TiVo Troll said:


> Besides premium channels Comcast's STB's (whether or not they are DVR's) access a huge amount of *VOD*, a great deal of which is free. (The link is just to the "A" page!) It definitely makes sense to keep at least the STB that is supplied at no extra cost with digital service.


Actually we plan on keep our "free" STB just in case we want to watch VOD. However I doubt we'll use it much, since we can just record movies off the HD versions of the premium channels and get better quality.

Dan


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

jfh3 said:


> Unless you only get the lifeline tier, I doubt it will record everything other than HBO - can't imagine everything is in the clear.


You're probably right. (I just noticed on Comcast's website that although one digital cable box is included with any level of digital service, a high-def single tuner non-DVR STB costs $5. monthly. Since Comcast's dual tuner hi-def DVR costs $10. monthly, the DVR is a better deal.)

Comcast's website uses cookies and is keyed to an entered ZIP. Therefore links to what is available won't work right. Let's see what I can copy and paste: (BTW, Comcast's "Lifeline" service is called "Limited Basic". It costs $14.95 monthly but Comcast's website only refers to it on the Channel Line-ups page: )
____________________________________________________________
_Limited Basic

2 Northwest Cable News

3 KWPX

4 KOMO

5 KING

6 KONG

7 KIRO

8 Discovery Channel

9 KCTS

10 Government Access

11 KSTW

12 KVOS

13 KCPQ

14 KBCB

15 KHCV

16 QVC

17 Home Shopping Network

18 KWDK

19 Hallmark Channel

20 KTBW

21 CIVT Canadian

22 KTWB

23 TVW

24 C-SPAN

25 C-SPAN2

26 Community Programming

27 CBUT

28 Univision

75 Shop NBC

76 Leased Access

77 Jewelry TV

78 The Weather Channel

99-1 TV Guide Channel

104 KOMO in Hi-Def

105 KING in Hi-Def

106 KONG in Hi-Def

108 KCTS in Hi-Def

109 KCTS Digital

110 KTWB in Hi-Def

112 KCTS Create

113 KCPQ in Hi-Def

119 KCTS Kids

____________________________________________________________
Cable

With Digital Cable you get more choices -- more than 200 channels, commercial free digital-quality music and an interactive on-screen guide. In areas that offer ON DEMAND, you can enjoy a library of more than 3,000 programs all ready to start when ever you want. ON DEMAND is not available in all areas.

Digital Package(s) Premium Channels Other Features Monthly Price

Digital Platinum 5 ON DEMAND, Onscreen Guide $104.98

Digital Gold 2 ON DEMAND, Onscreen Guide $87.98

Digital Silver 1 ON DEMAND, Onscreen Guide $71.98

Digital Plus N/A ON DEMAND, Onscreen Guide $61.98

Digital Classic N/A ON DEMAND, Onscreen Guide $57.98

Digital Plus Special N/A ON DEMAND, Onscreen Guide $41.98

Web Only Offer! Digital Cable & HBO for $39.99/mo for 3 mo 1 On Demand $39.99

Digital Sports Tier N/A ON DEMAND $4.99

Howard Stern On Demand N/A $109.99 for the year $0.00 
____________________________________________________________ 
Basic Package(s) Premium Channels Other Features Monthly Price

Basic Cable Service N/A Cable Favorites $45.99

Family Tier NA $34.69

Cable TV Special N/A Cable Favorites $19.99

Enhanced Cable N/A ON DEMAND, Program Guide $19.99 
____________________________________________________________ 
High-Definition Television

Comcast makes high-definition TV simple. If you have a new high-definition TV set, all you need is a Comcast HDTV cable box to make it come alive. If it's not in your neighborhood yet, it may be coming soon.

HDTV Monthly Price

High-Definition Television $5.00 
____________________________________________________________

Digital Video Recorder

DVR from Comcast lets you easily record and pause live TV. Record up to 60 hours of programs or up to 15 hours of HDTV programs. You can even record two shows at once or record one show while watching another live TV program. You must subscribe to Digital Cable to subscribe to Digital Video Recorder.

DVR Monthly Price

Digital Video Recorder $9.95

Digital Video Recorder w/High-Definition $9.95_


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

DCIFRTHS said:


> One provider with no competition sounds like a monopoly to me, but maybe your definition is from another dictionary.


The key word being "sounds", in that cable is a perceived monopoly.
Yes, they may have a monopoly on coaxial delivered television services, they don't have a de-facto monopoly on delivery of those services altoghether.



> How do you feel about the cable companies being forced to open their lines so that other companies can provide service?


Sure. Just like Long Distance is opened to a number of companies, Cable could provide the wire and local channels, and you seek subscription to pay programming from various 3rd party vendors.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

CharlesH said:


> Does anyone know how much the cablecos make from STB rental?


Probably not a lot from the actual rental of the box. Although they do buy them at cost. I figure they might pay off in three years, on avreage. The money is from services, including charging for an authorisation fee to have the box active on your account.

They probably don't figure costs on a per account/box basis. They just buy a lot of boxes, from their general revenue, then just lease them out.



> These boxes cost a couple of hundred dollars, and they have to maintain them, including expensive truck rolls if there are hardware problems. I would have thought that the real $$$ would be in the PPV/VOD products, where they wouldn't have any problem with third-party access devices that let customers buy the cableco's PPV/VOD products.
> 
> 
> > Exactly, except there are no 3rd party boxes that do 2-way, and the 3rd party manufacturers don't necessarily want the cableco to have total control of the UI for interactive features.
> ...


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

MickeS said:


> Don't tell me you actually think they don't charge you for the cable box?
> 
> But yes, that's the whole point - with a cable card, they still won't drop the charge for the cable box. They don't want to you to get a cable card.


Its not necessarly a charge for a box, but a charge to have something authorised to receive their digital cable. The fact it is a physical box is almost beside the point.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

m_jonis said:


> Dan, that's what I thought too, but apparently (if you read earlier in this thread) I'm wrong.
> 
> Everyone keeps saying that:
> 
> a) CC 2.0 isn't finalized yet, so don't count on it addressing SDV


If it can do VOD, there is no reason it cannot do SDV. VOD and SDV are practically the same, as far as the STB are concerned.


> b) CC 2.0 allows for bi-directional communication, but no requirement to actually do it


I think Dan is off on this one. IMO, a 2.0 card could work without the return channel, but only no more as a multistream 1.0 card.


> c) CC 2.0 still won't allow for SDV to work --something about SDV utilizing OCAP or something


The card itself and associated return channel components in the tuner will allow SDV. Until the software side (OCAP or otherwise) is worked out, a tuner will not.


> d) Tivo Series 3 will not be CC 2.0 compatible.


It won't support bi-directional features of the CC2.0 spec. See response to b above.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

classicsat said:


> I think Dan is off on this one. IMO, a 2.0 card could work without the return channel, but only no more as a multistream 1.0 card.


I may not have been clear on this. CableCARD 2.0 is completely backward compatible, so if you plug a CC2.0 card into a CC1.0 device it will work just like a CC1.0 card would in that device. However in order to become a CC2.0 certified device you are required to support the bidirectional communication portion of the spec. That's why I said CC2.0 requires bidirectional support, because if a device does not support bidirectional communication then it's just a CC1.0 device.

Dan


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

TiVo Troll said:


> Obviously in your situation it's the right way to go!
> 
> Besides premium channels Comcast's STB's (whether or not they are DVR's) access a huge amount of *VOD*, a great deal of which is free. (The link is just to the "A" page!) It definitely makes sense to keep at least the STB that is supplied at no extra cost with digital service.


I dunno what I'll do when I get a HDTV and a Series 3. Assuming Comcast in my area WON'T be doing lame stuff like the Switched Digital, I would get 2 CableCards for the series 3. This would let me record ANYTHING they offered. Currently, I only have analog expanded basic, but I'll need to jump to a digital pacage to get HiDef stuff. That will give me some digital SD channels I currently don't get, and I'd want to TiVo those. For normal TV viewing, I dunno what I would do. Maybe a 3rd cable card for the TV? Or, maybe a HD STB. Some of the "onDemand" stuff is appealing since I understand a good portion of it is at no additional cost.


----------



## terryfoster (Jul 21, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> Some of the "onDemand" stuff is appealing since I understand a good portion of it is at no additional cost.


Yeah, "onDemand" is a good concept and executed well for HBO and Showtime, but other channels don't really offer compelling content. So, since I don't subscribe to HBO or Showtime, I never watch "onDemand" programming.


----------



## jeffrypennock (May 18, 2006)

jfh3 said:


> If true, I hope there's a Tivo-loving lawyer that will start a class action suit against TWC for deliberately circumventing the intent of CableCards.


SIGN ME UP! I'm not a lawyer and I'm not generally a litigious person but I'd gladly be a complainant in that suit!!!

Also, I have a question regarding the Series 3 machine itself and what we know about it. I'm familiar with what they showed at CES and I'm aware that they've said "second half of of 2006" for the release date...but do we actually KNOW that we're going to get series 3 then and that it will resemble what we saw at CES in any way? If the barriers are as they have been reported here, they'd be foolish produce the machine at all. I see four plausible options, all of which have been dismissed or haven't been mentioned: 
1) Series 3 (at least as it was demo'ed at CES and as we currently concieve of it) will never exist due to the switched video and cable card drama
2) They'll hold off on Series 3 until CC2.0 develops and begins to be widely implemented (whenever that is); people are saying series 3 can't do CC2.0 as if they have thousands of them sitting in their living rooms right now...all we know is the one at CES wasn't CC2.0 compliant because the standard is still in flux, right?
3) They'll develop some new combination of software and hardware as a way around/to work with the switched video drama that rehabs cable card or enables it to act as the tuner even without the cards...don't jump all over me about this one as being impossible or unthinkable because each of you is currently surrounded by devices which are performing tasks that were unthinkably impossible right up until someone figured out how to make them possible. I'm using my mobile phone with a broadband wireless internet connection to make this post...a laughable idea a few years ago. Also a few years ago, when we heard about a box that would replace our perfectly good VCRs and change the way we watch TV (heck, change our lives), that seemed ridiculous. And a couple years later, that stuff on that box which DID change the way you watch TV would automatically download itself to your computer (and maybe even your iPod) so you could watch it on the subway, seemed wrought with technological and legal barriers that couldn't be overcome...right up until they were.
4) Maybe the fastest way for TiVo to satisfy us isn't to BEAT the cable companies but to continue to join them. TiVo has already acknowledged that an alliance w/ satellite TV isn't sufficient (because for many people, satellite TV is an undesirable option or not an option at all); so far, it's just Comcast. But rather than fighting switched video (which DOES offer us the possibility to get many more channels in the future), if TiVo software is running on the DT HD switched video STB we get from our cable company, there's no problem at all. The partnership with Comcast should be just the beginning. Shaking an angry fist at Time Warner (and other companies) about cable cards is one course of action (one I'm not totally opposed to)...but I'm not sure that it yields a solution. Demanding that partner with Time Warner and other additional cable companies does.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

1) There is currently nothing they can do to get around the switched video problem, so all they can do is hold off or go forward with that they showed at CES.

2) Even after CC2.0 is ratified it'll probably be a year or more before it's actually deployed. I don't know about you, but I'd rather not wait another 2 years to get an HD TiVo.

3) This is the best hope for a S3 ever becoming CC2.0 compatible. However there are hardware requirements for CC2.0 certification which are not easily obtained via a breakout box. The biggest being a FireWire port. USB is not fast enough to emulate FireWire, and eSATA port is meant for hard drives. However one thought I did have was that CableCARD slots are essentially PCMCIA slots, and PCMCIA has more then enough bandwidth to handle firewire. So if TiVo could somehow figure out a way to use one of those slots for a breakout box then they could add all the hardware required to make a S3 CC2.0 compatible. Although that that point it becomes a question of whether or not it's cheaper to simply develope a Series 4 unit and have people who need it upgrade.

4) As you pointed out they already have a deal with Comcast for this. There have also been hints that Cox is also looking at TiVo as well. So this is most likely their long term goal. However, for now, they have to do what they can to be competitve and stay alive.

Dan


----------



## jfh3 (Apr 15, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> 3) This is the best hope for a S3 ever becoming CC2.0 compatible. However there are hardware requirements for CC2.0 certification which are not easily obtained via a breakout box. The biggest being a FireWire port. USB is not fast enough to emulate FireWire, and eSATA port is meant for hard drives. However one thought I did have was that CableCARD slots are essentially PCMCIA slots, and PCMCIA has more then enough bandwidth to handle firewire. So if TiVo could somehow figure out a way to use one of those slots for a breakout box then they could add all the hardware required to make a S3 CC2.0 compatible. Although that that point it becomes a question of whether or not it's cheaper to simply develope a Series 4 unit and have people who need it upgrade.


If there's a motherboard slot, perhaps there could be some sort of daughter card to provide the 2.0 h/w function. As you point out, the CableCard slots could handle the external interface if necessary, though I suspect far more would want the 2-way function over the firewire.

Given that I'm going to use a lifetime card to activate an S3, I vote to make the S3 upgradable over needing an S4 box any time soon ...


----------



## jeffrypennock (May 18, 2006)

Your points are well taken but I'd like to respond point by point, not to be antagonistic but to make sure that assumptions don't get treated as fact.



Dan203 said:


> 1) There is currently nothing they can do to get around the switched video problem, so all they can do is hold off or go forward with that they showed at CES.


While I believe there is nothing any of us posting on this thread are currently aware of to get around the switched video problem, I'm unwilling to accept that there's nothing that can be done. The switched video issue is largely a bandwith/compression/decoding issue...not at all unique to this platform. Satellite TV, satellite radio, phone, wireless data, etc., are CONSTANTLY presented with new problems in this arena, to which they respond with new solutions. Saying that a problem's solution isn't known doesn't mean that the problem is unsolvable. A hypothetical example (which may or may not work): It may be that a software modification allows the TiVo (once cable account info is entered) to negotiate and authenticate and manage a connection with the cable company adequate to perform the switched video functions that an STB is currently required for. I think that the hold off or run with the CES box is a false dichotomy.



Dan203 said:


> 2) Even after CC2.0 is ratified it'll probably be a year or more before it's actually deployed. I don't know about you, but I'd rather not wait another 2 years to get an HD TiVo.


Absolutely! I think it's possible that it may take even more than two years for CC2.0 to be meaningfully deployed (if ever?). And I too don't want to wait 2 years to get an HD TiVo. I don't want 2 months to get an HD TiVo. In fact, I'd like to have my HD TiVo within the next 2 days. However, I'm not sure what impact our preferences will have. And there are questions (as you point out yourself) about how long the CES box would be functional as an HD TiVo, even if they handed it to me 2 hours from now.



Dan203 said:


> 3) This is the best hope for a S3 ever becoming CC2.0 compatible. However there are hardware requirements for CC2.0 certification which are not easily obtained via a breakout box. The biggest being a FireWire port. USB is not fast enough to emulate FireWire, and eSATA port is meant for hard drives. However one thought I did have was that CableCARD slots are essentially PCMCIA slots, and PCMCIA has more then enough bandwidth to handle firewire. So if TiVo could somehow figure out a way to use one of those slots for a breakout box then they could add all the hardware required to make a S3 CC2.0 compatible. Although that that point it becomes a question of whether or not it's cheaper to simply develope a Series 4 unit and have people who need it upgrade.


Again, you are limiting yourself to the CES box. As far as I know, the S3 has yet to be mass-produced (if it has been, then the hold-off option seems less likely); hence, I think an S3 with a firewire built-in (skip the PCMIA work-arounds) is a reasonable option. the question is: does the firewire port solve the problem? A firewire could attach to a CC2.0 adapter, but that doesn't get us anywhere anytime soon because CC2.0 is a couple years away from being useful to us, like we said above. What I was proposing in here was some sort of overhaul of the software and/or hardware in the S3 and the development of novel stuff. I'll be the first to admit, this stinks because it means we're far from having that HD TiVo in our living room...but it may the solution. In the alternative, they could go to court and try to force the cable companies to stay CC1.x compliant (i.e., not switching to switched video, etc.) and thus compatible with the CES box. 
As a side note, it's my speculation that we're a lot more likely to end up using that firewire port to control the cable box (like we do with serial ports on our S2 boxes) and to get the live HD video out of the cable STB and into HD recording TiVo box. I know, I know, but what about DT functions...if you want to record 2 HD cable channels, that might require TWO STB and TWO firewire ports...not pretty.



Dan203 said:


> 4) As you pointed out they already have a deal with Comcast for this. There have also been hints that Cox is also looking at TiVo as well. So this is most likely their long term goal. However, for now, they have to do what they can to be competitve and stay alive.


With this one, you've hit the nail on the head in my opinion. They've got to stay alive and stay competitive. Based on what I'm reading here, a CC1.x box like the one demo'ed at CES doesn't do that. They're competing with cheap (<$15/mo DVR service) HD DVR's integrated into the cable boxes their cable company is will to provide them for free (you don't have to BUY the cable box). TiVo was never going to be the cheaper option (even IF you don't need the cable STB anymore and the CC only costs $1.25/mo/CC, the cheapest TiVo service is $17/mo which adds up to $19.50/mo); we're paying for the TiVo quality, for the ease of use, etc. HOWEVER, most users aren't going to be aware just how superior TiVo is to the DVR their cable company is trying to sell them and will be unwilling to pay more for a service that has limitations in the line-up because it runs CC1.x or to buy Firewire/PCMIA/other adaptors additionally. That's what causes me to conclude the S3 doesn't do much if anything to keep TiVo alive, as it was presented at CES. And while none of these are overnight solutions (who knows how long the Comcast thing was in the works before we heard about it), I'm afraid that integrating TiVo into the Cox and Time Warner, etc. boxes might be the fastest option.

I'd love to be wrong about this, incidentally.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

jfh3 said:


> Unless you only get the lifeline tier, I doubt it will record everything other than HBO - can't imagine everything is in the clear.


I already replied to post #215 with a detailed copy-and-paste in post #218. In #218 I stated that *jfh3* was "probably right" about there being more than just HBO that my Series 3 couldn't record w/o a Cable Card. (We don't subscribe to any other premium service than HBO.) It's a given that Series 3 can't receive VOD with or without a CC.

Looking over post #218, does anyone see an example of premium programming other than HBO and the 3 other premium movie services which Series 3 would need a CC to receive?


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

jeffrypennock said:


> ...the cheapest TiVo service is $17/mo which adds up to $19.50/mo (w/2 add-on CC's @$1.25); we're paying for the TiVo quality, for the ease of use, etc. HOWEVER, most users aren't going to be aware just how superior TiVo is to the DVR their cable company is trying to sell them and will be unwilling to pay more for a service that has limitations in the line-up because it runs CC1.x or to buy Firewire/PCMIA/other adaptors additionally. That's what causes me to conclude the S3 doesn't do much if anything to keep TiVo alive, as it was presented at CES. And while none of these are overnight solutions (who knows how long the Comcast thing was in the works before we heard about it), I'm afraid that integrating TiVo into the Cox and Time Warner, etc. boxes might be the fastest option.
> 
> I'd love to be wrong about this, incidentally.


My take on this situation is that many people don't need more features than are offered from cable company dual-tuner hi-def DVR's. The shortcoming that people do notice in many cable company DVR's is that often they're not as stable and reliable as TiVo routinely is.


----------



## jfh3 (Apr 15, 2004)

TiVo Troll said:


> I already replied to post #215 with a detailed copy-and-paste in post #218. In #218 I stated that *jfh3* was "probably right" about there being more than just HBO that my Series 3 couldn't record w/o a Cable Card. (We don't subscribe to any other premium service than HBO.) It's a given that Series 3 can't receive VOD with or without a CC.
> 
> Looking over post #218, does anyone see an example of premium programming other than HBO and the 3 other premium movie services which Series 3 would need a CC to receive?


Unless there is a way to map QAM frequencies (and I sure hope there is), you would most likely need a CC to get 104 and above.


----------



## jeffrypennock (May 18, 2006)

TiVo Troll said:


> My take on this situation is that many people don't need more features than are offered from cable company dual-tuner hi-def DVR's. The shortcoming that people do notice in many cable company DVR's is that often they're not as stable and reliable as TiVo routinely is.


Add ease-of-use to that list and I would agree with that.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

TiVo Troll said:


> My take on this situation is that many people don't need more features than are offered from cable company dual-tuner hi-def DVR's. The shortcoming that people do notice in many cable company DVR's is that often they're not as stable and reliable as TiVo routinely is.


if you are used to TiVo and have come to rely on it and the way it works and handles the Season Pass subscriptions and the like, (I'm not even talking HMO, TiVo To Go, etc.), it will be tough for people like us to give up the TiVo. For core DVR functionality. TiVo really excels.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

jeffrypennock said:


> While I believe there is nothing any of us posting on this thread are currently aware of to get around the switched video problem, I'm unwilling to accept that there's nothing that can be done. The switched video issue is largely a bandwith/compression/decoding issue...not at all unique to this platform. Satellite TV, satellite radio, phone, wireless data, etc., are CONSTANTLY presented with new problems in this arena, to which they respond with new solutions. Saying that a problem's solution isn't known doesn't mean that the problem is unsolvable. A hypothetical example (which may or may not work): It may be that a software modification allows the TiVo (once cable account info is entered) to negotiate and authenticate and manage a connection with the cable company adequate to perform the switched video functions that an STB is currently required for. I think that the hold off or run with the CES box is a false dichotomy.


Switched digital technology is basically VOD for live TV stations. It *requires* bidirectional communication to function. The S3 will NOT have the hardware required for bidirectional communication so it's impossible for it to work with SDV. However even if it did have all the hardware required to do SDV without the CableCARD 2.0 standard there is no way they'd be able to communicate with the head end equipment anyway.



jeffrypennock said:


> the question is: does the firewire port solve the problem? A firewire could attach to a CC2.0 adapter, but that doesn't get us anywhere anytime soon because CC2.0 is a couple years away from being useful to us, like we said above.


The FireWire port has nothing to do with the actual CC2.0 functions. However it is a requirement of the CC2.0 specification, and without it TiVo can not get the S3 unit CC2.0 approved. And without CC2.0 approval they could not legally use any of the other functions of the CC2.0 specification, including the bidirectional communication portion.

Just an FYI but the FireWire ports function is to output an MPEG stream for use with external recording devices such as D-VHS recorders. It's inclusion in the spec was mandated by the FCC.



jeffrypennock said:


> With this one, you've hit the nail on the head in my opinion. They've got to stay alive and stay competitive. Based on what I'm reading here, a CC1.x box like the one demo'ed at CES doesn't do that.


But as it is the box shown at CES is the best they can do with the standards that currently exist. Until the CC2.0 specification is closed and the cards themselves are deployed there is NOTHING TiVo can do to address the SDV issue. Luckily SDV is currently only being used in a few markets across the country so very few people will be effected. And on top of that it's illegal for the cable companies to use SDV for local channels, so even people in those markets that are effect should be able to use S3 units to record their HD locals. However the S3 will certainly be a lot less attractive to those people when compared to the cable companies DVR which can record the SDV channels as well.

Dan


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

jsmeeker said:


> if you are used to TiVo and have come to rely on it and the way it works and handles the Season Pass subscriptions and the like, (I'm not even talking HMO, TiVo To Go, etc.), it will be tough for people like us to give up the TiVo. For core DVR functionality. TiVo really excels.


You shouldn't have to!

I'm not advocating anything that would change TiVo's capabilities for its hardcore users. I'm trying to open up possibilities that would create profitable opportunities for TiVo in a difficult and often fickle mass-market.

I identify with mass-market DVR users. DVR's are the neatest thing to happen to TV since the VCR.

I'm not hooked on TiVo as you are, but appreciate the drive and perseverance of its founders in creating a product they truly believe in. I have 2 TiVo's, a Comcast dual-tuner hi-def DVR, 4 ReplayTV's, 3 LG DVR's, 3 HD/DVD recorders and a few older DVR's in boxes. All this is way more than I need! I don't even watch much TV!

BTW, there's a rare *LG LST-3410A HDTV Digital Video Recorder/Receiver* (search for it) on eBay right now! The same seller has been offering them one at a time for awhile now. They routinely sell at high prices; too rich for my blood!


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> ...And on top of that *it's illegal for the cable companies to use SDV for local channels*, so even people in those markets that are effect should be able to use S3 units to record their HD locals.


 Is that so?? That's news to me. I know of the requirement to provide HD locals unencrypted but I don't think that automatically rules out the use of SDV for them. I thought the TW test markets were using SDV for ALL HD channels (including HD locals)? I'm not saying you are wrong just curious as to where you got this information from?


----------



## terryfoster (Jul 21, 2003)

moyekj said:


> Is that so?? That's news to me. I know of the requirement to provide HD locals unencrypted but I don't think that automatically rules out the use of SDV for them.


On top of that (depending on interpretation) it isn't a real "requirement" for HD locals to be offered in the clear. I can't seem to find the rules right now, but I believe it is possible to interpret the rule to mean they must be offered in the clear if it is the only way the station is offered. So, in other words, if they offer an ABC affiliate on your cable in analog then they don't _have_ to offer the digital station in the clear.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

It's my understanding that "in the clear" means that it can be received without having to lease equipment from the cable company. Since SDV requires the use of a STB I don't think anything that is required to be transmitted "in the clear" can be put on the SDV system.

As for which channels are subject to this "in the clear" mandate... I was under the impression that if the station being transmitted was originally broadcast over public airwaves then the cable company was required to transmit that station "in the clear". If the cable company chooses not to carry a specific channel that's their choice (except for "must carry" channels) but if they offer it then it must be "in the clear".

Also based on what I've seen here TWC has been using SDV for all cable HD channels, such a Discovery HD, Universal HD, TNT-HD, ESPN-HD, etc... I have yet to see anyone say that they are using it for HD locals.

Dan


----------



## terryfoster (Jul 21, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> It's my understanding that "in the clear" means that it can be received without having to lease equipment from the cable company. Since SDV requires the use of a STB I don't think anything that is required to be transmitted "in the clear" can be put on the SDV system.
> 
> As for which channels are subject to this "in the clear" mandate... I was under the impression that if the station being transmitted was originally broadcast over public airwaves then the cable company was required to transmit that station "in the clear". If the cable company chooses not to carry a specific channel that's their choice (except for "must carry" channels) but if they offer it then it must be "in the clear".


Now that I'm at work I have access to my bookmarks, and here is the document. I believe (while playing devil's advocate) this is still open to intrepretation. Not to mention they can just say "we face effective competition under one of the four statutory tests" and stop sending them in the clear.

Don't get me wrong I agree with you and I personally believe the document says they should be in the clear, but I just haven't heard of anybody challenging their cable company when they weren't in the clear to test this document.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

jfh3 said:


> Unless there is a way to map QAM frequencies (and I sure hope there is), you would most likely need a CC to get 104 and above.


My two LG HD QAM tuners, *LST 4200A and LST-3510*, get such channels.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MickeS said:


> A monopoly is not business-friendly.


Correct.


> The cable system is a monopoly.


Incorrect. That's not me saying that -- that's the federal judiciary. I know a lot of people here feel they know better than our elected and appointed judges, but that's just arrogance. You don't like that cable companies aren't monopolies. I get that. I know you would want them to be treated as such. Sorry. They won't be because they aren't. As far as I know, no one here in this forum has been designated by the institutions of our government to rule on that issue, and the people that are the experts on the laws pertaining to monopolies have spoken and they have indicated clearly the reality of the situation.

What do you want? Citations of the court cases where your perspective was defeated on the merits?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MickeS said:


> A box lasts quite a while... at $10/month, they'll break even pretty quickly, I think.


If rumor is to believed, the Series 3 TiVos will be "very expensive" -- let's say $800 for argument's sake. So 80 months to break even. If cable company HD DVRs can break even "pretty quickly," what are they doing right that TiVo is doing wrong?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

m_jonis said:


> I did? And you know this how?


By reading.



> I was simply stating that was one of the "touted" features of the Series 3 and that with SDV you could no longer do that.


So why would you object to my suggestion that responsibility for your disappointment be placed on those who "touted" things to you that they will be unable to deliver?


----------



## NickIN (Dec 26, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> I may not have been clear on this. CableCARD 2.0 is completely backward compatible, so if you plug a CC2.0 card into a CC1.0 device it will work just like a CC1.0 card would in that device. However in order to become a CC2.0 certified device you are required to support the bidirectional communication portion of the spec. That's why I said CC2.0 requires bidirectional support, because if a device does not support bidirectional communication then it's just a CC1.0 device.
> 
> Dan


I'm wondering if the CC2.0 card will fit in the S3 slots, would it be possible for TiVo to release a software update at some point in the future to make existing S3 boxes bidirectional compatible? Or is it something that will require specific new hardware components?


----------



## terryfoster (Jul 21, 2003)

NickIN said:


> I'm wondering if the CC2.0 card will fit in the S3 slots, would it be possible for TiVo to release a software update at some point in the future to make existing S3 boxes bidirectional compatible? Or is it something that will require specific new hardware components?


Yeah, I had that same idea awhile ago. Apparently there are major hardware differences between CC1.x and CC2.0 requirements such as a cable modem of sorts. We've also discussed the possibility of adding the necessary hardware, but the lack of a firewire port also keeps it from being a CC2.0 device (or so I've heard). Although if the CC1.x slot can be used as a regular PCMCIA slot then a firewire port can be added.

So, it is VERY unlikely TiVo will release the hardware necessary to make the S3 CC2.0 compatible.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

The CC2.0 card will fit in the S3 slots just fine because CC2.0 cards are completely backward compatible. However, as Terry said, it's highly unlikely the S3 will ever be able to support the new features due to the other hardware requirements of the spec. It _might_ be possible to add this extra hardware to the S3 platform via some sort of breakout box, but the R&D costs to create such a breakout box might be beyond it's benefit.

For now though the S3 will work perfectly fine for the majority of people. The only ones who really have to worry are those in Time Warner territory as they have already deployed switched digital in a few markets and have plans to deploy it to more markets over the next couple of years. All the other cable providers are looking at it, but few have even committed to using it yet and none have actually deployed it.

Dan


----------



## jfh3 (Apr 15, 2004)

TiVo Troll said:


> My two LG HD QAM tuners, *LST 4200A and LST-3510*, get such channels.


My Sony DHG does too, but being able to tune them is one thing, mapping them is another.

Tivo doesn't have a way to "enter a channel number" that isn't in the channel mapping, so unless the S3 has a way to allow user-defined extensions to the channel listing, we may be out of luck for direct QAM tuning. Since these channel mappings seem to change at will, we can't rely on Tivo to have a channel guide for the QAM equivs for most cable companies - we will need a way to manually tune/assign stations (e.g. tune 103.4 for cable channel 34).

For example - assume the analog version of ABC is on channel 34 and the digital version is QAM 103.2 (making numbers up) on my cable lineup. On the Sony box I can edit the properties of channel 34 in my guide and tell the box to tune to 103.2 instead when the box wants "ABC". Tivo doesn't have a way to do such mapping in the Series 2 boxes and will need a way to do so in the Series 3 boxes if people that don't want to use cable cards are going to have a reasonable way to use digital channels.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

jfh3 said:


> My Sony DHG does too, but being able to tune them is one thing, mapping them is another.
> 
> Tivo doesn't have a way to "enter a channel number" that isn't in the channel mapping, so unless the S3 has a way to allow user-defined extensions to the channel listing, we may be out of luck for direct QAM tuning. Since these channel mappings seem to change at will, we can't rely on Tivo to have a channel guide for the QAM equivs for most cable companies - we will need a way to manually tune/assign stations (e.g. tune 103.4 for cable channel 34).
> 
> For example - assume the analog version of ABC is on channel 34 and the digital version is QAM 103.2 (making numbers up) on my cable lineup. On the Sony box I can edit the properties of channel 34 in my guide and tell the box to tune to 103.2 instead when the box wants "ABC". Tivo doesn't have a way to do such mapping in the Series 2 boxes and will need a way to do so in the Series 3 boxes if people that don't want to use cable cards are going to have a reasonable way to use digital channels.


You bring up a valid point. Would it be worth TiVo's while to add manual channel mapping to the Series 3?

I bought a HDTV monitor w/o a tuner so it fits perfectly with STB's, either from cable or satellite providers.

The whole Cable Card issue sounds like a drag!


----------



## jfh3 (Apr 15, 2004)

TiVo Troll said:


> You bring up a valid point. Would it be worth TiVo's while to add manual channel mapping to the Series 3?


Well, if Tivo doesn't support such mapping, I'll be buying at least one less Series 3 than I'm currently planning to and a couple people I know excited about the Series 3 won't buy one at all.

Modify the Channel List to allow editing (which could be overwritten by a revised channel lineup) or have a seperate "Map Channel to Tuner" setting screen, which would essentially look like the channel list, but you would use Select to edit the mapping or something.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I can't really see TiVo doing something like that. In the past they have always avoided "advanced" features like this because it cluttered the interface. I would think that they would either do it via special guide data (which may or may not be possible depending on how frequently the QAM channels change) or simply require at least one CableCARD to be inserted so that it could get the channel map from that.

Dan


----------



## m_jonis (Jan 3, 2002)

There seems to be a little interpretation as to whether HD "local" signals that are broadcast OTA are required to be carried in the clear or not. I think I'd read somewhere that HD local signals are not "must carry" (digital signal, yes, but not necessarily HD--a lot of locals will multi-cast both the digital and HD signals OTA). I think someone even mentioned in this forum (diff. thread) that in NYC they even have to have a cable box in order to get local stations (due to cable theft?) 

But I'm not sure if that's confirmed or not. Although I'm not aware of any place either using SDV for locals (and in theory most people watch locals, so not sure what the cable co would gain by using SDV for that).


----------



## jfh3 (Apr 15, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> I can't really see TiVo doing something like that. In the past they have always avoided "advanced" features like this because it cluttered the interface. I would think that they would either do it via special guide data (which may or may not be possible depending on how frequently the QAM channels change) or simply require at least one CableCARD to be inserted so that it could get the channel map from that.


Well, having to insert a CableCard sort of defeats the purpose of tuning the stations without needing a CableCard. 

As for the "cluttered interface" Tivo should be able to do this without "cluttering". 
My lineup has changed at least three times in as many months - I don't know if that rate will keep up, but having to have a special guide for potentially each Series 3 can't be workable for Tivo. (You can't just have one QAM map for each cable lineup, since a user may want to select analog or digital for each channel).


----------



## jfh3 (Apr 15, 2004)

m_jonis said:


> There seems to be a little interpretation as to whether HD "local" signals that are broadcast OTA are required to be carried in the clear or not.


It's not broadcast HD OTA signals that are must carry, it's local digital broadcast signals. Digital is the key - doesn't matter if the signal is HD or not.

The cable cos aren't required to carry the substations, but the main signal must be in the clear on the same pipeline/cable as the analog versions.


----------



## jfh3 (Apr 15, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> The CC2.0 card will fit in the S3 slots just fine because CC2.0 cards are completely backward compatible. However, as Terry said, it's highly unlikely the S3 will ever be able to support the new features due to the other hardware requirements of the spec. It _might_ be possible to add this extra hardware to the S3 platform via some sort of breakout box, but the R&D costs to create such a breakout box might be beyond it's benefit.


Then again, maybe there is another option. Below is a quote from a thread in dslreports listed as "pure rumor". It sounds like Verizon and Tivo may be working on a version of a 2.0 CC (or perhaps 2.0 lite) that will work in a Series 3. If true, there may be hope for the TimeWarner SDV folks as well.

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16394178~days=9999~start=40

"Also because FIOS uses a form of switched video the Tivo must support and use a two-way cablecard so the Tivo knows how to tune in a specific channel that isn't being sent down the pipe all the time. From what I hear Verizon is working with Tivo on this and Verizon does plan to offer a two-way cable card that can be plugged into the new S3 HD Tivo and this would allow that Tivo to order PPV, view all channels including pay TV channels along with full VOD services working as well."


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> The CC2.0 card will fit in the S3 slots just fine because CC2.0 cards are completely backward compatible. However, as Terry said, it's highly unlikely the S3 will ever be able to support the new features due to the other hardware requirements of the spec. It _might_ be possible to add this extra hardware to the S3 platform via some sort of breakout box, but the R&D costs to create such a breakout box might be beyond it's benefit.


Maybe, Maybe not.

I envision one of two things:

A dongle that plugs into the back of the CC, like the dongle on a PCMCIA ethernet or modem card.

A dongle that plugs into the USB port.

In either case, a separate PSU is needed (no bother really), and will connect inline with the cable. It could be as big as a cable modem, likely a bit smaller.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Sounds bogus to me! In fact I don't think Verizon does use switched digital, at least not like the cable companies. From what I hear they use the same QAM256/Analog combination for their TV channels, they're just able to use a completely different spectrum for PPV, VOD and internet, which frees up a lot of the bandwidth which cable companies are currently forced to use for those services. Which in turn allows Verizon to serve up all the HD channels they want with room to breath. In fact Verizon already offers CableCARD in some areas and it's completely CC1.0 compatible.

Dan


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

classicsat said:


> A dongle that plugs into the USB port.


The USB port wouldn't be fast enough to sustain both a FireWire connection and whatever communication is necessary for control of the other hardware. In fact in realworld conditions USB2.0 is not even as fast as FireWire 400, so it doesn't even have enough bandwidth for just the firewire port.



classicsat said:


> In either case, a separate PSU is needed (no bother really), and will connect inline with the cable. It could be as big as a cable modem, likely a bit smaller.


I agree that it wouldn't need to be very big, and they could actually even daisy chain the power from the main unit to prevent the need for a seperate PSU.

However in any case the only way this would ever work is if the CableCARD slots could be converted to standard PCMCIA and used as a highspeed bridge to communicate with the breakout box.

Dan


----------



## petew (Jul 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> Sounds bogus to me! In fact I don't think Verizon does use switched digital, at least not like the cable companies. From what I hear they use the same QAM256/Analog combination for their TV channels, they're just able to use a completely different spectrum for PPV, VOD and internet, which frees up a lot of the bandwidth which cable companies are currently forced to use for those services. Which in turn allows Verizon to serve up all the HD channels they want with room to breath. In fact Verizon already offers CableCARD in some areas and it's completely CC1.0 compatible.
> 
> Dan


It seems like the rumor might have orginated from this thread which assumes that Series 3 supports CC 2.0.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I did some reading over on AVS and Verizon does in fact offer CableCARD 1.0 to customers in certain areas and they do NOT use SDV. So people with FIOS may be able to get their service to work with a S3 unit.

Dan


----------



## jfh3 (Apr 15, 2004)

Figured the post was too good to be true ...


----------



## Rosenkavalier (Nov 9, 2001)

jfh3 said:


> Figured the post was too good to be true ...


Well, keep in mind that the original post over on DSLReports was actually talking about this... (which would be dance-around-the-room awesome if it ever actually happened).


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

TiVo Troll said:


> MickeS said:
> 
> 
> > Don't tell me you actually think they don't charge you for the cable box?
> ...


Just because there is no cable box fee separated on the bill does not mean they don't charge you for the cable box. It just means it's included in the price of the service, thus you pay for the box whether you use it or whether you have cableCARD. That's what I meant.



> Your statement is false. Comcast does NOT charge for *Cable Cards*.


Cool, I'm glad to hear that.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

> Your statement is false. Comcast does NOT charge for Cable Cards.


That is correct. Just went into a Comcast store last week, there was a $15 installation fee. We didn't get it cause there is no tivo and w/ a cablecard you don't get guide data so we passed. But it was free past that fee.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

bicker said:


> I know a lot of people here feel they know better than our elected and appointed judges, but that's just arrogance. You don't like that cable companies aren't monopolies. I get that. I know you would want them to be treated as such. Sorry. They won't be because they aren't. As far as I know, no one here in this forum has been designated by the institutions of our government to rule on that issue, and the people that are the experts on the laws pertaining to monopolies have spoken and they have indicated clearly the reality of the situation.
> 
> What do you want? Citations of the court cases where your perspective was defeated on the merits?


It was just my opinion, not from a legal perspective, but from a customer perspective.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

bicker said:


> If rumor is to believed, the Series 3 TiVos will be "very expensive" -- let's say $800 for argument's sake. So 80 months to break even. If cable company HD DVRs can break even "pretty quickly," what are they doing right that TiVo is doing wrong?


Not selling to customer? You don't think TiVo is selling them at cost, do you?


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> The USB port wouldn't be fast enough to sustain both a FireWire connection and whatever communication is necessary for control of the other hardware.


It doesn't have to. All it would have to do is communicate the back channel to the provider,, which would require little bandwidth.


> However in any case the only way this would ever work is if the CableCARD slots could be converted to standard PCMCIA and used as a highspeed bridge to communicate with the breakout box.
> 
> Dan


You aren't getting me. The cablecard will do what the cablecard does, except it will affect its reverse communications channel in one of two ways, not replace the cablecard.


----------



## terryfoster (Jul 21, 2003)

classicsat said:


> It doesn't have to. All it would have to do is communicate the back channel to the provider,, which would require little bandwidth.


Yes, but it doesn't make it a firewire port which (from what i've heard) is a requirement to be CC2.0 compliant. TiVo would need to be fully CC2.0 compliant before they can officially release equipment to make the S3 CC2.0 compliant.

Now that being said, it could be possible for a homebrewed solution. The major setback for that is the lack of support for CC2.0 in the TiVo software.



classicsat said:


> You aren't getting me. The cablecard will do what the cablecard does, except it will affect its reverse communications channel in one of two ways, not replace the cablecard.


I'm not getting you either. Can you explain this again, because it doesn't make sense right now. What Dan was getting at is (if possible) you can use one of the two CC slots as a PCMCIA slot to act as a communications port to a "break out box" which can contain the equipment necessary (firewire port, cable modem, etc) to allow CC2.0 functionality.

Certainly the cable card would do what it does, but there are other equipment requirements that don't currently have a fast enough connection available on the TiVo to operate.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

classicsat said:


> It doesn't have to. All it would have to do is communicate the back channel to the provider,, which would require little bandwidth.
> 
> You aren't getting me. The cablecard will do what the cablecard does, except it will affect its reverse communications channel in one of two ways, not replace the cablecard.


And you're not getting me. One of the requirements of the CableCARD 2.0 specification is that the host *must* have an active FireWire port. So if TiVo is going to get certified by Cable Labs to use a CableCARD 2.0 POD then they *have* to have an active FireWire port. The only external bus on the S3 with the bandwidth necessary to support FireWire is the CableCARD slot, which is technically a PCMCIA slot. If the hardware is designed in such a way that the main CPU can communicate with the CableCARD slot as if it were a standard PCMCIA slot, then a breakout box with the FireWire port and required DOCSIS modem would be possible. However if not then there is no way TiVo could add a FireWire port, and in turn the could never get the CableCARD 2.0 certification required for use of the bidirectional communication portion of the spec. It's all or nothing. Without a FireWire port the S3 will never be able to do any of the CableCARD 2.0 stuff.

Dan


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

terryfoster said:


> I'm not getting you either. Can you explain this again, because it doesn't make sense right now. What Dan was getting at is (if possible) you can use one of the two CC slots as a PCMCIA slot to act as a communications port to a "break out box" which can contain the equipment necessary (firewire port, cable modem, etc) to allow CC2.0 functionality.
> 
> Certainly the cable card would do what it does, but there are other equipment requirements that don't currently have a fast enough connection available on the TiVo to operate.


Exactly! At least someone gets me. 

Dan


----------



## ebockelman (Jul 12, 2001)

Dan203 said:


> And you're not getting me. One of the requirements of the CableCARD 2.0 specification is that the host *must* have an active FireWire port. So if TiVo is going to get certified by Cable Labs to use a CableCARD 2.0 POD then they *have* to have an active FireWire port. The only external bus on the S3 with the bandwidth necessary to support FireWire is the CableCARD slot, which is technically a PCMCIA slot. If the hardware is designed in such a way that the main CPU can communicate with the CableCARD slot as if it were a standard PCMCIA slot, then a breakout box with the FireWire port and required DOCSIS modem would be possible. However if not then there is no way TiVo could add a FireWire port, and in turn the could never get the CableCARD 2.0 certification required for use of the bidirectional communication portion of the spec. It's all or nothing. Without a FireWire port the S3 will never be able to do any of the CableCARD 2.0 stuff.


What we've seen to date of the Series 3 is not necessarily the final design. Tivo could very well add a firewire port to satisfy the CC2.0 spec. It would not be the first Tivo unit to have one.


----------



## terryfoster (Jul 21, 2003)

ebockelman said:


> What we've seen to date of the Series 3 is not necessarily the final design. Tivo could very well add a firewire port to satisfy the CC2.0 spec. It would not be the first Tivo unit to have one.


My belief is we have seen the final design since they have already sent it off to Cable Labs for certification.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I agree. Based on my interpretation of the OpenCable certification schedule TiVo would have had to submit the S3 to Cable Labs on January 12th to have it approved by April. The next round wouldn't have started until March 23rd and aprroval wouldn't have come until June. Then again the schedule document is slightly cryptic, so I could be reading it wrong.

Dan


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MickeS said:


> It was just my opinion, not from a legal perspective, but from a customer perspective.


Okay, well that makes sense. There are a lot of things we want as consumers that we simply aren't entitled to, and indeed wouldn't be fair to businesses to expect.



> > If rumor is to believed, the Series 3 TiVos will be "very expensive" -- let's say $800 for argument's sake. So 80 months to break even. If cable company HD DVRs can break even "pretty quickly," what are they doing right that TiVo is doing wrong?
> 
> 
> Not selling to customer? You don't think TiVo is selling them at cost, do you?


I was being a little facitious. My point was that I don't believe the earlier assertions that the cable company HD DVRs break even "pretty quickly". I think people are off-the-mark on how much those boxes really cost the cable companies. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that some are currently losing money on their HD DVR service, hoping to hook enough folks on both HD and DVR so that they can make up for it later.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

bicker said:


> Okay, well that makes sense. There are a lot of things we want as consumers that we simply aren't entitled to, and indeed wouldn't be fair to businesses to expect.


I have to add though that, just because a court decided something doesn't mean I have to agree with it. Abide by it, yes, but not agree. 

Who said anything about entitlement? And really, why is it in your opinion (no matter what the law is) better for competition and for business to only allow a single cable provider in one area, rather than allow competition?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Who ever said that?


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

MickeS said:


> Just because there is no cable box fee separated on the bill does not mean they don't charge you for the cable box. It just means it's included in the price of the service, thus you pay for the box whether you use it or whether you have cableCARD. That's what I meant.


Comcast has many tiers of digital cable service, all priced differently. The price for any level of digital service includes one STB. If a subscriber chooses, s/he can decline the STB and get a Cable Card instead. But using a Cable Card mandates that some digital tier features such as PPV, VOD, and the Cable company's interactive EPG aren't available. It's the subscriber's choice.

Isn't the description of the pricing for the first STB vs. the first Cable Card more a matter of semantics than anything else? Digital cable service is useless without either. Both are available at no extra charge.

More than semantics are involved however when pricing more than one Card or STB. The first digital outlet will apparently be installed *free* but there are fees for installing additional digital outlets and additional digital outlets are also charged monthly fees. It appears that the number of additional outlets determines the monthly fee; not whether Cable Cards or STB's are used.

Comcast's related *FAQ* pages: 
*Cable service*
*HDTV*
*Cable Card*


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

See charter works a little different. They charge you per STB or CableCARD, they don't care how many "outlets" you have.

Dan


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

And Cox yet different as well. They charge for additional digital outlets and for each STB or CC but I would guess the digital service fee is a lower starting point than Comcast as a result.


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

Wow - this thread's been quiet for a few days, so may I offer something new to pique your interest?

Check out  this thread from dt_dc about a recent filing TiVo made with the FCC. The filing includes TiVo's concerns about SDV and includes a CableCard installation guide that TiVo is sharing with Cable Operators. The filing also includes a PM from a TCF member to a certain TiVo employee!

Pretty cool stuff, and I hope it gives the FCC pause when considering if SDV is potentially anti-competitive.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

drew2k said:


> Wow - this thread's been quiet for a few days, so may I offer something new to pique your interest?
> 
> Check out  this thread from dt_dc about a recent filing TiVo made with the FCC. The filing includes TiVo's concerns about SDV and includes a CableCard installation guide that TiVo is sharing with Cable Operators. The filing also includes a PM from a TCF member to a certain TiVo employee!
> 
> Pretty cool stuff, and I hope it gives the FCC pause when considering if SDV is potentially anti-competitive.


Drew, you left out the best part (IMO) of the filing....


> This product (Tivo Series3 HD Digital Video Recorder Model No. TCD648250B) is currently being tested by a small number of consumers in cable markets accross the country, and will be generally available in retail stores soon.


----------



## jfh3 (Apr 15, 2004)

I'll bet the folks over at TimeWarner loved reading that filing ...

"For HD I have to live with TimeWarner's pathetic excuse for a DVR"

There are perhaps a few posts here I would've chosen over that PM to make the point, but at least we know that the SDV issue is a key one for Tivo (not as if that's a big surprise, but it's comforting to see).

Tivo stated it's not against use of SDV, but wants the MSOs to take whatever action is necessary to allow users with UDCPs (CableCard 1.0 devices) to have the same access to digital offerings as those with MSO supplied set top boxes.

That part confused me, since what I understand about SDV would seem to make that request impossible (of course, that may be the point).


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I think the reason they put it that way is because the technology behind SDV is the same technology that's used for VOD.

Dan


----------



## jfh3 (Apr 15, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> I think the reason they put it that way is because the technology behind SDV is the same technology that's used for VOD.


I understand that. What I don't understand is how the MSOs could allow users with cablecard devices to access the same content those with a cableco set top box (e.g. Tivo's request).


----------



## jautor (Jul 1, 2001)

jfh3 said:


> I understand that. What I don't understand is how the MSOs could allow users with cablecard devices to access the same content those with a cableco set top box (e.g. Tivo's request).


Well, if the MSO uses switched video for only those services that already require bi-directional support (VOD and PPV), then TiVo would be able to work as well as any other unidirectional device. Since the S3 doesn't work with bi-directional services (at least, not yet - no info, just not closing that door ), telling the MSOs not to switch those services would be unreasonable.

And it's probably likely that if or when the S3 can support PPV / VOD, then it probably will support SDV as well...

Jeff


----------



## SurfPine (Dec 3, 2004)

jautor said:


> Well, if the MSO uses switched video for only those services that already require bi-directional support (VOD and PPV), then TiVo would be able to work as well as any other unidirectional device. Since the S3 doesn't work with bi-directional services (at least, not yet - no info, just not closing that door ), telling the MSOs not to switch those services would be unreasonable.
> 
> And it's probably likely that if or when the S3 can support PPV / VOD, then it probably will support SDV as well...
> 
> Jeff


How is it that SDV will be used for VoD? Can someone please explain it?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

SDV is actually based of VOD technology. Basically the way VOD works is there are a pool of channels available for the service. When your box requests to watch a movie the cable company simply broadcasts that movie on one of those channels, then tells your box which channel to tune to. SDV works pretty much the same way but for live channels. And unlike VOD if someone in your neighborhood is already watching that channel your box is simply told where to tune it at rather then it creating a new stream just for you.

Dan


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

jautor said:


> Well, if the MSO uses switched video for only those services that already require bi-directional support (VOD and PPV), then TiVo would be able to work as well as any other unidirectional device.


Exactly! Basically what they were saying is "go ahead and use SDV for VOD and PPV, but stay away from using it for actual live channels".

Dan


----------



## SurfPine (Dec 3, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> SDV is actually based of VOD technology. Basically the way VOD works is there are a pool of channels available for the service. When your box requests to watch a movie the cable company simply broadcasts that movie on one of those channels, then tells your box which channel to tune to. SDV works pretty much the same way but for live channels. And unlike VOD if someone in your neighborhood is already watching that channel your box is simply told where to tune it at rather then it creating a new stream just for you.
> 
> Dan


I do appreciate your response but I do know about VoD. My question is, how is SDV to be used on VoD as I have seen it mentioned numerous times? I am curious why it keeps getting mentioned as such because VoD will not be used over a SDV schema so there will be no bandwidth savings there. VoD is a single user experience (narrowcast) whereas SDV is intended for a multi-user experience (multicast). I do understand that it can be developed to where the VoD streams and SDV streams can share QAMs but that will not reduce bandwidth. I am just wondering if people are confused with where bandwidth can be saved.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Ahhh I see. I think TiVo was simply using SDV as a generic term for all "pooled channel" services. They wern't getting into the technical differences between VOD and SDV.

I think the basic idea of the letter was to say that cable companies should not be able to deploy SDV technology because it breaks the spirit of the CableCARD law and makes it so 3rd parties like them can't compete with cable STBs.

Dan


----------



## terryfoster (Jul 21, 2003)

SurfPine said:


> I do appreciate your response but I do know about VoD. My question is, how is SDV to be used on VoD as I have seen it mentioned numerous times? I am curious why it keeps getting mentioned as such because VoD will not be used over a SDV schema so there will be no bandwidth savings there. VoD is a single user experience (narrowcast) whereas SDV is intended for a multi-user experience (multicast). I do understand that it can be developed to where the VoD streams and SDV streams can share QAMs but that will not reduce bandwidth. I am just wondering if people are confused with where bandwidth can be saved.


To put it in your terms SDV and VOD are really the same thing. The idea is to put the lesser viewed channels on SDV so they aren't constantly eating up bandwidth.

So channels (in my area) like Discovery Espanol and BBC America (which I will assume are viewed very little) could be placed on SDV since no more than a handful would want to view them at a time which is presumably the same viewership of any one VoD program at a time.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

terryfoster said:


> I'm not getting you either. Can you explain this again, because it doesn't make sense right now. What Dan was getting at is (if possible) you can use one of the two CC slots as a PCMCIA slot to act as a communications port to a "break out box" which can contain the equipment necessary (firewire port, cable modem, etc) to allow CC2.0 functionality.


I am proposing the device that fits in the cablecard slot be the cablecard itself, which will decrypt incoming streams, and provide the outgoing identity for the back-channel, if not the back-channel datastream itself. I kinda get what Dan is getting at, and it could be feasable.


> Certainly the cable card would do what it does, but there are other equipment requirements that don't currently have a fast enough connection available on the TiVo to operate.


The back-channel doesn't need a really fast speed. I don't get what Firewire has to do with CC2.0 requirements.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

moyekj said:


> And Cox yet different as well. They charge for additional digital outlets and for each STB or CC but I would guess the digital service fee is a lower starting point than Comcast as a result.


That is just semantics. The point is either charge you for having something authorised on their system. One calls it a Digital Outlet Fee, the other calls it a Digital Service Fee, same thing IMO.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

classicsat said:


> I don't get what Firewire has to do with CC2.0 requirements.


It's a requirement of the specification and you can not get CableCARD 2.0 certified without one.

There is currently a mandate in place which requires cable companies to supply consumers with STBs with active FireWire ports so that they can record HD to devices such a D-VHS recorders. Since the CableCARD 2.0 specification's main purpose is to replace proprietary STBs, it makes sense that a FireWire port requirement would carry over from the aforementioned mandate.

In any case if TiVo wants to get CableCARD 2.0 certified they have to have a FireWire port. And with the currently know specs of the S3 the only way that could happen is via a breakout box connected to one of the CableCARD slots in PCMCIA mode.

Dan


----------



## SurfPine (Dec 3, 2004)

terryfoster said:


> To put it in your terms SDV and VOD are really the same thing. The idea is to put the lesser viewed channels on SDV so they aren't constantly eating up bandwidth.
> 
> So channels (in my area) like Discovery Espanol and BBC America (which I will assume are viewed very little) could be placed on SDV since no more than a handful would want to view them at a time which is presumably the same viewership of any one VoD program at a time.


Actually, SDV and VoD are only similar in their session set-ups and wire utilization (GSRM functionality). After that, SDV and VoD are different. VoD tears down streams upon user interaction or end-of-stream indications. VoD also checks for heart-beat from the STB to make sure the stream is still active. SDV checks for active user joins and if it finds nothing, depending on set timeouts, it will tear down the stream. But, there is no user interaction for SDV as SDV is a multicast join. VoD maintains narrowcast single user two-way functionality.


----------



## terryfoster (Jul 21, 2003)

classicsat said:


> I am proposing the device that fits in the cablecard slot be the cablecard itself, which will decrypt incoming streams, and provide the outgoing identity for the back-channel, if not the back-channel datastream itself. I kinda get what Dan is getting at, and it could be feasable.


If I understand correctly, you are expecting the CC1.x slot in the S3 to be a CC2.0 slot and we've already established (several times) that this isn't possible. Currently there are equipment/hardware requirements such as the FireWire and a DOCSIS modem (which I believe handles what you call back-channel communications) that ARE NOT going to be a part of either the cable card 2.0 card or the S3 hardware specs. The certified Cable Card 2.0 devices (not the card) will contain the necessary hardware to do the "back-channel" communications which is why this isn't just a new revision on the CC1.x spec and makes it an entirely new version.

This is why Dan is proposing a "box" that communicates through the cable card slot which contains the equipment necessary to make the S3 CC2.0 compliant.


----------



## terryfoster (Jul 21, 2003)

SurfPine said:


> Actually, SDV and VoD are only similar in their session set-ups and wire utilization (GSRM functionality). After that, SDV and VoD are different. VoD tears down streams upon user interaction or end-of-stream indications. VoD also checks for heart-beat from the STB to make sure the stream is still active. SDV checks for active user joins and if it finds nothing, depending on set timeouts, it will tear down the stream. But, there is no user interaction for SDV as SDV is a multicast join. VoD maintains narrowcast single user two-way functionality.


Sounds like you understand this better than i do. Yeah, I misunderstood your question as, "Why is there a belief that SDV will save bandwidth?" So, I was waaay off.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

jfh3 said:


> Unless you only get the lifeline tier, I doubt (Series 3) will record everything other than HBO - can't imagine everything is in the clear.


You are absolutely correct! I've been manually mapping the channels that an ATSC receiver with a QAM tuner receives when connected to Comcast's coax.

Series 3 will require cable cards to receive even the digital versions of Comcast's Extended Basic lineup. Everything outside of Limited Basic (the equivalent of lifeline tier, which does include OTA digital channels), the music and FM audio only channels, and a few peripheral goodies not even available from Comcast's digital STB, appears to be scrambled.


----------

