# TiVo complains to FCC about SDV use



## blacknoi (Jan 23, 2006)

http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/21792.cfm



afterdawn.com said:


> TiVo complains to FCC about SDV use
> 
> 22 February 2010 21:08 by James "Dela" Delahunty
> 
> TiVo Inc. has reached out to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) over concerns that the use of Switched Digital Video (SDV) technology by Cable providers will destroy its business. While traditional cable infrastructure delivers all available channels at once to subscribers' receivers, SDV will deliver only the channels currently being accessed.


Its interesting that NOW they reach out to the FCC. I guess the tuning adapter really isn't solving Tivo's problem and many markets don't even have that option.

I personally find my tuning adapter to be flaky at best. I usually come home to one of my two tivos telling me that a tuning adapter has been attached. And tuning a channel, I'd say is about 75% on the first try. Otherwise I have to tune up one channel and then tune one back down. Or sometimes my area is just out of SDV "slots" and I get the error that this channel cannot be tuned right now.

I'd be all for some alternate tech than SDV. SDV is just NOT reliable.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

blacknoi said:


> Its interesting that NOW they reach out to the FCC. I guess the tuning adapter really isn't solving Tivo's problem and many markets don't even have that option.


likely just another peice of TiVo inc.'s response to an FCC looking for options. Plus since TiVo did work with the cable companies to try and solve the issue they have credibility now versus just looking like they are whining.


----------



## [NG]Owner (Dec 19, 2006)

No real issues with the Tuning Adapter here. I may have to reboot it three or four times a year, but the Tivo does that too.

Have I missed recordings due to the TA? Yeah. But a 98% recording success rate is good enough for me. YMMV.

[NG]Owner


----------



## bschuler2007 (Feb 25, 2007)

My success rate was at best about 10% when I finally said enough. Now I just don't use my S2 to do anything more than live timeshift and will be cancelling it's account next month. Cablecards are good, anything else, is way more annoying that is it worth IMHO.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

Moto TAs here for 2 original S3s. Flawless every since they were installed several months ago. I forget they are even there most of the time. Only side effect I've noticed is if I reboot my TiVos they take longer to acquire channels than when cablecard only channel maps are used (as is case without TA installed).

It would seem most of the TA issues are isolated to certain TWC headends with Cisco TAs.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Personally I think it's about time TiVo said something about the Tuning Adapter fiasco and I applaud them. I just wish they would have mentioned TWC's over Zealous approach to copy protection with the CCI byte since it is killing them as well.


----------



## DCIFRTHS (Jan 6, 2000)

Stormspace said:


> Personally I think it's about time TiVo said something about the Tuning Adapter fiasco and I applaud them. ...


Agreed. *One* of the reasons I switched to FiOS was because of the Tuning Adapter. I did not want the three extra boxes, and the potential issues they bring with them.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

I don't use cable but I applaud Tivo for finally doing this. I also would like to see them open up the satellite industry. It should not be that satellite is immune from allowing competition.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

magnus said:


> I don't use cable but I applaud Tivo for finally doing this. I also would like to see them open up the satellite industry. It should not be that satellite is immune from allowing competition.


"Them" being the FCC. The satellite companies have a waiver to the cablecard mandate. If that waiver was removed, then third parties could make satellite receiver hardware. Contact the FCC if you want this to be so.


----------



## ki173 (Oct 6, 2002)

I had so much trouble with the cable card/tuning adapter I ended up canceling my Time Warner Cable. Some days certain channels would work, other days they would not. It got so aggravating that I was done. 
One example of this behavior was with ESPNHD. It was channel 1301 and would work for a few days and then disappear for a week. And time warner was no help at all. Their help was to tell me to reboot everything, just wasnt worth the hassle. Im now happy with just an antenna.


----------



## Grumock (Dec 16, 2008)

Hope they have deep pockets. I am sure that FCC is looking at it as "Here we go again with TIVo wanting everyone to bend to them". I think a good solution is for TIVo to work on upgrading their equipment so that a TA is not needed, oh wait then they would be proactive. Never mind. I am frustrated like many others but feel that Tivo is not blameless.


----------



## Malk (Feb 8, 2010)

Grumock said:


> Hope they have deep pockets. I am sure that FCC is looking at it as "Here we go again with TIVo wanting everyone to bend to them". I think a good solution is for TIVo to work on upgrading their equipment so that a TA is not needed, oh wait then they would be proactive. Never mind. I am frustrated like many others but feel that Tivo is not blameless.


I feel that TIVo is not blameless either, but at the same time, it seems from the forums that the CISCO Tuning adapter has a huge amount of issues compared to the Motorola one. Why is it that they cannot be implemented through out since it seems TIVO is not going to come up with any other solution? Well any other then crying to the FCC again that is.


----------



## dig_duggler (Sep 18, 2002)

Nice, but too late IMHO. People don't care so much about specifics and whose fault it is, Tivo just has a damaged brand name at this point. This won't fix it.


----------



## Malk (Feb 8, 2010)

dig_duggler said:


> Nice, but too late IMHO. People don't care so much about specifics and whose fault it is, Tivo just has a damaged brand name at this point. This won't fix it.


heavy sigh


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Grumock said:


> Hope they have deep pockets. I am sure that FCC is looking at it as "Here we go again with TIVo wanting everyone to bend to them". I think a good solution is for TIVo to work on upgrading their equipment so that a TA is not needed, oh wait then they would be proactive. Never mind. I am frustrated like many others but feel that Tivo is not blameless.


I believe TiVo wants that. They just feel it could be done without adding hardware.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

Grumock said:


> Hope they have deep pockets. I am sure that FCC is looking at it as "Here we go again with TIVo wanting everyone to bend to them". I think a good solution is for TIVo to work on upgrading their equipment so that a TA is not needed, oh wait then they would be proactive. Never mind. I am frustrated like many others but feel that Tivo is not blameless.


There is simply no way that TiVo can do that right now. There is no standard that allows TiVo to create a tuning adapter internally. The only alternative would be Tru2way which works in only four markets right now and eliminates TiVo's ability to fully control their user interface.

It's certainly true that the average consumer doesn't care whose fault it is that TiVo doesn't always work seamlessly. But the FCC should because enabling that seamless functionality is the only way that they're going to achieve their stated goal of creating an open market for set top boxes.


----------



## Grumock (Dec 16, 2008)

Stormspace said:


> I believe TiVo wants that. They just feel it could be done without adding hardware.


not sure how it can be done without a transmitter of sorts implemented.


----------



## Grumock (Dec 16, 2008)

nrc said:


> There is simply no way that TiVo can do that right now. There is no standard that allows TiVo to create a tuning adapter internally. The only alternative would be Tru2way which works in only four markets right now and eliminates TiVo's ability to fully control their user interface.
> 
> It's certainly true that the average consumer doesn't care whose fault it is that TiVo doesn't always work seamlessly. But the FCC should because enabling that seamless functionality is the only way that they're going to achieve their stated goal of creating an open market for set top boxes.


With that line of thinking then the cable companies need to roll back SDV to accommodate the small % of 3rd party equipment on their system?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

nrc said:


> ... But the FCC should because enabling that seamless functionality is the only way that they're going to achieve their stated goal of creating an open market for set top boxes.


small correction- it's not the fcc's goal. It's their mandate- as required by LAW.

Difference is that congress and the president (way back in the telecom act of 1996) said it should be done.

So the FCC isn't allowed to have an opinion on the matter- they are mandated to make it so. They are supposed to have opinions on how to acheive the goial. But so far their opinions have failed miserably. Obviously cablecard wasn't the answer (or the way it was implemented wasn't the answer), and honestly I dont know what the answer is. But the idiots running the boat over there are paid to figure such things out.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Grumock said:


> With that line of thinking then the cable companies need to roll back SDV to accommodate the small % of 3rd party equipment on their system?


if you read the law you would see that they are required to make it seamless so that 3rd party devices can exist. BUT specifically the industry is allowed to innovate. Howver it's obvious that at some point the innovation needs to wind up with a standard so that things can again be seemless so that the next generation of 3rd party devices can interoperate.

So SDV is fine- but a lack of a SINGLE standard to built 3rd party devices to run it is a problem. And it should be resolved in a timely manner. the tuning adapter apparently is cables solution to create a single standard- one requiring 3rd parties to include a usb port and communicate with cables SDV dongle.

So if you want tivo to include support inside their box without needing a dongle than the beef is with cables solution- and cable should create a SINGLE standard that can be built into 3rd party devices.

the fact that there are only 3% of devices on systems from third parties is proof that hte FCC has failed to properly implement the law for the past ~14 years.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

Grumock said:


> With that line of thinking then the cable companies need to roll back SDV to accommodate the small % of 3rd party equipment on their system?


Cable companies aren't required to do anything else about SDV under the current regulations.

If the FCC is serious about creating an open market for set top boxes then they need to create new regulations for access to two-way services that eliminate cable company equipment and software as a barrier. That's what TiVo is asking for.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

I am just really glad that my cable provider has not decided to use SDV and has shown no indication that they ever want to. It's one of the reasons they continue to get my business.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Grumock said:


> not sure how it can be done without a transmitter of sorts implemented.


They have proposed a sort of internet switching technology where the channel request is sent via the web.


----------



## lvthunder (Apr 4, 2002)

mattack said:


> "Them" being the FCC. The satellite companies have a waiver to the cablecard mandate. If that waiver was removed, then third parties could make satellite receiver hardware. Contact the FCC if you want this to be so.


Don't wish cablecards on anyone. The sat companies already use the access cards that work 100x better then the cablecards.


----------



## andyw715 (Jul 31, 2007)

If we can virtualize entire computer systems, we should be able to virtualize a TA. It has one input and one output (coax), with some request/response logic inbetween.

Messages that a channel isn't available due to not enough "slots" is a provider issue and a similar message would be had with a STB from the cable-co. The truth is that SDV, works "good enough", and until its worthwhile ($) to increase the available bandwidth (ala FiOS) SDV is gonna be around for a bit. 

Or maybe it all goes away with tomorrows announcement


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

magnus said:


> I don't use cable but I applaud Tivo for finally doing this. I also would like to see them open up the satellite industry. It should not be that satellite is immune from allowing competition.


That's not up to TiVo alone. Consumers haven't really said much about satellite, it's always about the "evil" cable companies.

We all need to write the FCC and our congresscritters and tell them that we want the FCC to open up satellite.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

mattack said:


> "Them" being the FCC. The satellite companies have a waiver to the cablecard mandate. If that waiver was removed, then third parties could make satellite receiver hardware. Contact the FCC if you want this to be so.


Call/fax/email your congresscritters too.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Raj said:


> That's not up to TiVo alone. Consumers haven't really said much about satellite, it's always about the "evil" cable companies.
> 
> We all need to write the FCC and our congresscritters and tell them that we want the FCC to open up satellite.


Frankly, at present there is more consistent choice with satellite across the US. Cable is typically the only game in town, unless it is a large metro area.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

Raj said:


> Call/fax/email your congresscritters too.


And if I do, I will write them to leave satellite alone. I do not need any third party boxes or cable cards that are nothing but problems. All I want is satellite company to provide the box that works and be responsible for it if it doesn't.


----------



## Ennui (Sep 2, 2008)

I have three CableCARDS: an M card in the TiVo and two S cards in two additional TV's (a Phillips LCD and a Sony 960). Once they are finally installed correctly and the service levels from Cox are set and steady, no big problems.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

samo said:


> And if I do, I will write them to leave satellite alone. I do not need any third party boxes or cable cards that are nothing but problems. All I want is satellite company to provide the box that works and be responsible for it if it doesn't.


You obviously don't have DirecTV. Didn't they have their share of issues with their own DVRs?

Meanwhile I've had zero problems with TiVo or media center which both use CableCARDs.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

Raj said:


> You obviously don't have DirecTV. Didn't they have their share of issues with their own DVRs?
> 
> Meanwhile I've had zero problems with TiVo or media center which both use CableCARDs.


I do have both DirecTV and Dish. Both providers had bugs after initial release of new hardware, just like TiVo always does. But nothing on a scale of problems with cable cards and TA. But at least with satellite providers there is no fingerpointing and problems get fixed very quickly. I do not want any third party hardware to complicate an issue, I'm happy with what has been provided by satellite companies (just like 10s of millions other satellite users).
There is nothing of value that TiVo or Moxi has to offer that I do not get with my satellite DVRs already. Even if new DirecTivo becomes a reality, it would have to offer something substantially different for me to even try it. Netflix, pizza ordering or suggestions wouldn't do it.


----------



## Fixer (Mar 29, 2005)

samo said:


> I do have both DirecTV and Dish. Both providers had bugs after initial release of new hardware, just like TiVo always does. But nothing on a scale of problems with cable cards and TA. But at least with satellite providers there is no fingerpointing and problems get fixed very quickly. I do not want any third party hardware to complicate an issue, I'm happy with what has been provided by satellite companies (just like 10s of millions other satellite users).
> There is nothing of value that TiVo or Moxi has to offer that I do not get with my satellite DVRs already. Even if new DirecTivo becomes a reality, it would have to offer something substantially different for me to even try it. Netflix, pizza ordering or suggestions wouldn't do it.


+1 :up:

___


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

samo said:


> I do have both DirecTV and Dish. Both providers had bugs after initial release of new hardware, just like TiVo always does. But nothing on a scale of problems with cable cards and TA. But at least with satellite providers there is no fingerpointing and problems get fixed very quickly. I do not want any third party hardware to complicate an issue, I'm happy with what has been provided by satellite companies (just like 10s of millions other satellite users).
> There is nothing of value that TiVo or Moxi has to offer that I do not get with my satellite DVRs already. Even if new DirecTivo becomes a reality, it would have to offer something substantially different for me to even try it. Netflix, pizza ordering or suggestions wouldn't do it.


Do you own any TiVo hardware?


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

samo said:


> And if I do, I will write them to leave satellite alone. I do not need any third party boxes or cable cards that are nothing but problems. All I want is satellite company to provide the box that works and be responsible for it if it doesn't.


Nobody is proposing to remove that option. Cable companies still provide cable boxes that they're responsible for.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

orangeboy said:


> Do you own any TiVo hardware?


Two active SD DirecTivos that get very little use on my SD TVs (we hardly watch them, but I can't make myself to take 36" SONY WEGA to the curb). I also have my original S1 SA TiVo that is one of the first TiVos ever sold. I keep it a basements as sentimental junk - maybe one of these days it will have some value as collector item. Two other SA S2s I had have been taken to the curb long time ago.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

nrc said:


> Nobody is proposing to remove that option. Cable companies still provide cable boxes that they're responsible for.


I understand that. But it will cost me (and all other satellite users) extra money for the cost of the implementation that will be passed from satellite companies to me. Just like cost of cable card transition is already in cable co bills and every cable user is charged for it even if they were perfectly happy with cable co boxes. I want government to be out of it. Let free market decide - if enough people will want TiVo cable co's will license TiVo software.
If Comcast TiVo and/or new DirecTivo becomes a huge success, then everybody will want to put TiVo on their system. If it will be a flop, then TiVo is not needed and should go away just like many other tech gadgets that didn't make it.


----------



## cram501 (Oct 23, 2002)

samo said:


> I understand that. But it will cost me (and all other satellite users) extra money for the cost of the implementation that will be passed from satellite companies to me. Just like cost of cable card transition is already in cable co bills and every cable user is charged for it even if they were perfectly happy with cable co boxes. I want government to be out of it. Let free market decide - if enough people will want TiVo cable co's will license TiVo software.
> If Comcast TiVo and/or new DirecTivo becomes a huge success, then everybody will want to put TiVo on their system. If it will be a flop, then TiVo is not needed and should go away just like many other tech gadgets that didn't make it.


That seems pretty short sighted to me. One of the major reasons you have that DVR available is a direct result of the old S1 and HD Tivos on Direct TV.

In order to spur innovation and new features you need competition.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

samo said:


> , then everybody will want to put TiVo on their system.


you mean like Dish did when they stole the design of the TiVo DVR? IS Satellite so fragile a business that need to shy away from competition and remain closed systems? I do not think that is the case anymore. No matter though - I have no desire to use DBS and be locked into their old way of thinking

bring on the new TiVo stuff. :up:


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

samo said:


> I understand that. But it will cost me (and all other satellite users) extra money for the cost of the implementation that will be passed from satellite companies to me. Just like cost of cable card transition is already in cable co bills and every cable user is charged for it even if they were perfectly happy with cable co boxes. I want government to be out of it. Let free market decide - if enough people will want TiVo cable co's will license TiVo software.


That's laughable. There is no free market in the set top box market.

Consumers who want TiVo are saddled with substantial disadvantages that prevent TiVo from competing on even ground with MSO boxes. This is a condition that providers will make every effort to preserve because it gives them full control of the consumer's content and the revenue that comes from it.

The FCC already considered all of this when it issued the original cable card edict. Satellite was excluded only because it was a new technology. There's no justification for maintaining that exception.

It may be that the cost that you're talking about is not significant relative to what satellite companies already pay for their set top box security. In fact, having a single standard for set top box security could eventually cut costs for everyone if the providers would stop fighting it and embrace it.

If there is a substantial cost to developing separable security then it follows that being exempt from the requirement is an unfair advantage for satellite companies.



> If Comcast TiVo and/or new DirecTivo becomes a huge success, then everybody will want to put TiVo on their system. If it will be a flop, then TiVo is not needed and should go away just like many other tech gadgets that didn't make it.


If those products are a flop it will be because of the limitations placed upon their implementation by the programming provider. You can't have open competition for set top boxes where the programming provider controls all the options.


----------



## RayChuang88 (Sep 5, 2002)

By the way, I just talked with a Comcast technical rep and they told me Comcast has *NO* current plans to use Switched Digital Video (SDV) in northern California. That means right now my new TiVo HD XL DVR will work correctly without the annoyance of needing a special SDV adapter box.


----------



## Fixer (Mar 29, 2005)

nrc said:


> ...Consumers who want TiVo are saddled with substantial disadvantages that prevent TiVo from competing on even ground with MSO boxes. This is a condition that providers will make every effort to preserve because it gives them full control of the consumer's content and the revenue that comes from it.
> 
> The FCC already considered all of this when it issued the original cable card edict. Satellite was excluded only because it was a new technology. There's no justification for maintaining that exception.
> 
> ...


Wow, this is a very socialist way of thinking. "Wah, wah, wah, change the laws so the company that I own stock in can easily put boxes on your system. Wah, wah..."

Seriously guy, if *YOU* owned or operated (or owned stock in) a programming provider, would *YOU* want third party boxes, which *YOU* don't have control of, tethered to *YOUR* system?

Cable or satellite television is not a right. The federal government, operated by my tax dollars, has more pressing matters to be concerned with. 
___


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

If I owned a cable or satellite system, I'd make sure I did everything to maximize my customers opportunities to utilize the services and programming I provided. I wouldn't try to force you to use my system in some one way I thought of, but would ensure you could use it your way. Even if I had no competitors to worry about, I'd be making an environment where competition would be so far behind what I offered, they would give up before even starting.

I'd be working on finding ways to let any possible gadget on the market work with my system in the best way it possibly could.

And in all that, I'd make every single customer of other cable or satellite systems wish they could be my customers instead.

Why would I possibly want to limit how you used what I sell to you? I want my services and programming to be your drug of choice. I want you hooked. And I want you absolutely unable to exist without my services and programming every single place you go. And when you're somewhere my services or programming aren't, like at a friend or relatives who doesn't subscribe, I want at least every third word out of your mouth to be talking about how great my services and programming are and how crappy the services and programming their friend/relatives gets compare to mine.

I'd find ways to give you 20 ways to view that PPV program so you no longer had an excuse not to buy it. Why would I want there to be only one possible way for you to buy and watch it? How does that ever help me?

I'd find ways to get even the nichiest programming to your home; if you wanted it, and would pay for it, and it were available, I'd try to service it.

And no matter what level of service you chose, I'd make sure that it was really, really easy at any time to get at more, for a price.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

Fixer said:


> ...Seriously guy, if *YOU* owned or operated (or owned stock in) a programming provider, would *YOU* want third party boxes, which *YOU* don't have control of, tethered to *YOUR* system?


Although not addressed to me...
As long as those third party boxes were paying money for the programming, I would be ecstatic about not having to purchase and maintain my own boxes that cut into my bottom line. Are you adverse to making a profit?

Edit: I type too slow.


----------



## Fixer (Mar 29, 2005)

orangeboy said:


> Although not addressed to me...
> As long as those *third party boxes were paying money for the programming*, I would be ecstatic about not having to purchase and maintain my own boxes that cut into my bottom line.


The key wording here is emphasized. After reading numerous of nrc's postings on the subject, I believe he just wants a government mandated "TiVo only" approach. The thing is, if a truly open cable system happened, TiVo would be lost in the sea of competition that would inevitably spring up.



> Are you adverse to making a profit?


Good heavens, no. However, I *DON'T* own stock in TiVo or cable cos, so as far as I'm concerned, well, it is no concern. 

___


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

Fixer said:


> Wow, this is a very socialist way of thinking. "Wah, wah, wah, change the laws so the company that I own stock in can easily put boxes on your system. Wah, wah..."


Complain to congress. They passed a law over a decade ago requiring exactly what I'm talking about. We're simply discussing the FCC's attempts to create regulations to implement the law. And no, I don't own stock in TiVo.



> Seriously guy, if *YOU* owned or operated (or owned stock in) a programming provider, would *YOU* want third party boxes, which *YOU* don't have control of, tethered to *YOUR* system?


Of course not. And if I were the phone company I'd still want to force you to lease your phones from me and pay extra for every line. But since these companies require public resources to operate Congress has seen fit to regulate them and at least attempt to get them to operate for benefit of the public rather than just for themselves.



> Cable or satellite television is not a right. The federal government, operated by my tax dollars, has more pressing matters to be concerned with.
> ___


I'm always amused by free-market wannabes storming to the defense of limited monopolies created by grant of public utility status.

The irony is that as much as cable providers will hate it, and fight against it, the new broadband plan is in the long run the only thing that may keep cable providers from becoming irrelevant as content providers.


----------

