# Future of TV



## opus472 (Jul 4, 2007)

This long interview with the CEOs of Hulu and Roku contains not a single mention of Tivo -

http://www.businessinsider.com/ignition-panel-hulu-ceo-mike-hopkins-roku-ceo-anthony-wood-2015-12


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

TiVo is a bridge technology. It's a way to bridge the old way of watching TV (cable/OTA) with the new ways (streaming). The price is too high for it to really compete with devices like the Roku which are focused soely on the new technology. But for those that can afford it it's a really great way to consolidate all of your entertainment options into a single device.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

No mention of TiVo and no mention of broadcast television. Neither is going away. We have stopped using Rokus since buying TiVo DVRs. Netflix+Prime+Plex is all the streaming my family needs. We have never even trialed Hulu.










These guys are preaching a 'vision' that grows their niche. I don't happen to share their vision. The idea of moving from a grid style EPG to a screen of tiles does not appeal to me. Bouncing in and out of these tiles to see what is on does not appeal to me. On-demand is not particularly appealing to me. (I like what Channel Master has done with the EPG and hope that goes mainstream -- apps showing up in the grid and being available as any other channel.)










I think we are more than five years away from sufficient bandwidth to support a streaming-only approach to television. The number of people who stream exclusively is still quite small and those who stream exclusively do not have one or two or five televisions running all day.

The most popular streaming service is streaming less than two hours per day per subscriber. The average viewer is watching twice that. Even if Netflix never adds another subscriber, it will take at least twice as much bandwidth for people to stream the way they watch television. Of course, the average household does not gather in front of a single set to watch television, so maybe four or eight times. Also, Netflix has less than 50 million US subscribers. There are nearly 4x as many television households in the US.










The most scalable solution is broadcast (by antenna or satellite). Linear programming is much more efficient and much less expensive than on-demand.

Reed Hastings, Anthony Wood, and Mike Hopkins talk about all these streaming services being like television channels. Not for me -- not at $10/month, anyway.

The premium providers know how to solve the cord cutting problem -- charge more for bandwidth and charge less for programming. Personally, that is exactly what I expect to see over the next five years. I expect the premium providers to play hardball with and/or jettison their expensive niche products and establish an inexpensive tier of internet and programming plus (optional) VOIP which appeals broadly. I expect them to get out of the set top box business by partnering with box makers as reseller/renter/billing service.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Eventually cable and fiber companies are just going to become "dumb pipes" to the consumer's home and we will get all of our actual content via IP streaming. That,s probably a decade or more away, but it's going to happen eventually. I assume that existing cable companies will make up for the loss of revenue by increasing prices for their internet service. Only competition from alternative providers like VDSL, fiber to the home, or maybe LTE will push those prices down. Until then cable will continue to have a functional monopoly over the areas they service and will be able to charge as much as they want.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> Eventually cable and fiber companies are just going to become "dumb pipes" to the consumer's home and we will get all of our actual content via IP streaming. That,s probably a decade or more away, but it's going to happen eventually. I assume that existing cable companies will make up for the loss of revenue by increasing prices for their internet service. Only competition from alternative providers like VDSL, fiber to the home, or maybe LTE will push those prices down. Until then cable will continue to have a functional monopoly over the areas they service and will be able to charge as much as they want.


 We need to remember that the primary purpose of traditional broadcast TV (and to a great extent basic cable) is to provide an advertising platform. I really doubt that consumers want to replace the revenue currently being provided to content providers and the delivery system by advertisement revenue. My take is what ever the delivery system advertising will still need to play a fairly important role in assuring new content is made, without the guaranteed revenue that advertising provides my guess is the volume of new content will decrease significantly.

How the Internet access & cost issue plays out is highly dependent on what the Government (through the FCC) does. I think getting Internet access classified a utility is a step in the right direction for consumers. Another fight that will likely determine how many options we have for Internet providers is the fight over if telephone companies are going to get the Government to allow them to dump land lines or not. My take is if they are forced to continue maintaining land line service they are more likely to upgrade/maintain their systems and compete with the cable companies to provide Internet access, if not they will cherry pick the high income high density areas and drop service everywhere else as the info structure needs to be repaired/replaced.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

atmuscarella said:


> We need to remember that the primary purpose of traditional broadcast TV (and to a great extent basic cable) is to provide an advertising platform. I really doubt that consumers want to replace the revenue currently being provided to content providers and the delivery system by advertisement revenue. My take is what ever the delivery system advertising will still need to play a fairly important role in assuring new content is made, without the guaranteed revenue that advertising provides my guess is the volume of new content will decrease significantly.


I expect that most/all streaming services will eventually start to offer multiple pricing tiers, one with ads and one without. (ala Hulu) That way consumers can choose if they want to pay to support content without ads or not. And businesses will always want a way to advertise their products so the laws of supply and demand will eventually push up the price of the ad free version of the service.


----------



## opus472 (Jul 4, 2007)

Gotta wonder how much folks spending on Hulu, with their monthly fees plus individual episode charges. Seems like that could get outta hand pretty quick.


----------



## opus472 (Jul 4, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> I assume that existing cable companies will make up for the loss of revenue by increasing prices for their internet service.


Ain't it the truth. The Comcasts of the world are salivating over this, pushing their data caps with the disingenuous argument that the caps apply to only a small percentage of users. They're trying desperately to hide what they know is coming down the road, when streaming takes over and everybody is forced to pay for additional bandwidth.


----------



## Eddie501 (Jun 4, 2004)

atmuscarella said:


> We need to remember that the primary purpose of traditional broadcast TV (and to a great extent basic cable) is to provide an advertising platform. I really doubt that consumers want to replace the revenue currently being provided to content providers and the delivery system by advertisement revenue. My take is what ever the delivery system advertising will still need to play a fairly important role in assuring new content is made, without the guaranteed revenue that advertising provides my guess is the volume of new content will decrease significantly.


One of the things that drove me away from broadcast & cable was the bombardment of ads. My streaming services (Netflix/Hulu/Amazon) are all ad-free & still somehow produce original programming that is leaps above most of what is on network TV and basic cable.

I do like the idea of offering a two tiered service, like what Hulu is doing. Since they have offered a commercial free plan, that's been my preferred way to watch TV shows. Even if it does cost a few bucks more, it's worth it to me. Others, maybe not so much. But it would be nice to have a choice.

The day streaming services that I pay for start shoving ads down my throat is the day I look for other forms of entertainment.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Eddie501 said:


> One of the things that drove me away from broadcast & cable was the bombardment of ads. My streaming services (Netflix/Hulu/Amazon) are all ad-free & still somehow produce original programming that is leaps above most of what is on network TV and basic cable.
> 
> I do like the idea of offering a two tiered service, like what Hulu is doing. Since they have offered a commercial free plan, that's been my preferred way to watch TV shows. Even if it does cost a few bucks more, it's worth it to me. Others, maybe not so much. But it would be nice to have a choice.
> 
> The day streaming services that I pay for start shoving ads down my throat is the day I look for other forms of entertainment.


I think most of us around here feel the same way about adds, that's part of the reason we are all willing to spend pretty good money on DVRs. Thankfully the general public isn't like us. The reason that Netflix, Hulu, and others are as cheap as they are is because most of the TV they show was paid for via adds before it got to those services. Yes they have new/original programming but if you add all the original program on Netflix, Hulu, & Amazon together in a year I don't think you would get as much new programming as just one major Network produces per year. It will be interesting to see how this shakes out.


----------



## GoodSpike (Dec 17, 2001)

atmuscarella said:


> I think most of us around here feel the same way about adds, that's part of the reason we are all willing to spend pretty good money on DVRs. Thankfully the general public isn't like us. .


I remember when I first explained a Tivo to someone I worked with back in 2001. He thought about it awhile and then said: "It's going to ruin TV!"

Implicitly he was thinking about the loss of advertising revenue. He'd have been right if more people were like us.

The question remains if streaming will ruin TV.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

opus472 said:


> Ain't it the truth. The Comcasts of the world are salivating over this, pushing their data caps with the disingenuous argument that the caps apply to only a small percentage of users. They're trying desperately to hide what they know is coming down the road, when streaming takes over and everybody is forced to pay for additional bandwidth.


It's very sad that our gov't doesn't take action to stop what are essentially HSI monopolies from extracting whatever rent they can seek from their captive audiences. The new robber barons control the pipes, the old ones controlled oil and steel 100 years ago.

And on top of that they control content as well so they can do stuff like Stream TV and have it not count against the cap, disadvantaging competitors like Sling TV. At least for that one the FCC is wanting to know why.


----------



## GoodSpike (Dec 17, 2001)

slowbiscuit said:


> It's very sad that our gov't doesn't take action to stop what are essentially HSI monopolies from extracting whatever rent they can seek from their captive audiences. The new robber barons control the pipes, the old ones controlled oil and steel 100 years ago.


The rates are regulated in many, if not most or all places in the US.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

GoodSpike said:


> The rates are regulated in many, if not most or all places in the US.


... and you see how well that works.  Only true competition will result in good deals. Unfortunately we have yet to develop a technical approach to delivering TV and HSI that (1) provides good performance, at least on a par with current cable TV and OTT streaming, and (2) is cost effective, e.g., doesn't require duplicating fiber/cable infrastructure. Factor 2 is the reason we don't have local HSI or Cable TV competition in most of the US.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

GoodSpike said:


> The rates are regulated in many, if not most or all places in the US.


The rates are less of an issue, IMHO, than the lack of choice. If the local cable company is carp, the only alternatives are AT&T, which is also carp, or satellite, which may have its own problems.


----------



## GoodSpike (Dec 17, 2001)

allan said:


> The rates are less of an issue, IMHO, than the lack of choice. If the local cable company is carp, the only alternatives are AT&T, which is also carp, or satellite, which may have its own problems.


Google "natural monopoly." When you have to run cable or lay pipe, that's what you tend to get.

But you're right satellite has it's own problems (I for example hate DirecTV), but for that there are typically two choices.


----------



## GoodSpike (Dec 17, 2001)

dlfl said:


> ... and you see how well that works.  Only true competition will result in good deals. Unfortunately we have yet to develop a technical approach to delivering TV and HSI that (1) provides good performance, at least on a par with current cable TV and OTT streaming, and (2) is cost effective, e.g., doesn't require duplicating fiber/cable infrastructure. Factor 2 is the reason we don't have local HSI or Cable TV competition in most of the US.


I think the bigger problem is the way cable channels are packaged, and that the local channels can charge cable/sat. companies to re-transmit their programming.

It's sort of like health insurance. You can blame your health insurance company for rising premiums, but when the cost of drugs and services keeps going up, whose fault is that?


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

I sure don't agree that we will be receiving all TV through the internet. A combination of internet streaming and OTA is sure my preferred method now and I hope that OTA will be available for the remainder of my life. I hate to think how much it would cost me monthly to change to an all IPTV model, data costs and subscription costs. With Comcast right now, the internet alone would be $35/month more than I pay now.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

GoodSpike said:


> The rates are regulated in many, if not most or all places in the US.


I have no idea what you're talking about because broadband rates are completely unregulated in all areas of the US. Couple that with natural monopolies and you get ****** companies like Comcast rolling out data caps and charging way more money than it costs to deliver the overages.

Not to mention data metering that is also unregulated so they can claim you used whatever data they feel like telling you.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

GoodSpike said:


> The rates are regulated in many, if not most or all places in the US.


This must be on a talking point list somewhere as I'm starting to hear it more and more lately. When my local cable company raised my bill to the point I called to cancel, the CSR also quoted that as fact.


----------



## jim1971 (Oct 11, 2015)

opus472 said:


> This long interview with the CEOs of Hulu and Roku contains not a single mention of Tivo -
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/ignition-panel-hulu-ceo-mike-hopkins-roku-ceo-anthony-wood-2015-12


Tivo is 'opportunistic technology'. It figured out how to build a DVR that was superior to that offered by existing companies. It capitalized on cablecard technology. Then it figured out how to take cablecard technology and combine it with the mini, eliminating the need for 'outlet fees'. As long as Washington allows an 'open' cable system, tivo will prosper.

To the good, Tivo figured out how to leverage the DVR and mini into roku-like devices. This makes them entertainment hubs. They also figured out how to turn one cablecard into 4 and 6 tuners, making the mini into an inexpensive remote tv. Only the imagination limits where it can go from here.

To the bad, they let quality control go to hades. I assume Tivo works well for most people on most days. If they want to take the next step into 'innovative tech leadership' they need to stop blaming switches or poor home networks or the need to eternally reboot routers for bad design implementation and poor quality control with respect to programmers and/or system designers. Without this NOW, they will soon (in a year or so) be regarded as 'coulda been contenders'.

In my opinion.

When I was still designing systems and programming, I used to task motivated users into trying to break my systems or find major flaws before they were put into final use. As a result, I was rarely called back to fix anything and usually was asked back for more new development. Tivo should take a lesson.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

jim1971 said:


> Tivo is 'opportunistic technology'. It figured out how to build a DVR that was superior to that offered by existing companies. It capitalized on cablecard technology. Then it figured out how to take cablecard technology and combine it with the mini, eliminating the need for 'outlet fees'. As long as Washington allows an 'open' cable system, tivo will prosper.


Actually TiVo and ReplayTV invented the DVR, long before cable companies even offered them. Cable companies started offering DVRs because they saw 3rd party deviceslike TiVo as a threat to their hardware leasing business.

People have been prediciting the demise of TiVo in the "next year or so" for the last 15 years. So far they've managed to stay afloat.


----------



## GoodSpike (Dec 17, 2001)

slowbiscuit said:


> I have no idea what you're talking about because broadband rates are completely unregulated in all areas of the US. Couple that with natural monopolies and you get ****** companies like Comcast rolling out data caps and charging way more money than it costs to deliver the overages.
> 
> Not to mention data metering that is also unregulated so they can claim you used whatever data they feel like telling you.


Turns out I was wrong.

http://www.seattle.gov/cable/rates.htm

I thought that was part of what was negotiated as part of the franchise agreements. But I might be remembering limited basic, which is what I used to have.


----------



## jim1971 (Oct 11, 2015)

Dan203 said:


> Actually TiVo and ReplayTV invented the DVR, long before cable companies even offered them. Cable companies started offering DVRs because they saw 3rd party deviceslike TiVo as a threat to their hardware leasing business.
> 
> People have been prediciting the demise of TiVo in the "next year or so" for the last 15 years. So far they've managed to stay afloat.


I don't doubt it ... except for the issues regarding 'switches' and other excuses that are wearing thin with those who understand basic networking. This is their weakness. Quality control should't have blaming customer networks or saying "I don't know" as a major component when customers do ordinary installs and things don't work well. Apologists in forums are not good quality control.

Opportunistic is not a bad word. Congress and the FCC allow Tivo to exist via cablecard rules and regulations. I'm happy they do because I save money. QC is the current issue, or so it appears to me.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Wil said:


> This must be on a talking point list somewhere as I'm starting to hear it more and more lately. When my local cable company raised my bill to the point I called to cancel, the CSR also quoted that as fact.


Your city/town/local franchising authority may regulate the rates for basic cable and its equipment, but is not required to do so. In fact, it must specifically request to do this or else it will be unregulated.

The FCC cannot regulate the rates for extended cable or pay-per-channel content (premium channels). The Telecom Act of 1996 made this illegal.

So the rates are rarely regulated, and even then it would only be for basic service. The CSR is lying.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

jim1971 said:


> I don't doubt it ... except for the issues regarding 'switches' and other excuses that are wearing thin with those who understand basic networking. This is their weakness. Quality control should't have blaming customer networks or saying "I don't know" as a major component when customers do ordinary installs and things don't work well. Apologists in forums are not good quality control.
> 
> Opportunistic is not a bad word. Congress and the FCC allow Tivo to exist via cablecard rules and regulations. I'm happy they do because I save money. QC is the current issue, or so it appears to me.


You obviously ran into some issue with your personal setup that you're projecting on to the product as a whole. As a counter point I have multiple switches between my TiVos/Minis and my router and have never had an issue. Both are statistically insignificant data points.

If your issue was more wide spread we'd have seen dozens of complaints about it here on these forums, we haven't. There was an issue a while back with Minis and green switches but TiVo fixed that in a software update and I haven't seen any complaints about it since. It's possible the CSR you talked to blamed your issue on the switch because of that bug, but if that's the case then they were wrong because it is something they fixed a long time ago.


----------



## jim1971 (Oct 11, 2015)

Dan203 said:


> You obviously ran into some issue with your personal setup that you're projecting on to the product as a whole. As a counter point I have multiple switches between my TiVos/Minis and my router and have never had an issue. Both are statistically insignificant data points.
> 
> If your issue was more wide spread we'd have seen dozens of complaints about it here on these forums, we haven't. There was an issue a while back with Minis and green switches but TiVo fixed that in a software update and I haven't seen any complaints about it since. It's possible the CSR you talked to blamed your issue on the switch because of that bug, but if that's the case then they were wrong because it is something they fixed a long time ago.


Thanks for the insight. Perhaps I was a one-off. Others have since reported similar problems in the forum. My premiere is currently at 20.5.2a-01-2-750. This is supposed to be current for premieres unless a 'new' version is sent downstream. If it was fixed a long time ago, why me and why now? Hence my belief in QC issues at Tivo. BTW, I spoke with many csr's over two day. I wonder if marginalizing the outlier is a QC strategy? Also, why did my V112 error require intervention from TivoMargret via email notification to fix (which I had to dig out by scrutinizing goolge hits)?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

So was this a new bug introduced with a new version of the software? I haven't had a Premiere in years, but when I did they worked fine with my Ethernet network. Even if it is a new bug it still seems a bit rash for you to proclaim that the company is on the verge of failure because you're having a problem with your 5+ year old hardware shortly after a software update. Bugs happen to all companies. Even huge companies like Apple and Microsoft release new versions with bugs which have to be fixed later with patches. It's a fact of the software business these days. There was a time, before broadband, when updating software in the field was hard so companies invested a lot more time/money into QC testing before a product was released. But these days most companies ship with the attitude that if they find a bug they'll just patch it in the field. Especially for products like TiVo which require a broadband connection just to function.


----------



## jim1971 (Oct 11, 2015)

Dan203 said:


> So was this a new bug introduced with a new version of the software? I haven't had a Premiere in years, but when I did they worked fine with my Ethernet network. Even if it is a new bug it still seems a bit rash for you to proclaim that the company is on the verge of failure because you're having a problem with your 5+ year old hardware shortly after a software update. Bugs happen to all companies. Even huge companies like Apple and Microsoft release new versions with bugs which have to be fixed later with patches. It's a fact of the software business these days. There was a time, before broadband, when updating software in the field was hard so companies invested a lot more time/money into QC testing before a product was released. But these days most companies ship with the attitude that if they find a bug they'll just patch it in the field. Especially for products like TiVo which require a broadband connection just to function.


If it were only me and if customer support didn't require several calls over two days, and if I didn't have to scour google for help, and if I didn't feel the need to put network wiring under testers and pull out the punch down tool just to be sure, and if I wasn't talked down to a little because I didn't take the CS criticism of switches to heart, and if I didn't spend about $1000 for everything, and if others in the forum didn't report the same problem recently .. I would just let it roll off my back. Since Tivo had no idea how to fix my issues and Tivo servers seem to be in the middle, I pick QC as an issue.

I consider not being able to get the DVR to talk to 2 minis more than a little bug. The 'little bug' made much of the system useless. Fortunately, I eventually got it working. I live in fear of getting the 'winter update'.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

So what was the ultimate solution to making it work? New switches? Or was it a configuration issue on their end?

Setting up new Minis has always been a bit of a PITA. Mostly due to authorization issues on their end, not hardware problems.


----------



## jim1971 (Oct 11, 2015)

Dan203 said:


> So what was the ultimate solution to making it work? New switches? Or was it a configuration issue on their end?
> 
> Setting up new Minis has always been a bit of a PITA. Mostly due to authorization issues on their end, not hardware problems.


A call to cs convinced me to try moca again. I had tried moca before and got a v112 error. Research told me to send an email to TivoMargret with TSN numbers. I did that. It worked when I tried it the next day. I never got a reply to my email. Maybe coincidence, maybe she did something on the server. Or maybe one of the many many resets of all kinds had an effect on moca but not on wired ethernet.

The minis could see the dvr. The dvr couldn't see the mini and / or talk to it on ethernet.

The internet is loaded with switches and routers between the dvr and tivo servers and back to the dvr. The TCP/IP is the same on the internet and in the house. Lots of hops are between here and there and back again. Switches are a red herring. The myth of green switches is just that. If the dvr and mini are in constant communication, there is no way the switch can go to sleep.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

That sounds more like an authorization issue. Usually when that happens you have to force a few calls on the TiVos to get them to update and recognize the Minis. The worst part is when the Minis don't recognize the TiVos. Since there is no way to force a call during setup that can be a real b*tch to resolve.


----------



## jim1971 (Oct 11, 2015)

Dan203 said:


> That sounds more like an authorization issue. Usually when that happens you have to force a few calls on the TiVos to get them to update and recognize the Minis. The worst part is when the Minis don't recognize the TiVos. Since there is no way to force a call during setup that can be a real b*tch to resolve.


To top off the weirdness, the minis could communicate well with the dvr IF I connected the mini to the network via ethernet using a travel router as a wireless bridge. Mentioning this earlier brought out the switch trolls and mac addressing trolls (edit: and the router trolls) who believe tivo's switch mythology (if it's true then tivo should document publicly the cause and effect and how to avoid since many use switches with no problems.) I suspect tivo servers are in the middle of the confusion. Only tivo knows for sure.

During testing before the final install, the premiere was connected to the network using the wireless travel router and each mini was tested using wired ethernet - all worked fine.

Addendum: Reading this post made me wonder. Initially, during testing, everything worked just as you would expect. Getting devices on my account was a little annoying but I could accept it. Everything worked well until I made a major change to my DVR / mini configuration in my home. Rather than 1 dvr and 1 mini being tested at a time, it was everything connected at once. I wonder if tivo servers record a 'configuration' somewhere and get confused if the configuration changes in a big way, even though all are still on the same network. The dvr couldn't do a network reconfiguration and tivo servers just 'assumed' that once you set it up it rarely changes. This is possibly intended as security so one mini can't be visible on another account if it's sold, but somehow got screwed up in the system design on tivo servers. They just blame switches and hope a few reboots and a few days wait fixes in.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

You guys are starting to getting off-topic, but not really if you think about it. I don't need Tivo as an unnecessary middle-man. Adding an unnecessary piece introduces the potential for complications. I can stream directly from the content provider to my TV, smartphone, PC, or tablet. And the tablet and notebook/Chromebook are much more portable so I can watch it anywhere in the house or outside the house.

You only need a Tivo if you're trying to get content on an actual TV. Otherwise it's worthless. My kids don't watch TV anymore, they watch content on their portable devices. And some of this content (i.e. Youtube) isn't even available on cable TV.


----------



## snerd (Jun 6, 2008)

jim1971 said:


> If it were only me and if customer support didn't require several calls over two days, and if I didn't have to scour google for help, and if I didn't feel the need to put network wiring under testers and pull out the punch down tool just to be sure, and if I wasn't talked down to a little because I didn't take the CS criticism of switches to heart, and if I didn't spend about $1000 for everything, and if others in the forum didn't report the same problem recently .. I would just let it roll off my back. Since Tivo had no idea how to fix my issues and Tivo servers seem to be in the middle, I pick QC as an issue.


...and if [you] weren't using a homemade router that [you] might have inadvertently misconfigured...

...and if [you] hadn't verbally assaulted everyone who attempted to help you by making suggestions that you chose to interpret as attacks...

Just in the interest of full disclosure. Many here tried to help jim1971 and were rewarded with disparaging remarks and other attacks. He likes to represent himself as some kind of victim of circumstances here, and often complains of "trolls" in the forum. Karma is not on his side...


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

BobCamp1 said:


> You guys are starting to getting off-topic, but not really if you think about it. I don't need Tivo as an unnecessary middle-man. Adding an unnecessary piece introduces the potential for complications. I can stream directly from the content provider to my TV, smartphone, PC, or tablet. And the tablet and notebook/Chromebook are much more portable so I can watch it anywhere in the house or outside the house.
> 
> You only need a Tivo if you're trying to get content on an actual TV. Otherwise it's worthless. My kids don't watch TV anymore, they watch content on their portable devices. And some of this content (i.e. Youtube) isn't even available on cable TV.


I don't think there is anywhere near 100% of a persons cable channel package available for live streaming. Plus to live stream them over the Internet takes bandwidth and introduces as many potential issues (the Internet getting to your house) as streaming the same channel through your TiVo over your local network.

I actually question if there really is a high demand to watch TV on a phone/tablet/computer, I understand doing so while working or for casual viewing, but there is a reason many of use have and will continue to spend money on large high end TVs and it isn't so we can watch TV on some little phone/tablet/computer screen.

For out of home viewing I find relying on streaming via WiFi to be highly suspect. The value is in being able to download to the device.

Regarding if YouTube is available via cable TV or not is irrelevant - it is available on TiVo and I certainly like watching it on my plasma allot more than I do a 8 inch tablet.


----------



## snerd (Jun 6, 2008)

jim1971 said:


> To top off the weirdness, the minis could communicate well with the dvr IF I connected the mini to the network via ethernet using a travel router as a wireless bridge.


Along similar lines, have you tried connecting a smaller switch to you pfSense router, and connecting the TiVo and Minis to the small switch, to see if that works?


----------



## jim1971 (Oct 11, 2015)

snerd said:


> ...and if [you] weren't using a homemade router that [you] might have inadvertently misconfigured...
> 
> ...and if [you] hadn't verbally assaulted everyone who attempted to help you by making suggestions that you chose to interpret as attacks...
> 
> Just in the interest of full disclosure. Many here tried to help jim1971 and were rewarded with disparaging remarks and other attacks. He likes to represent himself as some kind of victim of circumstances here, and often complains of "trolls" in the forum. Karma is not on his side...


Hi snerd

The router was configured perfectly. Your help involved a buy in to the 'it must be your home network' mythology and was completely rejected by me as inapplicable. Do you work for tivo?


----------



## jim1971 (Oct 11, 2015)

BobCamp1 said:


> You guys are starting to getting off-topic, but not really if you think about it. I don't need Tivo as an unnecessary middle-man. Adding an unnecessary piece introduces the potential for complications. I can stream directly from the content provider to my TV, smartphone, PC, or tablet. And the tablet and notebook/Chromebook are much more portable so I can watch it anywhere in the house or outside the house.
> 
> You only need a Tivo if you're trying to get content on an actual TV. Otherwise it's worthless. My kids don't watch TV anymore, they watch content on their portable devices. And some of this content (i.e. Youtube) isn't even available on cable TV.


I think it's on point. Tivo was leading edge and, with the mini, is even more so. The problem is odd, occasional configuration problems that probably involve tivo servers and how dvrs identify minis on the network. The second problem is tivo's 'blame it on the switches or home network' approach to these occasional problems. Once both are worked out so that tivo is as reliable as my ooma and other network devices, then it's only a matter of creativity to stay in a leadership position. If they choose to blame users for these problems and not provide detailed documentation on how to avoid these problems if it really is a user problem, then the future of tv is elsewhere.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

jim1971 said:


> Hi snerd
> 
> The router was configured perfectly. Your help involved a buy in to the 'it must be your home network' mythology and was completely rejected by me as inapplicable. Do you work for tivo?


Snarly much.

People offering help/advise on this forum can only help with solutions that don't require a hardware replacement or software fix from TiVo. So all advise goes to solving a non-TiVo hardware/software issue or offering a potential work around to a suspected TiVo hardware/software/design issues.

For those who do have actual TiVo hardware/software issues (of which there are and will likely continue to be many) only TiVo can provide a true fix (versus a work around) for the issue.

As an example in the past I personally have seen issues with some brands of switches so while I can not "fix" whatever the issue is for someone - I can offer them a workaround.


----------



## jim1971 (Oct 11, 2015)

atmuscarella said:


> For out of home viewing I find relying on streaming via WiFi to be highly suspect. The value is in being able to download to the device.


I used to agree until hulu without commercials came out. It rules. I finally subscribed.

Agree full tv over the internet is not a good option for anyone who watches a lot and has a family to make happy. It has to be easy, yet cost controlled.


----------



## jim1971 (Oct 11, 2015)

atmuscarella said:


> Snarly much.
> 
> People offering help/advise on this forum can only help with solutions that don't require a hardware replacement or software fix from TiVo. So all advise goes to solving a non-TiVo hardware/software issue or offering a potential work around to a suspected TiVo hardware/software/design issues.
> 
> ...


Snerd provokes. We have had other discussions. He's not a victim.

Many claim to have seen issues with switches and Tivo implies a lot via CS and comments here by tivo reps. If they really exist - and I doubt it since the internet is full of switches and routers and many hops are required to get anywhere to and from - then tivo needs to offer concrete documentation rather than innuendo.

Workarounds shouldn't be needed for a quality network - which I have. Ooma doesn't need one, neither do any other network devices I own, nor did Windows Server Active Directory, OpenVPN tun and tap servers simultaneously, and more. Neither did my tivo dvr / mini until I did my final tivo install; then it went to hades - hence my belief that tivo servers are involved somewhere in the problem.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

jim1971 said:


> Snerd provokes. We have had other discussions. He's not a victim.
> 
> Many claim to have seen issues with switches and Tivo implies a lot via CS and comments here by tivo reps. If they really exist - and I doubt it since the internet is full of switches and routers and many hops are required to get anywhere to and from - then tivo needs to offer concrete documentation rather than innuendo.
> 
> Workarounds shouldn't be needed for a quality network - which I have. Ooma doesn't need one, neither do any other network devices I own, nor did Windows Server Active Directory, OpenVPN tun and tap servers simultaneously, and more. Neither did my tivo dvr / mini until I did my final tivo install; then it went to hades - hence my belief that tivo servers are involved somewhere in the problem.


Well I don't have any desired to provoke anyone (at least at this time ) So if you and Snerd are having a moment I will stay out of it. Sounds like your problems have been fixed :up: so no need dwell on them anyway.


----------



## jim1971 (Oct 11, 2015)

atmuscarella said:


> Well I don't have any desired to provoke anyone (at least at this time ) So if you and Snerd are having a moment I will stay out of it. Sounds like your problems have been fixed :up: so no need dwell on them anyway.


If this were a run of the mill glitch, I would agree. If so much effort wasn't being made to distract when it occurs, I would agree. If I was the only one, I would agree. They just got me mad. They need to provide good documentation or fix it, making people aware of the issue and the repair.

Then, with this improvement and better update quality control, as suggested by the winter update issues reported here, Tivo has a shot at owning the future of tv.


----------



## snerd (Jun 6, 2008)

jim1971 said:


> The router was configured perfectly.


How can anyone know that? In other posts you complain that TiVo hasn't provided proper documentation to support the tiny fraction of customers who build their own routers. So, if you don't possess the requisite documentation, how can you be absolutely certain that your router is "configured perfectly"?

dmurphy's pfSense router works perfectly with TiVo equipment. Your's doesn't. That suggests the *possibility* of a configuration problem on your end. Just saying.



> Your help involved a buy in to the 'it must be your home network' mythology and was completely rejected by me as inapplicable.


Nonsense. I merely suggested that you might have inadvertently configured your router in a manner that prevented full TiVo compatibility.



> Do you work for tivo?


No, but you already knew that, since I described my background and my current employment in a previous post, and *at your request*.

God knows you think I'm a "troll" but in actual fact I'm trying to help you resolve whatever issue is causing problems in your system. I'm willing to consider *any* possibility. It might be TiVo's fault. It might be your fault. It might be pfSense's fault. It might be a hardware problem in you homebrew router. Possibilities abound, and they all deserve some level of consideration.

Until you are willing to consider *any possibility*, including the infinitesimally tiny possibility that *you* might have made some mistake, the solution may remain forever hidden in the very place(s) you are unwilling to look.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Not sure of this matters but TiVo uses UDP for discovery and requires that all TiVos be on the same subnet. A lot of briding devices don't pass UDP, which can cause issues with discovery. And the subnet requirement isn't documented anywhere that I'm aware of so that's one people can have issues with to.


----------



## jim1971 (Oct 11, 2015)

Dan203 said:


> Not sure of this matters but TiVo uses UDP for discovery and requires that all TiVos be on the same subnet. A lot of briding devices don't pass UDP, which can cause issues with discovery. And the subnet requirement isn't documented anywhere that I'm aware of so that's one people can have issues with to.


I've always been led to believe that TCP and UDP are standard internet and network protocols. DNS uses UDP and TCP port 53. Any network device that blocks UDP and a particular port is either defective or intentionally doing it via a network admin. No network device that works properly would block TCP or UDP. If it did, no part of the network could function unless applied surgically by a network admin.

If tivo were on a different subnet, it wouldn't update. 192.168.1.1 /255.255.255.0 is pretty standard for most home nets.

A course in networking 101 would explain this and more, although subnetting can get complicated if your teacher expects you to understand it. Mine did.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Before streaming it was very common for people to use two wireless routers in bridge mode to create a wireles network for multiple TiVos to use. There were a few brands that when used in this mode would block UDP and prevent the TiVos from seeing each other on the network. It was really common to see threads about it 8-10 years ago. (I've been here a long time) Perhapss it's no longer an issue with modern equipment, I'm not really sure. I haven't seen threads about it in a long time but with streaming wifi is not really a viable choice any more so very few people use it for their TiVos these days.


----------



## jim1971 (Oct 11, 2015)

Dan203 said:


> Before streaming it was very common for people to use two wireless routers in bridge mode to create a wireles network for multiple TiVos to use. There were a few brands that when used in this mode would block UDP and prevent the TiVos from seeing each other on the network. It was really common to see threads about it 8-10 years ago. (I've been here a long time) Perhapss it's no longer an issue with modern equipment, I'm not really sure. I haven't seen threads about it in a long time but with streaming wifi is not really a viable choice any more so very few people use it for their TiVos these days.


DD-WRT is great for turning a router into a wireless bridge. I used to use one for 5GHZ before wiring my home with cat6. It's an amazing tool. I still have a router set up for it (Asus rtn56u using padavan's firmware) just in case I need a high powered bridge on short notice. Otherwise, my travel router works great for one device. Blocking UDP is, pardon my tone, nonsensical. TCP/IP can't function without UDP. It would shut down the network.

Since tivo doesn't buffer live video (why would it .. really bad idea if it tried), wireless tivo in any form is a risk. The user has to accept the potential of bad performance, such as stuttering or worse. Some wireless networks are solid. Some are pretty weak. If Biff or Princess decide to hog the wireless with a big file, good luck to any other users on some wireless networks.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> I don't think there is anywhere near 100% of a persons cable channel package available for live streaming. Plus to live stream them over the Internet takes bandwidth and introduces as many potential issues (the Internet getting to your house) as streaming the same channel through your TiVo over your local network.
> 
> I actually question if there really is a high demand to watch TV on a phone/tablet/computer, I understand doing so while working or for casual viewing, but there is a reason many of use have and will continue to spend money on large high end TVs and it isn't so we can watch TV on some little phone/tablet/computer screen.
> 
> ...


Nobody watches 100% of the channels in their cable package. The average is less than 10% (17 out of 189). I'm guessing that maybe one or two of those channels aren't available online, and those would be available in VoD.

Most younger people own big TVs to watch movies. It beats buying an iMax screen. Watching TV on it is a bonus. Young people have grown up loving their small, portable devices and only watch about half of their TV on an actual TV set. And only half of them watch it live.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...edia-consumption-millenials-cord-cutters.html

Yes, you can watch TV programs 7 days later without either a TV or a DVR. And for many of these programs, you don't even need cable service. 

I think old people watch TV on TVs because their vision isn't as good as it once was and they need a big screen with big speakers. Plus that's always how they've watched TV. They just don't know any better or are stuck in their ways.

Nobody wants to own content anymore. The media get lost or damaged, DRM headaches, etc. Let somebody else own it and if you want to watch it, let them stream it or temporarily download it to you. I haven't had any issues doing this over WiFi, and even LTE is pretty good. (I was hoping the 700MHz auction would make that even better, but the FCC bungled that up).

Finally, why on Earth would I buy a $600 box to stream Youtube to my TV when my PC/smartphone/iPad/Xbox/Blu-Ray player/toaster already does it for free?


----------



## jim1971 (Oct 11, 2015)

BobCamp1 said:


> I think old people watch TV on TVs because their vision isn't as good as it once was and they need a big screen with big speakers. Plus that's always how they've watched TV. They just don't know any better or are stuck in their ways.


Have we met? Actually they're smallish speakers but I play them real loud.


----------



## aspexil (Oct 16, 2015)

jim1971 said:


> Snerd provokes. We have had other discussions. He's not a victim.
> 
> Many claim to have seen issues with switches and Tivo implies a lot via CS and comments here by tivo reps. If they really exist - and I doubt it since the internet is full of switches and routers and many hops are required to get anywhere to and from - then tivo needs to offer concrete documentation rather than innuendo.
> 
> Workarounds shouldn't be needed for a quality network - which I have. Ooma doesn't need one, neither do any other network devices I own, nor did Windows Server Active Directory, OpenVPN tun and tap servers simultaneously, and more. Neither did my tivo dvr / mini until I did my final tivo install; then it went to hades - hence my belief that tivo servers are involved somewhere in the problem.


I'll state straight out I'm not a Tivo employee. But I work a lot with commercial switches and debugging them and you'd be surprised how many times a bad switch port or firmware can be a problem (my last 3 server troubleshooting issues all network related where the customer was blaming my company's servers). And this is on telco grade equipment. Consumer switches are not built to last like the big iron. Networking and TCP/IP is a lot more complex than most people comprehend. One needs to be able to span each hop in their network and collect the tcpdump/iptrace level data. Most people have no idea how to do that or analyze the data. And streaming video like Tivo boxes will stress a network to its breaking point unlike any other kind of traffic (besides high volume holiday shopping traffic to a Web site).


----------



## jim1971 (Oct 11, 2015)

aspexil said:


> I'll state straight out I'm not a Tivo employee. But I work a lot with commercial switches and debugging them and you'd be surprised how many times a bad switch port or firmware can be a problem (my last 3 server troubleshooting issues all network related where the customer was blaming my company's servers). And this is on telco grade equipment. Consumer switches are not built to last like the big iron. Networking and TCP/IP is a lot more complex than most people comprehend. One needs to be able to span each hop in their network and collect the tcpdump/iptrace level data. Most people have no idea how to do that or analyze the data. And streaming video like Tivo boxes will stress a network to its breaking point unlike any other kind of traffic (besides high volume holiday shopping traffic to a Web site).


If other devices had issues I would agree. If Tivo would spell out issues and include cause and effect with potential fixes, I would agree. Right now, it's just mythology and excuses to me. Offer something concrete with respect to Tivo and how it works with minis and how switches can interfere, and I will then ask them why nobody else has these problems. All my other devices work and have always worked fantastic.

Also, commercial switches compared to a 8 port unmanaged retail switch is like comparing a wheel to a rocket. Commercial switches take years to learn to program and manage. A retail plain ordinary unmanaged switch is buy - plug in - use. There's nothing to program. 
It works or it's broken. Nothing in between. Even a retail grade managed switch is unmanaged until you actually do something fancy with it.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

BobCamp1 said:


> Nobody watches 100% of the channels in their cable package. The average is less than 10% (17 out of 189). I'm guessing that maybe one or two of those channels aren't available online, and those would be available in VoD.


 While I agree with your statement none of the stations I get have a live stream (I am OTA with with about 20 stations give or take) and using my TiVos to record and watch shows is allot better than trying to get Network web sites to work and then still have to watch commercials.



BobCamp1 said:


> Most younger people own big TVs to watch movies. It beats buying an iMax screen. Watching TV on it is a bonus. Young people have grown up loving their small, portable devices and only watch about half of their TV on an actual TV set. And only half of them watch it live.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...edia-consumption-millenials-cord-cutters.html


I don't know about you but I didn't watch TV when a was young either I didn't own a TV until I was almost 30 and even when I was living at home in high school didn't have time to watch it ever day. Frankly I think kids today watch allot more TV than my generation did maybe not in a living room now but they are being hooked and when their eyes and joints get older they will need bigger screens a comfortable seating.



BobCamp1 said:


> Yes, you can watch TV programs 7 days later without either a TV or a DVR. And for many of these programs, you don't even need cable service.


I will have to look again but the last time I look I didn't find very many cable stations where this was true.



BobCamp1 said:


> I think old people watch TV on TVs because their vision isn't as good as it once was and they need a big screen with big speakers. Plus that's always how they've watched TV. They just don't know any better or are stuck in their ways.


I am with you on the vision part, but I haven't found much content beyond news that doesn't benefit significantly from a large screen and a good speaker system and my lazy boy is nearly the most comfortable place on earth.



BobCamp1 said:


> Nobody wants to own content anymore. The media get lost or damaged, DRM headaches, etc. Let somebody else own it and if you want to watch it, let them stream it or temporarily download it to you. I haven't had any issues doing this over WiFi, and even LTE is pretty good. (I was hoping the 700MHz auction would make that even better, but the FCC bungled that up).


I have no data on content sales but there were Zero content sales when I was young p no way to buy it back then) so I am guessing there are significantly more now. While I never bought VHS tapes or DVDs, I do now own maybe a 100 blu-ray disks and several hundred digital movies.



BobCamp1 said:


> Finally, why on Earth would I buy a $600 box to stream Youtube to my TV when my PC/smartphone/iPad/Xbox/Blu-Ray player/toaster already does it for free?


Here we agree completely - there is no reason to buy a Tivo unless you want a DVR. However after you have bought a TiVo, a nice big screen TV and speaker system, and a good lazy-boy watching content on some phone/tablet/computer just doesn't cut it.

Oh and buy the way I am typing this sitting very comfortably in my lazy-boy on my 50 inch plasma, with Pandora streaming from my Bolt through my speaker system. So you can see I am very biased .


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

On-demand streaming is obviously the future. You don't have to look any farther than Netflix. 

Tivo isn't needed in the future. It's a middeman that will be bypassed. 

Pretty sure there is an exception in satellite tv. That technology can't really do on-demand.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Trick play isn't good enough for me with online streaming, so for sports or anything with commercials, I prefer to watch a recording on Tivo.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

trip1eX said:


> On-demand streaming is obviously the future. You don't have to look any farther than Netflix.
> 
> Tivo isn't needed in the future. It's a middeman that will be bypassed.
> 
> Pretty sure there is an exception in satellite tv. That technology can't really do on-demand.


On demand streaming services are hear now, as are cable/Satellite, OTA, & Disks. They are all video delivery systems and while I do believe on demand streaming will continue to grow and become a larger portion of over all video delivery I do not believe it will replace the others.

Not only is on demand not going to replace the other delivery systems I will go as far as to say it will not be the dominate one in my life. "Live" channels regardless if they are delivered via OTA, Cable/Satellite, or IP tech will still dominate.

I am not sure I would call TiVo/a DVR a middleman but as long as people can record content there will still be a demand for a DVR, while I agree this demand will likely go down I do not see it going away anytime soon. The on demand versus DVR preference really depends on what type of control a person wants.

Regarding the other "middleman" they are hear to stay and there is Zero possibility they can or will go away. Most content producer do not have the ability to directly deliver content to anyone. There is no inherent difference between the Comcasts of the world delivering HBO via a cable sub or via IP delivery the Comcasts of the world are still required and will still be the middlemen. The exception to this of course is when Comcast is also the content producer. However even Comcast doesn't have the ability to deliver content to everyone without other middlemen.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

The problem there is live TV relies on an antiquated business model where advertisers pay for ads they assume people will watch. A lot of the content we have access to today is funded by those asvertising dollars. If DVRs become the norm then the business model that makes live TV viable drys up. 

Right now we're sort of in the "golden age" of DVRs. They're functional enough that they allow those of us who have them, and use them to their fullest extent, to get free content without paying the price of watching the ads that funded that content. But if the numbers shift to the point where the majority of people are doing that then the entire business model is going to collapse and we're going to see both a reduction in the amount of content and the quality of that content. 

Streaming allows content providers to survive in this post DVR world. It gives them technological ways of forcing people to watch ads and also allows them to charge consumers directly for their content. Services like CBS All Access show that the content providers think that their content is more valuable then services like Netflix, Hulu or even cable currently charge for it. They think that they can charge people $7/mo for access to content just from their own library AND force people to watch commercials. I'm not sure how well it's working out for them, but if that catches hold then accessing content in the future may become more expensive then cable is now even "ala carte" like most people want.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> The problem there is live TV relies on an antiquated business model where advertisers pay for ads they assume people will watch. A lot of the content we have access to today is funded by those asvertising dollars. If DVRs become the norm then the business model that makes live TV viable drys up.
> 
> Right now we're sort of in the "golden age" of DVRs. They're functional enough that they allow those of us who have them, and use them to their fullest extent, to get free content without paying the price of watching the ads that funded that content. But if the numbers shift to the point where the majority of people are doing that then the entire business model is going to collapse and we're going to see both a reduction in the amount of content and the quality of that content.
> 
> Streaming allows content providers to survive in this post DVR world. It gives them technological ways of forcing people to watch ads and also allows them to charge consumers directly for their content. Services like CBS All Access show that the content providers think that their content is more valuable then services like Netflix, Hulu or even cable currently charge for it. They think that they can charge people $7/mo for access to content just from their own library AND force people to watch commercials. I'm not sure how well it's working out for them, but if that catches hold then accessing content in the future may become more expensive then cable is now even "ala carte" like most people want.


I agree with everything you said and really do wonder if this is the best of times for price and availability. Being OTA with one or 2 streaming service with a DVR gives me more content than I have time to watch for very low price.

I really think people discount how much of the cost of producing content is paid for by advertising and the cable/satellite delivery system. They look at the low price of the big streaming services or of buying a whole season of a show and think that is paying for the content and really don't understand how much more we would have to pay if it were a 100% pay as you go on demand non advertising supported world. Plus we would need to crowd fund (commit to buying it before it is produced) allot of stuff or no one would take the chance on producing it.

All of which makes me just fine with TiVo only being mildly successful and most people still watching live TV.

Regarding the price of streaming services like CBS all access, HBO Now, etc - while paying their monthly fees all year seems high the real game is to only sub a few months a year to each service. Watch the back log and move to the next service. I effectively do that now with my DVR by saving show to watch binge style and really like not waiting a week or more between episodes for lots of shows and add in a few months a year in of Hulu or perhaps something else as more become available and it is all good.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

atmuscarella said:


> On demand streaming services are hear now, as are cable/Satellite, OTA, & Disks. They are all video delivery systems and while I do believe on demand streaming will continue to grow and become a larger portion of over all video delivery I do not believe it will replace the others.
> 
> Not only is on demand not going to replace the other delivery systems I will go as far as to say it will not be the dominate one in my life. "Live" channels regardless if they are delivered via OTA, Cable/Satellite, or IP tech will still dominate.
> 
> ...


On-demand streaming is here and growing and there is no reason for it not to become the norm.

No one cares about recording content with their dvrs except for the tiny minority who like to archive tv shows. Comcast isn't going to continue the linear pay tv model just for those folks.

On-Demand streaming eliminates all the hassle of Tivo. No Season Passes. No worrying about a show being pre-empted or delayed or not being recorded. No scheduling conflicts. etc etc. You watch a show anytime without doing anything.

Live stuff is streamed today as we speak.

The only exception I can think of is satellite because its tech can't really do on-demand streaming. They might be stuck with dvr tech to do on-demand.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

The problem for us, as consumers, with a pure VOD model is that it puts complete control into the hands of the content providers/MSOs. If they decide to force you to watch 5 minutes of ads in the middle of a show there is nothing you can do about it. If they decide to only retain the last 2 episodes of a show to help boost DVD sales there is nothing you can do about it. I personally don't like the content providers/MSOs having that much control. If they do go to these sorts of extremes I suspect that file sharing technologies like BitTorrent will see a huge influx of new users.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> The problem for us, as consumers, with a pure VOD model is that it puts complete control into the hands of the content providers/MSOs. If they decide to force you to watch 5 minutes of ads in the middle of a show there is nothing you can do about it. If they decide to only retain the last 2 episodes of a show to help boost DVD sales there is nothing you can do about it. I personally don't like the content providers/MSOs having that much control. If they do go to these sorts of extremes I suspect that file sharing technologies like BitTorrent will see a huge influx of new users.


Bah. You can think up all sorts of extremes that content companies could do to the customer today without On-Demand.

AMC could charge $20/mo now for their channel when the Walking Dead airs and yet they don't.

I think you're just playing the fear mongering card.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

VOD already has unskippable commercials and availability windows, so it's not like these are far fetched ideas.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> VOD already has unskippable commercials and availability windows, so it's not like these are far fetched ideas.


Not farfetched at all. In addition to having availability and the playback experience controlled by others, the content itself is also manipulated: edited, shortened, speeded up, original tracks replaced by elevator music, etc. I'd rather trust the original content in my hands, thank you very much; and hard disk storage is very very cheap.

There will come a time when somebody's great great grandfather's hard disk may become the only un-adulterated source for some movies and shows we take for granted today.

Keep those DVRs going as long as you're allowed the privilege because there are hard times ahead for the federation!


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

trip1eX said:


> No one cares about recording content with their dvrs except for the tiny minority who like to archive tv shows.


Utterly false, I don't archive much of anything.

I care about recording and watching content the way I want to watch when I want to watch it, not subject to the limitations that streaming forces on you.

You might be right that streaming will eventually be the end-all product, but it's not because it's a superior model for watching TV.


----------



## achalupa (Oct 27, 2008)

Dan203 said:


> Not sure of this matters but TiVo uses UDP for discovery and requires that all TiVos be on the same subnet. A lot of briding devices don't pass UDP, which can cause issues with discovery. And the subnet requirement isn't documented anywhere that I'm aware of so that's one people can have issues with to.


This probably has more to do with TiVo using multicast discovery (bonjour) than with the ip protocol. Each TiVo on a network needs to be reachable in the same broadcast domain. Broadcast domains won't cross routers.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> VOD already has unskippable commercials and availability windows, so it's not like these are far fetched ideas.


But VoD also has commercial free options. And some content never leaves and much of the rest cycles in as much as out.

There are many extremes content providers could implement today on the cable/satellite side of things and yet don't. I don't hear you worrying about those.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

slowbiscuit said:


> Utterly false, I don't archive much of anything.
> 
> I care about recording and watching content the way I want to watch when I want to watch it, not subject to the limitations that streaming forces on you.
> 
> You might be right that streaming will eventually be the end-all product, but it's not because it's a superior model for watching TV.


It is the superior model for the market.

And I never hear anyone complaining that they can't watch stuff on Netflix the way they want when they want.

Anyway it's a horse & buggy vs automobile scenario. Some folks still held onto their horse and buggy and touted all the advantages of it over the auto. But the market spoke and the auto won out despite this.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

trip1eX said:


> But VoD also has commercial free options. And some content never leaves and much of the rest cycles in as much as out.
> 
> There are many extremes content providers could implement today and yet don't. I don't hear you worrying about those.


Some of what they don't do now is due to competiton. If they get to the point where their VOD is the only game in town then all bets are off. They will do whatever they decide will make them the most money. Capitalism at it's finest.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> Some of what they don't do now is due to competiton. If they get to the point where their VOD is the only game in town then all bets are off. They will do whatever they decide will make them the most money. Capitalism at it's finest.


Not sure what you're talking about.


----------



## davefred99 (Oct 31, 2004)

I don't have a crystal ball but I think the only things that will be live in the future are Sports, News and OTA. everything else will be streamed in one fashion or another. The DVR will live on mostly for OTA & Satellite services but not so much for cable. I think its inevitable that we are going to have to watch commercials to pay for this programming unless we want to pay a lot more for programming than we do now. Cord Cutting is a double edged sword and if it becomes to big of a trend too fast it will not be any cheaper in the long run if the programmers have any say in it. That said I hope to save by cord cutting and ride the wave as long as I can and hope there are enough fools that stick to there old ways that it balances things out.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

trip1eX said:


> It is the superior model for the market.
> 
> And I never hear anyone complaining that they can't watch stuff on Netflix the way they want when they want.
> 
> Anyway it's a horse & buggy vs automobile scenario. Some folks still held onto their horse and buggy and touted all the advantages of it over the auto. But the market spoke and the auto won out despite this.


I've heard complaints about hulu, because of the commercials.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

trip1eX said:


> Not sure what you're talking about.


Them not being more restrictive. They're not more restrictive now because they have competition from DVRs and alternate streaming services as well as some government oversight. But if the content providers all decide they want to be like CBS All Access then that's where the possibility of the extreme restrictions I mentioned come into play.

You seem to be optimistic about them handling it properly. I am not. I think corporate greed will compell them to make the system as restrictive as the market will bear. And I don't think that will be much fun for those of us use to living with TiVo.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> Them not being more restrictive. They're not more restrictive now because they have competition from DVRs and alternate streaming services as well as some government oversight. But if the content providers all decide they want to be like CBS All Access then that's where the possibility of the extreme restrictions I mentioned come into play.
> 
> You seem to be optimistic about them handling it properly. I am not. I think corporate greed will compell them to make the system as restrictive as the market will bear. And I don't think that will be much fun for those of us use to living with TiVo.


The dvr isn't competition.

And I agree you're playing the fear mongering card. It's all the sky is falling for you it seems. Nothing good can come out of VoD.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

shwru980r said:


> I've heard complaints about hulu, because of the commercials.


From those paying for the commercial free option?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

trip1eX said:


> The dvr isn't competition.
> 
> And I agree you're playing the fear mongering card. It's all the sky is falling for you it seems. Nothing good can come out of VoD.


DVRs are absoluetly competition for VOD.

I'm not fear mongering. I have an opinion of how things are going to be once we get to a point where everything is VOD. Even if nothing changed and VOD today is exactly how it ends up, we as TiVo users are worse off. VOD today has forced ads and avaibility windows. With a TiVo you can record shows, store them indefinitely and skip the ads when you decide to watch them.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

trip1eX said:


> From those paying for the commercial free option?


The commercial free option isn't even 100% commercial free. There is still a list of shows that require a forced ad at the start and end of each epiode due to their agreement with the content providers.

And the only reason they can offer a commercial free option for $12/mo is because the content they're showing was paid for by ads shown during it's original airing on broadcast TV. If it was content developed exclusively for streaming they would need to charge a lot more for the commercial free option.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> DVRs are absoluetly competition for VOD.
> 
> I'm not fear mongering. I have an opinion of how things are going to be once we get to a point where everything is VOD. Even if nothing changed and VOD today is exactly how it ends up, we as TiVo users are worse off. VOD today has forced ads and avaibility windows. With a TiVo you can record shows, store them indefinitely and skip the ads when you decide to watch them.


Dvrs aren't competition for VoD at all. VoD replaces the dvr.

You coulda fooled me about the fear mongering. You only point to the worst of VoD. IT's all the sky is falling and 100% negative.  Do you only subscribe to CBS All Access? Maybe you should try Netflix or HBO Go or the commercial free Hulu option, etc.

And as much as I like paying ad subsidized prices for commercial free tv, even you just said, not so many posts ago, that the dvr commercial skipping model was never sustainable the more it caught on because ads are what subsidize the price you pay for tv.

Either way, things were going to change.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> The commercial free option isn't even 100% commercial free. There is still a list of shows that require a forced ad at the start and end of each epiode due to their agreement with the content providers.


That doesn't sound that bad to me. Far from extreme.



Dan203 said:


> And the only reason they can offer a commercial free option for $12/mo is because the content they're showing was paid for by ads shown during it's original airing on broadcast TV. If it was content developed exclusively for streaming they would need to charge a lot more for the commercial free option.


But Hulu also doesn't include local and nor sports shown on the major networks it is associated with so their costs are much lower those of the networks/affiliates themselves. Does Hulu even include all the morning talk shows or national news either?

And Netflix and Amazon are showing that it is quite viable to produce lots of commercial free content specifically for streaming.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Whatever man, not gonna argue with you. I was simply pointing out that we as TiVo users are living in a golden age that will eventually end. Either we're going to be forced to watch ads or we're going to have to pay significantly more for content. And for those of us who have been TiVo users for a long time that's going to suck.


----------



## snerd (Jun 6, 2008)

trip1eX said:


> And I never hear anyone complaining that they can't watch stuff on Netflix the way they want when they want.


OK, then hear this: I can't watch *new* stuff on Netflix, with the exception of Netlix originals.

Happy now?

Netflix is the exception, most sources of streaming content cram commercials down your throat, and for many of us that is simply unacceptable.

It isn't just about skipping commercials, though for me that is important. The TiVo interface and trick play is something I use for much more than skipping commercials. I detest technology that forces me to do things in only one way, as opposed to technology that lets the user decide how to access the content. Same concept applies to operating systems, web browsers, or programming languages.


----------



## jim1971 (Oct 11, 2015)

Compare what you can do today with the best you could do three years ago.

Today, Hulu without commercials, netflix, amazon prime, slingtv, tivo with dvr, streaming, and minis, more.

Three years ago it was a kludge. 

Imagine 3 years from now. More of the same, only better. People want easy entertainment that's not too expensive. Good broadband and the know-how to deliver it in home are the limitations. Comcast has gone from 12mbps or 20 mbps to several times faster for the same price.

The holy grail is easy to use, affordable, and reliable tv / entertainment on demand with as many or as few commercials as the customer is willing to pay for.


----------



## Eddie501 (Jun 4, 2004)

One thing I've noticed is that all the best shows are on the commercial free services. Netflix, Amazon, HBO Now, even Hulu is starting to produce content now. While the channels loaded to the gills with commercials like A&E, TLC, SyFy, MTV, etc give us rock bottom, cheap junk programming all day & night. So what exactly is all the ad revenue buying? Kardashians, Sharknados, and Real Housewives. Even the networks, while they produce a lot of content, not much of it is any good.

I think what we're slowly seeing is that we really don't need ads to get good programming. And there is a market for it. It's telling that out of all the streaming services out there, the most successful ones are ad-free. By a long shot. Does anybody really watch Crackle?


----------



## snerd (Jun 6, 2008)

jim1971 said:


> Compare what you can do today with the best you could do three years ago.


One thing I could do a while ago was use my Premiere to subscribe to internet video content that I could play back at my leisure with the TiVo interface.

Pity they removed that capability.

The true Holy Grail would be using a TiVo to *subscribe* to streamed content from whatever source and watch it when/as we want. Screw VOD with all its restrictions.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> Whatever man, not gonna argue with you. I was simply pointing out that we as TiVo users are living in a golden age that will eventually end. Either we're going to be forced to watch ads or we're going to have to pay significantly more for content. And for those of us who have been TiVo users for a long time that's going to suck.


I love paying ad subsidized prices for commercial free content too.

But I just don't think the only options VoD brings to the table are suckage and more suckage. 

NOt paying $600-$1000 for a new Tivo is nice.

Not messing around with season passes, conflicts, storage space and missed recordings etc is nice.

Not dealing with the cable company is better.

And VoD offers lots of advantages to distributing and developing original content. Shows don't have to make it or break it in 2 or 3 episodes in a specific time slot. I think they have better data on how many are watching. I think they can take more chances. Cater to more niches. They also don't have to fill up time slots.

And it is much easier to switch in and out of streaming services than paytv subscriptions.

Others pointed out other positive developments as well. There's going to be alot of good happening.


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

The problem is, there are 3 different business models for TV.

The first model, as you are familiar with is ad-supported. Here the goal of programming is to sell eyeballs - the programming isn't important at all, but the lead in from the programming into the commercials is. Here you generally go lowest common denominator as that will get you the most eyeballs and you want to cater to those who don't care to leave the sofa, or to bother with their DVR. You want the most eyeballs.

The second model is subscriber based - like HBO, Netflix and Amazon. Here the goal is to attract your desired demographic and keep them paying you. So you do market research into what your subscribers like, and what the audience you want to attract like. The goal is not eyeballs, it's subscribers, and it's paying subscribers in particular. So unlike the first model, you don't want lowest common denominator because most of that group won't subscribe. As long as you fit the profile of people they want, they'll produce programming you want. 

The third model is actually independent or state sponsored. While in a lot of countries this is mis-used to be a microphone for propaganda, this allows programming to be created that independently is high quality and can often not be run otherwise as the content does not have to appeal to everyone, or content that literally bites the hand that feeds it (e.g., consumer oriented shows that expose bad business practices).

The first model people have already embraced VoD - they use their own services or Hulu to provide unskippable ad content and carefully controlled availability (e.g., last N episodes). Sure Netflix carries a lot of stuff, but Netflix is held back because agreements often say they are the last to have the content - so after it's aired on TV, it's done on Hulu or other streaming sites, it's out on DVD, then it hits Netflix. 

The second model is the Netflix model and they're producing a lot of high-quality content, because well, Netflix can't rely on back catalogs and be known as the place where all the material is older.

The third model will hang around - a lot of people do like what BBC, CBC, PBS and others produce.

So you'll have choice in VoD - and most likely, you'll have traditional TV as well, because TV is broadcast - each additional person watching the stream consumes no additional bandwidth. While VoD is one to one - if you have one TV streaming content, using a second uses twice as much since there is usually no commonality to the stream. Even if they're watching the same program, they will be in different places.

And yes, unskippable ads are a reality - Hulu, CBS, etc., they all do it. Because they realize they can make convenience pay


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

I don't think any of the linear pay tv channels have truly embraced VoD yet. They still make all their content for linear pay tv first. Only now are we hearing that Hulu will have original programming and that CBS is going to make a Star Trek show just for their VoD service. 


Most of linear pay tv is simultaneously subscriber and ad supported. Hulu is too.


Attracting eyeballs and subscribers pretty much go hand in hand.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

trip1eX said:


> It is the superior model for the market.
> 
> And I never hear anyone complaining that they can't watch stuff on Netflix the way they want when they want.
> .


You don't "*hear anyone complaining that they can't watch stuff on Netflix*" , give me a break as Netflix takes stuff off all the time (and adds new stuff), but if you put a movie you want to watch on your list and don't get to for some time it can go off your list, a TiVo (or any DVR) recording will never go away unless you want it to. This is just one example of how much better a DVR is that any streaming service, but I know that some streaming service have continent that you can't get on cable (like House of Cards on Netflix). I not going into all the advantages of Cable/OTA TV over streaming, but there many. I think both can and should exist in this space.


----------



## opus472 (Jul 4, 2007)

trip1eX said:


> On-Demand streaming eliminates all the hassle of Tivo. You watch a show anytime without doing anything.


Yes, well, until you have a dozen people over for a TV-watching party and the internet connection goes down.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Another issue with the VOD model is data caps. Comcast, the largest MSO and ISP in the US, has started expanding their capped service to more markets. Basically they give you 300GB for your $60/mo. If you exceed that it's $10 for an additional 50GB up to a max of $35 for "unlimited" data.

HD content on Netflix is encoded at about 6Mbps, which works out to 2.7GB per hour. That means if you watch more then ~3.6 hours of content a day you will exceed the cap. And that's presuming you don't use your connection for anything else. The average American watches about 5 hours of TV a day. Count multiple people in different rooms watching different things and you hit that cap even faster.


----------



## opus472 (Jul 4, 2007)

I have a text file of 400+ movies I might want to watch when they're available for home viewing. Using TV Browser software with Schedules Direct, I can match the file against the next 2 weeks of programming to see which movies appear on the premium cable channels. Near as I can tell, there's no way to do this with VOD.


----------



## opus472 (Jul 4, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> Another issue with the VOD model is data caps. Count multiple people in different rooms watching different things and you hit that cap even faster.


Not to mention the ever increasing data requirements as we get more into the "internet of things." The ISPs are making political headway with the disingenuous argument that caps apply to only a small minority of "greedy" users, while fully realizing that not very far down the road many more users will be blowing right through these caps.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

While also exempting their own offerings from the caps in a blatant effort to use thier position as controller of the pipe to squeeze out the competition.

If things do truly end up as VOD only then at the very least I hope the government steps in and regulates the pipe so that we can have a fair and level playing field for all VOD providers rather then having a system where monopolies prop up their own services via unfair practices


----------



## JBDragon (Jan 4, 2004)

opus472 said:


> Gotta wonder how much folks spending on Hulu, with their monthly fees plus individual episode charges. Seems like that could get outta hand pretty quick.


Well I use a Antenna, so I get ABC, NBC, CBS, CW, PBS, FOX all in HD and 5.1 surround for FREE, along with other channels like MeTV, AntennaTV, etc. My TIVO records all that. It costs me ZERO every month.

HULU I would never pay for. I don't think it's worth it. But if you can't use a Antenna, then go with the $13 option with no commercials, because commercials you can't skip, and play over and over will drive you nuts!!!

I pay for Netflix which is pretty cheap for what you get with a lot of orignal content and it's growing like crazy for 2016. Tons of new Animation. Tons of content for kids also.

For a few series I miss and want to see like "The Walking Dead" on AMC. I can buy a cheap SD Season Pass. Looks good enough that I'm not going to pay more for the HD version. When new Episodes air on Sunday night, I can watch on Monday night, commercial FREE, and I own the episodes!!! It's not that much. Buying a few season passes is a drop in the bucket in what I'm saving.

Before I left Comcast, my TV & Internet service was $170 a month. That included rental of a Duel HD DVR tuner. I had my own cable modem. It was just me and 1 TV. That was about 4 years ago when I canceled. When I got my house, I signed up to U-Verse Internet only, had them for a few years, but they jacked up prices, so I'm back with Comcast with much faster speeds for not much more money. I'm currently paying $50 a month for 105Mbps service. That's for 12 months, and after that when price goes up, I'll drop it back down to 50Mbps. 105 is really overkill and I was just going to get 50, but they said for $5 more a month I'd more then double the speed, so I did it.

So right now, $50 a month is a hell of a lot better then $170 a month. I was already paying for Netflix when I had cable TV, so I really don't consider it a extra cost. There's no reason to sign up to everything under the sun after you cut cable. What's the point? You spend just as much, maybe more, and now everything is all mixed up instead of all in a single place and easy to find. Signing up for these streaming bundles is really no differnt from signing up for Cable TV. 
Playstation Vue $50-$65
https://www.playstationnetwork.com/vue/
SlingTV $20+
https://www.sling.com/?cvosrc=DRTV....TV&utm_source=offline&utm_campaign=July2015TV

HULU+ $8-$12
http://www.hulu.com/welcome
Netflix $8+ depending on the number of screens at once.
http://www.netflix.com/
Amazon Prime $99 per year.
www.amazon.com/Prime‎

Did I leave anyone out? Then there's the Premium Channels. 
HBO Now $15 
There's others like Showtime and Epic, etc. CBS is not on HULU+, but have their own service at $6 a month. There's also services like MLB.

The thing is, do you want or need all of this? Not really. I have to much to watch already. You can get a lot of FREE Movies and stuff on CRACKLE. You just get commercials, but it's FREE!!! 
With a TIVO and a antenna, Maybe Netflix at $8, and FREE Crackle. Maybe a couple season passes at around $20 a pop, that's a fraction of money for what you were paying before.

There's also tricks you can do that are 100% legal yet save you money! Say you're a huge fan of Game of Thrones. Why pay HBO $180 a year to get that? Why not wait until the new season is over or just about over, except 1 or 2 episodes, and then sign up for a month of HBO Now for $15, Binge watch all the episodes in that month, and anything else you can watch, and then cancel. You only spent $15 to watch the whole season in HD!!! Come back the following year and do the same thing! If all you do is watch HBO, ok, then $15 a month makes sense for you.

Just signing up for all this crap is over kill. You can't possibly watch that much content to make it remotely worth it.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

JBDragon said:


> For a few series I miss and want to see like "The Walking Dead" on AMC. I can buy a cheap SD Season Pass. Looks good enough that I'm not going to pay more for the HD version.


Your willingness to subject yourself to SD content when HD is available calls into question the validity of everything else you write.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

I can think of only 1 or 2 shows I watch that are from OTA. Everything else is cable or premium, and Netflix.

HBO, Showtime, AMC, FX, cooking channel for the wife, sports net for Hockey, A&E, Sundance, BBCA, Starz, Lifetime are the regular channels.

Then yes Netflix for all their cool stuff. 

I would blow through my bandwidth allotment very fast if I streamed all my stuff - ad skipping aside.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

JBDragon said:


> There's also tricks you can do that are 100% legal yet save you money! Say you're a huge fan of Game of Thrones. Why pay HBO $180 a year to get that? Why not wait until the new season is over or just about over, except 1 or 2 episodes, and then sign up for a month of HBO Now for $15, Binge watch all the episodes in that month, and anything else you can watch, and then cancel. You only spent $15 to watch the whole season in HD!!! Come back the following year and do the same thing!


I'm doing that exact thing right now. I'm in the middle of season three, and there are a few weddings coming up. What could possibly go wrong?


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> The commercial free option isn't even 100% commercial free. There is still a list of shows that require a forced ad at the start and end of each epiode due to their agreement with the content providers.


Has Tivo gotten rid of all of its ads in its UI? Do they still have an ad on the status bar? Well, at least they don't charge you for monthly service on top of that -- it would be silly to pay to get a box where the only option is to watch ads AND pay a monthly service fee.

Besides, ads on the PC/tablet are easy to ignore. You open up a new tab on the browser and do something else for 30 seconds or check your Facebook/Twitter accounts. On a TV, you pull out your smartphone or tablet. I think that alone will keep the number of commercials in online content in check.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

opus472 said:


> Yes, well, until you have a dozen people over for a TV-watching party and the internet connection goes down.





opus472 said:


> I have a text file of 400+ movies I might want to watch when they're available for home viewing. Using TV Browser software with Schedules Direct, I can match the file against the next 2 weeks of programming to see which movies appear on the premium cable channels. Near as I can tell, there's no way to do this with VOD.





opus472 said:


> Not to mention the ever increasing data requirements as we get more into the "internet of things." The ISPs are making political headway with the disingenuous argument that caps apply to only a small minority of "greedy" users, while fully realizing that not very far down the road many more users will be blowing right through these caps.


You're looking in the rearview mirror. You gotta look where the market is headed.

Data Caps will only increase. VoD provides untold convenience. And the march to VoD isn't going to slow down for the person that uses a text file of 400 movies to find content matches on premium channels.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

BobCamp1 said:


> Besides, ads on the PC/tablet are easy to ignore. You open up a new tab on the browser and do something else for 30 seconds or check your Facebook/Twitter accounts. On a TV, you pull out your smartphone or tablet. I think that alone will keep the number of commercials in online content in check.


That assumes that ads on the PC/tablet are only 30 seconds. If they're 5+ minutes like on commercial TV, that's a long time to check my FB crap. As for pulling out my smartphone/table during TV ads, I also need to mute the TV because that used car salesman shouting so hard I can see that spittle spewing out his mouth drives me nuts!


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

BobCamp1 said:


> Has Tivo gotten rid of all of its ads in its UI? Do they still have an ad on the status bar? Well, at least they don't charge you for monthly service on top of that -- it would be silly to pay to get a box where the only option is to watch ads AND pay a monthly service fee.
> 
> Besides, ads on the PC/tablet are easy to ignore. You open up a new tab on the browser and do something else for 30 seconds or check your Facebook/Twitter accounts. On a TV, you pull out your smartphone or tablet. I think that alone will keep the number of commercials in online content in check.


There is a difference between a banner ad and 18+ minutes of forced commercials. (typical of hour long show) While I don't really like the banner ads they don't impede me from watching my shows. Forced commercials suck! I would rather pay $3 for an episode of a show then watch it for "free" on VOD with forced commercials. My time and annoyance are worth more then $3 to me.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

trip1eX said:


> From those paying for the commercial free option?


Yes.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

trip1eX said:


> That doesn't sound that bad to me. Far from extreme.


It's unacceptable to me. Life is too short to watch commercials.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

trip1eX said:


> Data Caps will only increase. VoD provides untold convenience. And the march to VoD isn't going to slow down for the person that uses a text file of 400 movies to find content matches on premium channels.


Yeah sure - 2 years ago I didn't have a cap on Comcast, then they added one. And 2 years later it's the same 300GB even though my speed has tripled.

Are you really naive enough to think they're not going to take us for everything they can while simultaneously exempting all their VOD from the cap? If you are, I have a bridge to sell you.

I'm still waiting to see how the VOD viewing experience is so much better than recording what I want and watching it however and whenever I want. So far I haven't heard anything from you that makes a difference to me.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

slowbiscuit said:


> Yeah sure - 2 years ago I didn't have a cap on Comcast, then they added one. And 2 years later it's the same 300GB even though my speed has tripled. Are you really naive enough to think they're not going to take us for everything they can while simultaneously exempting all their VOD from the cap? If you are, I have a bridge to sell you. I'm still waiting to see how the VOD viewing experience is so much better than recording what I want and watching it however and whenever I want. So far I haven't heard anything from you that makes a difference to me.


 I find VOD ok for premium channels where there are no commercials. It's also nice to get to some back catalogs but I want nothing to do with it when it comes to shows with ads I cannot skip. Choice is good and that mean more than one option.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

zalusky said:


> I find VOD ok for premium channels where there are no commercials. It's also nice to get to some back catalogs but I want nothing to do with it when it comes to shows with ads I cannot skip. Choice is good and that mean more than one option.


Remember what is on VOD today may not be there the next day, your DRV recordings will stay until you remove them. (or run out of space)


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

VOD has some advantages that are nice. For one you don't have to worry about setting up recordings, you can just watch a new show even if you hear about it after it aired. There are also no issues with space. But IMHO the negatives outweigh the positives when it comes to forced commercials and availability windows. 

Me and my wife were just talking about this over the weekend. We currently have a cable box which we're paying $7/mo for just in case we need to watch something VOD. But with the forced commercials we both agreed we'd rather just buy an episode for a few bucks or get it from BitTorrent then bother with VOD. So she's returning the box to the cable company tomorrow. No reason to pay for it when both of us agree we probably wouldn't ever use VOD unless it was absolutely the last resort due to the forced commercials.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

slowbiscuit said:


> Yeah sure - 2 years ago I didn't have a cap on Comcast, then they added one. And 2 years later it's the same 300GB even though my speed has tripled.
> 
> Are you really naive enough to think they're not going to take us for everything they can while simultaneously exempting all their VOD from the cap? If you are, I have a bridge to sell you.
> 
> I'm still waiting to see how the VOD viewing experience is so much better than recording what I want and watching it however and whenever I want. So far I haven't heard anything from you that makes a difference to me.


I'm not trying to convince you that you should be on VoD or need VoD. I could care less. Some people still drive a horse and buggy. Good for them.

But, from what I see, the market will move to VoD whether you like it or not for reasons mentioned in this thread by myself and others. And the VoD future isn't the VoD you see in the rearview mirror. IT's going to make as much or more progress in the next 5 years as it has in the previous 5.

And caps will give as time goes on. The greater the number of OTT services that come on board the more pressure on cable internet providers to accomodate those services. I think you are naive if you think these caps will remain as is in the future. Or that, in the long run, a Comcast can get away with offering their own streaming services cap free while capping those of other services.

Caps aren't as nefarious either as the internets likes to believe. Cellular companies have caps on cellular data usage and have no pay tv services to protect. Cable companies can show you that a tiny few customers were using an extreme amount of data often to the detriment of the system. And probably costing the cable company more than the price they were charging.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

lessd said:


> Remember what is on VOD today may not be there the next day, your DRV recordings will stay until you remove them. (or run out of space)


I don't treat my Dvr as a library! Once I watch it it's gone.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> There is a difference between a banner ad and 18+ minutes of forced commercials. (typical of hour long show) While I don't really like the banner ads they don't impede me from watching my shows. Forced commercials suck! I would rather pay $3 for an episode of a show then watch it for "free" on VOD with forced commercials. My time and annoyance are worth more then $3 to me.


Why do you keep using the word "forced" in front of the word commercials as if there are optional commercials?

There aren't. ....except after 5 seconds on YouTube.

You can only skip commercials on satellite/cable/OTA through technology. But even you admit that's a practice that was never sustainable because commmercials subsidize the price you pay for tv.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

trip1eX said:


> Why do you keep using the word "forced" in front of the word commercials as if there are optional commercials?
> 
> There aren't. ....except after 5 seconds on YouTube.
> 
> You can only skip commercials on satellite/cable/OTA through technology. But even you admit that's a practice that was never sustainable because commmercials subsidize the price you pay for tv.


Well anything that deals with TV/video is because of technology so I don't know what your point is about that.

The fact is we have been able to record TV and make commercials optional during playback for over 35 years. Sure it is allot easier now with a TiVo and SkipMode but the ability to make commercials options is not new or abnormal. The change is being forced to watch them (or at least play without interruption) and with streaming video/VoD via devices like a TiVo, Ruko, Apple TV, etc., you can not easily even switch to something else (like people who channel surf during commercials).

You may have faith that the Comcasts & News Corps. of the world are going to do right by you but history tells a different story about how large faceless corporations operate. VoD has the potential to significantly reduce our control of our own viewing experience. I hope record-able linear TV doesn't go away in my lifetime because I have zero faith that we wont get screwed over with a significantly degraded viewing experience or a significantly higher costs (or both).

I really do think we are in a golden era, we have lots of content primarily paid for via ads that most people are not willing to do anything about and we have affordable tech that allows us to access this content at a low cost while significantly enhancing our viewing experience.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

trip1eX said:


> Why do you keep using the word "forced" in front of the word commercials as if there are optional commercials?
> 
> There aren't. ....except after 5 seconds on YouTube.
> 
> You can only skip commercials on satellite/cable/OTA through technology. But even you admit that's a practice that was never sustainable because commmercials subsidize the price you pay for tv.


It's forced because there is no option to get rid of them, even by paying more money. As mentioned above even the Hulu ad free option is not 100% ad free. Some shows are required by the content provider to have a pre/post roll commercial break. And service like CBS All Access don't even offer an ad free version.

I foresee a future where the content providers decide to have their cake and eat it too. They'll charge you for access to their content AND force you to watch commercials. They'll basically use technology to sustain there current business model and squeeze out any technology that threatens it. (i.e. see content provider's position on successor to CableCARD)

Your faith in cable companies doing the right thing when it comes to caps is laughable. The only reason "caps" on mobile data have increased over the years is competition. With cell phones I can choose from at least 4 major companies. Cable on the other hand has a functional monopoly over broadband in most areas. DSL is typically to slow to keep up with streaming video. And fiber to the home only exists in a few select areas. And in some states, like mine, the entrenched cable operators have lobbied for local laws which make it almost impossible for a new players to come in and compete with them. The cable companies are going to fight tooth and nail to maintain their profits. If the video side of the business declines then you can pretty much guarantee they will milk more out of the internet side. And lacking any competition or heavy government regulations they're going to be able to do pretty much whatever they want.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

zalusky said:


> I don't treat my Dvr as a library! Once I watch it it's gone.


Same as I do except what if you can't get to watch the program quickly, your on a trip or do what my wife does and record the full year of episodes of a new series to see if other people like it, if she then wants to watch this new series sometime in the summer, it may not be on VOD anymore.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> It's forced because there is no option to get rid of them, even by paying more money.


Yeah but you can just say I don't want to watch 18 minutes of commercials. 

And not sure why you think the future won't give you commercial free options? Hulu began without one and now offers one. That is a pretty big step considering all their content comes from the content companies that have only known the legacy linear broadcasting ad-supported model.

And the Netflix model has proven very successful.



Dan203 said:


> As mentioned above even the Hulu ad free option is not 100% ad free. Some shows are required by the content provider to have a pre/post roll commercial break. And service like CBS All Access don't even offer an ad free version.


I said this above, but that's legacy linear broadcasting ported to VoD. And Hulu didn't even originally have a commercial free option before and now they do. That's called progress.



Dan203 said:


> I foresee a future where the content providers decide to have their cake and eat it too. They'll charge you for access to their content AND force you to watch commercials. They'll basically use technology to sustain there current business model and squeeze out any technology that threatens it. (i.e. see content provider's position on successor to CableCARD)


Except we have more choice for watching video today because of OTT video services. Services not controlled by your cable company.

And VoD technology allows ad-free and ad-supported options or anything in between. That wasn't doable with linear broadcasting.

And it is the channels that sell most of the ads afaik. The cable companies add in some local ads here and there. But the channels sell ads and provide their feed to the cable/satellite companies. And the price of those channels is something negotiated between the channel and the cable/satellite company.



Dan203 said:


> Your faith in cable companies doing the right thing when it comes to caps is laughable. The only reason "caps" on mobile data have increased over the years is competition. With cell phones I can choose from at least 4 major companies. Cable on the other hand has a functional monopoly over broadband in most areas. DSL is typically to slow to keep up with streaming video.


I have faith things go where the demand is going to go. And mobile data caps didn't exist few years ago or so. There's quite a few customers that are still holding on to their grandfathered-in unlimited data plans. In other words, cellular service companies instituted caps where before there was none despite the greater competition.



Dan203 said:


> And fiber to the home only exists in a few select areas. And in some states, like mine, the entrenched cable operators have lobbied for local laws which make it almost impossible for a new players to come in and compete with them. The cable companies are going to fight tooth and nail to maintain their profits. If the video side of the business declines then you can pretty much guarantee they will milk more out of the internet side. And lacking any competition or heavy government regulations they're going to be able to do pretty much whatever they want.


Yeah cable does that stuff like every company does. But remember Verizon quit laying Fiber to the home because it was too expensive not because they ran of towns to lay fiber in. IT's not just all nefarious reasons for the lack of competition. 

And the other local phone companies already have wires to your home but have they replaced those? No. IT's expensive.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

atmuscarella said:


> Well anything that deals with TV/video is because of technology so I don't know what your point is about that.


The skipping of commercials isn't built into the business model. The price you pay for cable relies on people watching the commercials. OTA really relies on people watching commercials.

The more that skip the commercials the more the model won't work.

(Maybe that's a good explanation/excuse for rising cable bills.)



atmuscarella said:


> The fact is we have been able to record TV and make commercials optional during playback for over 35 years. Sure it is allot easier now with a TiVo and SkipMode but the ability to make commercials options is not new or abnormal. The change is being forced to watch them (or at least play without interruption) and with streaming video/VoD via devices like a TiVo, Ruko, Apple TV, etc., you can not easily even switch to something else (like people who channel surf during commercials).


First, you never could skip commercials before. I remember tv before the VCR. And personally I can't recall using the VCR to skip commercials much if at all.

And second, like has been said, an ad-supported video business isn't sustainable if everyone is skipping the commercials. 

Third, who says you'll be forced to watch commercials and won't have options? Hulu added a commercial free option after years of not having one. Netflix is very successful with a non-commercial VoD service. Why would anyone be so sure the future is watching commercials?

Remember, VoD tech allows either/or whereas old linear broadcasting wasn't able to let the customer choose which model they preferred.



atmuscarella said:


> You may have faith that the Comcasts & News Corps. of the world are going to do right by you but history tells a different story about how large faceless corporations operate.


 Things work out over time.



atmuscarella said:


> VoD has the potential to significantly reduce our control of our own viewing experience. I hope record-able linear TV doesn't go away in my lifetime because I have zero faith that we wont get screwed over with a significantly degraded viewing experience or a significantly higher costs (or both).


I see a lot more choice for watching video today so I am not sure where you are coming from. I think the OTT service market is going to give us alot more options. VoD streaming tech is able to let customers choose if they want ad-supported or ad-free or to let them skip ads after 5 seconds like on YouTube or whatever new business model they dream up. IT's a game changer.



atmuscarella said:


> I really do think we are in a golden era, we have lots of content primarily paid for via ads that most people are not willing to do anything about and we have affordable tech that allows us to access this content at a low cost while significantly enhancing our viewing experience.


I think we're in golden era in terms of having our cake and eating it too by paying ad-supported prices for commercial-free tv. But even the most negative about VoD posters in this thread acknowledges that was never sustainable.

And I am not sure I would call dvr tech affordable. Tivos have been pretty expensive over the years.

And meanwhile VoD services like Netflix are fantastic. And have only gotten better over time. And have made much more progress than the dvr experience has made over the past 5 years. And make the dvr obsolete.

VoD just makes the whole dvr routine unnecessary. You just don't need to setup season passes any more. Worry about clipping. Works about conflicts. Worry about missed recordings. Worry about storage and things being deleted etc etc. I know many of us are used to that. But it is antiquated.

There are downsides. You can't "control" how long your recordings stay. I understand that, but I don't think the vast vast majority of the market cares because they don't archive recordings. They time shift them. And I think most stuff that has disappeared off of a Netflix has reappeared again or gone to another service. IT's also a bit of a glass half empty attitude when you look at all the great content a service like Netflix routinely offers.

And I fail to see why you won't be offered a commercial free option when the tech is there to do that. Hulu didn't have any sort of commercial free option when it began. Now it does. I don't think they care how they make money. Through ads or thru subscriptions. OR some of both. But the beauty is they can easily cater to what the customers prefers.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

trip1eX said:


> First, you never could skip commercials before.


Wow. Our first VTR (sic) was 1969 and everybody I knew who had one skipped commercials (in our family we thought that was an unethical violation of an implied contract). In maybe 1973-4 an acquaintance of mine developed a commercial-killer that automatically paused VCR (sic) recordings during commercials; he sold only a few thousand but within a year or so there were knockoffs for sale everywhere.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

trip1eX said:


> And mobile data caps didn't exist few years ago or so. There's quite a few customers that are still holding on to their grandfathered-in unlimited data plans. In other words, cellular service companies instituted caps where before there was none despite the greater competition.


They added caps because those unlimited plans nearly killed their networks. They didn't realize at the time how much data someone with a smartphone could really use. Once smartphones really started to catch on they eliminated the unlimited plans to help curb usage. But in recent years those caps have started to go up and up due to competition. Cable has no competition so even if their original intentions were to protect the network from heavy users they have zero incentive to increase them. In fact they have incentives not to since most of the bandwidth is being used for OTT video services that are in direct competition with their video services.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

JBDragon said:


> Just signing up for all this crap is over kill. You can't possibly watch that much content to make it remotely worth it.


 It's about what you want to watch vs. something to watch. Cord cutting evangelists never seem to get that, and I'm not a cable or a satellite customer.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

trip1eX said:


> There are downsides. You can't "control" how long your recordings stay.


Actually, the entire series of "Game of Thrones" is available on demand. Every single episode. With no commercials since it's HBO.

Others can talk about how streaming and VoD aren't important. Tivo strongly disagrees. In fact, they're promoting the Bolt as a central streaming device that can also be used as a DVR. It's not a DVR anymore, it's a Unified Entertainment System.

They advertise how "commercial breaks are now optional", but of course all those streaming services have commercials and the box itself is loaded with ads. So it's a little bit of false advertising.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

I love Netflix. I can see anything, anytime, anywhere with no commercials. And though there's stuff it doesn't have, including some stuff that it used to have, it's selection is several orders of magnitude greater than I've ever had stored on my DVR, which also loses shows when they get deleted. Even KUID shows eventually get culled for new stuff.

However, I hated Hulu when I tried it. VOD can be great, but it can also royally suck.


----------



## Sixmm (Oct 2, 2015)

allan said:


> I love Netflix. I can see anything, anytime, anywhere with no commercials. And though there's stuff it doesn't have, including some stuff that it used to have, it's selection is several orders of magnitude greater than I've ever had stored on my DVR, which also loses shows when they get deleted. Even KUID shows eventually get culled for new stuff.
> 
> However, I hated Hulu when I tried it. VOD can be great, but it can also royally suck.


I think netflix has a nice business model. I hate using it because finding something I want to watch is such a PIA. VOD wit Comcast is nice but having to watch commercials and the fact that they drop episodes after a short time is infuriating.

Setting up passes on my Tivo is still the most painless way to watch TV. I would definitely be a cord cutter if I could get the football and baseball with a subscription.

We pine for the day when we can cut the cord and get our stuff ala carte but be careful what you ask for. The businesses will always find a way to get into our pocket. Right now advertisers are still playing the old game. Wait until they figure out that the bang for their ad buck is not there. Then watch the networks figure out a way to really jack up the price of the content and shift the cost directly to the viewer.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> They added caps because those unlimited plans nearly killed their networks. They didn't realize at the time how much data someone with a smartphone could really use. Once smartphones really started to catch on they eliminated the unlimited plans to help curb usage. But in recent years those caps have started to go up and up due to competition. Cable has no competition so even if their original intentions were to protect the network from heavy users they have zero incentive to increase them. In fact they have incentives not to since most of the bandwidth is being used for OTT video services that are in direct competition with their video services.


Yep but mobile data is offering consumers more data because of demand. Competition is what improves the pace of innovation and keeps prices lower.

But demand is what was going to make them build out their network capacity.

Demand is what will increase broadband data caps. IT's an untenable position in the long run to keep caps low as OTT video services become more prevalent and popular.

The caps right now are high enough so few customers are bumping up against them. But the more customers that turn to OTT video services, the more pressure/demand on cable companies to increase the caps.

Yes cable companies will drag their feet (more) than they otherwise would if they had heavy competition. But they do improve things. Their internet speeds continue to increase and there isn't much "incentive" for them to do that because they have been so much faster than DSL for a long time now generally speaking. My cable company is building out gigabit in the small city I live in now. Where's their incentive?? DSL speeds here are 5 mbps maybe.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

BobCamp1 said:


> Actually, the entire series of "Game of Thrones" is available on demand. Every single episode. With no commercials since it's HBO.


Yep but you can't control it is what others have said and it is true. You can't.

But you can't control whether your Tivo hard drive goes down and you lose all your recordings either. Unless you're backing everything up all the time.

Theoretically HBO could make it so HBO Now is just the last 3 years worth of programs and the rest is available for an extra charge.

All these guys are going to test and are testing out the waters to see what works in the new VOD OTT space.

Anything is possible but the market will decide.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

tenthplanet said:


> It's about what you want to watch vs. something to watch. Cord cutting evangelists never seem to get that, and I'm not a cable or a satellite customer.


Exactly. It's like going to a buffet and complaining about all the stuff you aren't going to eat.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Dan203 said:


> They added caps because those unlimited plans nearly killed their networks. They didn't realize at the time how much data someone with a smartphone could really use. Once smartphones really started to catch on they eliminated the unlimited plans to help curb usage. But in recent years those caps have started to go up and up due to competition. Cable has no competition so even if their original intentions were to protect the network from heavy users they have zero incentive to increase them. In fact they have incentives not to since most of the bandwidth is being used for OTT video services that are in direct competition with their video services.


Sprint has an unlimited data plan.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

They added that back recently. They've built up their networks in recent years so it's not an issue like it was when smart phones first started to take off.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

GoodSpike said:


> The rates are regulated in many, if not most or all places in the US.


Not for internet. Usually basic cable is about all that is rate regulated.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Linear TV isn't going away. It might fade into the background with more time and attention going to OOT SVOD and other content sources, but it's not going away. And as long as there is live TV, people will want DVRs. That live TV may all be delivered via IP on cable and fiber systems eventually, like it is on FTTN today, and the channels, lineups and packages may be different, but it will still be available.


----------

