# FCC should Force Satellite to use cablecards?



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

I can't believe how stupid I've been. For the longest time, I have assumed that Satellite carriers were exempt from FCC regulations because Satellites weren't coverred by them. I didn't really think why- I just assumed it had to do with some obscure federal laws about what the FCC's jurisdiction was- cablecos were very much like a power company but Digital Broadcast Satellite (*DBS*) wasn't, so no jurisdiction.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Classic AT and DT_DC cleared this up in a question having to do with DirecTv.



dt_dc said:


> The FCC lays out exactly why DBS was exempted in their original report and order ... specificially on pages 26-28. Search for document 98-116 (in field 2. DA/FCC Number) on the following FCC search page to get the relevant document:
> http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi


Direct link: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/...ment=2101780002

Now many people may not want to wade through the bureaucratease of that, but there were a couple reasons that I will probably inaccurately summarize as the following:

Satellite was new and small (8% of the market at the time). Traditionally, regulators exempt newcomer businesses from new initiatives.
Satellite boxes could be purchased by a large number of third party vendors, and competition was very healthy between them.
Third party Satellite boxes may be used nationally and interchangably between different services. The carriers did not have a stranglehold on producing the boxes as the cable companies did.

Oh how the world has changed.

First off, the satellite world bears little resemblence to the one where folks could go buy one of those enormous satellite dishes that could be pointed at several different satellites, and where you could buy a box that would allow you to tune in a bewildering amount of US and foreign content. In Europe, satellite broadcasting dominates the market, and in America, the cable companies are very concerned about their steady losses to satellite companies like Direct and Dish. These companies are hardly frail newcomers.

Secondly, there no longer is a great deal of choice for satellite offerings. Currently Rupert Murdoch has effective control of DirecTv, and the SkyTv satellite businesses in Europe and in Asia. Both Dish (echostar) and DirecTv have been in discussions on merging.

Thirdly, I don't think anyone could argue that there is any kind of thriving business of third party providers of satellite boxes. If you want to have Dish or DirecTv, you are forced to use their box, and you cannot use a box you paid them for to use interchangably with a different satellite provider. You are locked in with your investment, and the satellite provider has a natural monopoly due to the barriers to switching.

The reasons for exempting Satellite companies from the cablecard requirement no longer exist.

They are behemoths that have global reach and control not only the manufacture of the boxes, and the delivery, but in growing degrees, even the content.

Why is it relevant to Tivo? 
Wouldn't Tivo be able to petition the FCC to allow customers of Direct to switch their DirecTivo support to Tivo?
Isn't the FCC refusing to do their job in assuring that boxes may be used interchangably? Tivo as well as a number of other DVR manufacturers would love to build one box that you can simply plug a Comcast, DirecTv, or Dish Network card into, and that you can order your services from whichever carrier provides the best services on any particular month. Doesn't this encourage competition? Isn't that what the FCC's job is in regulating the industry?
Should Direct and Dish be able to dictate all features do and do not appear in the boxes that access their services? Comcast and Viacom aren't allowed to manufacture their own boxes- Why should Direct? 
On boxes like DirecTivo's that they do not manufacture, why should the carrier be allowed to control all software so that they can effectively control all features regardles who manufacturers the box? Isn't that situation tantamount to same situation Congress intended to prohibit? In other words, shouldn't DirectTv be prohibted from disabling Tivo features on Tivo boxes?

If Tivo and other DVR manufacturers like Sony Pioneer Panasonic and Samsung had the the ability to compete on an even playing field with the carrier provided boxes, we'd have a heck of a lot more choice and versatility in switching providers and thereby get the carriers to compete on the ridiculous charges they get away with taking from our pocketbooks month by month.


----------



## dylanemcgregor (Jan 31, 2003)

Well, I don't know if I can say the FCC _should_ do this, but I know I certainly would like it if they did. And I think it would end up being a boon to the sat providers as well. If cable card takes off and people start investing money in TV sets and TiVos and other cable card devices, that will start to be a powerful disincentive for consumers to switch to sattelite. I can't see why the sattelite companies have not actually lobbied to be included in the specification, but I am sure I am missing something.

Dylan


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

Justin Thyme said:


> Third party Satellite boxes may be used nationally and interchangably between different services. The carriers did not have a stranglehold on producing the boxes as the cable companies did.


For DBS, the receivers weren't interoperable across providers, for the most part, if you consider DirecTV and USSB as one provider. There was a service on IA5 that uses Echostar receivers, as does Skyangel. There was some ethnic service that used DirecTV format.

You could never purchase a provider agnostic box for any US based DBS service, and use it with either DirecTV/USSB or Dishnetwork. That has been the situation since day one of DBS in the USA.

And the market wasn't as open as it seemed. The first million DirecTV receivers had to be RCA, and further manufacturers then released their receivers.

Echostar didn't really have brands. There may have been some JVC, Philips, and RCA boxes, thats it. Most of their boxes are Echostar branded, either as Dishnetwork, or their old brand HTS.

On the other hand, there were all sorts of analog C-band receivers, which accepted a standard descrambler module or external descrambler, and you could choose to buy your programming from one or more companies (you still can to some degree, except there is ony one provider of Digital pay receivers for home C-band, analog nearly gone).



> First off, the satellite world bears little resemblence to the one where folks could go buy one of those enormous satellite dishes that could be pointed at several different satellites, and where you could buy a box that would allow you to tune in a bewildering amount of US and foreign content.


That world is still there, it has just evolved from the way it was 10-20 years ago.
True, it is more a hobbiest thing than a means to an end to get TV, but that is the way it goes.



> Both Dish (echostar) and DirecTv have been in discussions on merging.


AFAIK, talks stopped when it was either clear, or Murdoch had closed the deal to purchase DirecTV.



> Isn't the FCC refusing to do their job in assuring that boxes may be used interchangably?


Who said satellite boxes had to play. IMO, although universal satllite receiver would be a good thing, the FCC has decided to do nothing with them than, and should do nothing now.
IOW, if they wanted universal satellite recievers, they should have said so long ago.


> Should Direct and Dish be able to dictate all features do and do not appear in the boxes that access their services? Comcast and Viacom aren't allowed to manufacture their own boxes- Why should Direct?


Yes, they should, to protect the rights of them and their programmers, so a box does support Macrovision, the ablity to spit out song titles as text our a serial port, by all means.
Comcast and Viacom (I time you meant Time Warner), don't have to build boxes, SA and Motorola do.

I think technologically, a universal DirecTV/Dishnet box could be done, but the providers are in too deep to let that happen, especially for higher end STBs such as DVRs

Now an STB that would do either cable/otaa or satellite would be harder, as in addition to conditional access, you would need a a satellite tuner, separate from a cable tuner, as the technology on the RF side is radically different on satellite than cable.


----------



## montge (Dec 26, 2004)

Lets reverse this around. Why didn't the cable industry or terrestrial TV adopt/work with our international counterparts to establish a common standard. Cablecard is very technically simular to the way DVB (mostly related to the CA standards) set of standards works. It also seems like ATSC is pretty simular in a lot of ways to the DVB standards also, with most of the differences being related to audio encoding, and video sizing. (For those that are interested, look up DVB-T, DVB-C, DVB-S in google and you'll see additional info on these standards.)

Why did the US cable industry and TV industry re-invent the wheel on this? They could have adopted a well established standards that a large percentage of the world uses.

As far as I can tell it's all came down to business, the license holders of DVB wanted to much money, so the US cable and terrestrial TV industry decided to develop it's own standards that are basically the same but with just enough differences to not have to license them.

So my basic answer is NO, they shouldn't, it's a free market


----------



## dmdeane (Apr 17, 2000)

Let us also not forget the new IPTV services that are on their way. Already in certain areas you can get very fast, much faster than cable or DSL, broadband service, and later you'll be able to get TV over this via IP, or so I understand:

https://www22.verizon.com/fiosforhome/channels/fios/root/package.asp

I would hope that these new IPTV services won't reinvent their own proprietary standard, forcing us to get special IPTV boxes; they should join the CableCARD standard and save us all the extra annoyance of yet another incompatible TV standard.


----------



## MighTiVo (Oct 26, 2000)

dmdeane said:


> Let us also not forget the new IPTV services that are on their way. Already in certain areas you can get very fast, much faster than cable or DSL, broadband service, and later you'll be able to get TV over this via IP, or so I understand:
> 
> https://www22.verizon.com/fiosforhome/channels/fios/root/package.asp
> 
> I would hope that these new IPTV services won't reinvent their own proprietary standard, forcing us to get special IPTV boxes; they should join the CableCARD standard and save us all the extra annoyance of yet another incompatible TV standard.


Sorry for the bad news, MS has most US Telcos using a MS proprietary standard.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/01/ms_iptv_strategy_in_tatters/

Too bad TiVo doesn't have the money and the clout to get fully into the IPTV game. After all, Series 2 TiVo's are essentially ready for basic IPTV services today! 
http://www.dtg.org.uk/news/news.php?class=companies&subclass=TiVo&id=825
Sure would be a nice way to ease IPTV into 2million households instead of requiring a forklift of consumers existing STBs and existing services.
As I understand it, the telcos just don't have enough faith that TiVo will be around to invest in using their technology.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

dmdeane said:


> Let us also not forget the new IPTV services that are on their way. Already in certain areas you can get very fast, much faster than cable or DSL, broadband service, and later you'll be able to get TV over this via IP, or so I understand:
> 
> https://www22.verizon.com/fiosforhome/channels/fios/root/package.asp
> 
> I would hope that these new IPTV services won't reinvent their own proprietary standard, forcing us to get special IPTV boxes; they should join the CableCARD standard and save us all the extra annoyance of yet another incompatible TV standard.


A co-worker showed me the lineup for FIOS for his community. Pretty impressive. ALL the local stations in HiDef. Too bad it will be years, if ever, before I see something like that where I live.


----------



## thwart (Jul 26, 2004)

MighTiVo said:


> Too bad TiVo doesn't have the money and the clout...


Indeed.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

classicsat said:


> ...the FCC has decided to do nothing with them than...


 The FCC never said the DBS exemption from the cablecard requirement was to be granted in perpetuity.

The aim of the cablecard requirement was to bring to video networks the same principle of allowing non phone company manufacturers to build phones that attach to the phone network.

The FCC said as much. [The Cablecard principle] "is similar to the Carterfone principle adopted by the Commission in the telephone environment. The Carterfone "right to attach" principle is that devices that do not adversely affect the network may be attached to the network." Source: FCC release regarding cablecard decision, 1998

To roughly paraphrase the policy document DT_DC cited, the FCC decided to exempt the DBS providers because 1) they were small and weak newcomers, 2) there was a healthy business for third party provided boxes and 3) The satellite companies did not have a stranglehold on the production of navigation devices.

None of these conditions are true today.



FCC annoucement of the cablecard requirement said:


> In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress directed the Commission to create rules that would allow consumers to obtain "navigation devices" -- meaning the set top boxes, remote control units and other equipment -- from commercial sources other than the service provider. This order will benefit consumers and further the Commission's goal of providing competition in the telecommunications marketplace by creating a major market for consumers to own equipment used to access video programming and other services in their homes.


Currently, consumers do not benefit from any such competitive third party market of providers of navigational devices. The will of Congress has not been executed by the FCC. With flagrant disregard for Congress's goal and the FCC's authority, both the cablecos and the DBS companies are intent on closing out third party DVR providers from accessing their data services directly in ways any ways even vaguely similar to what we have with POTS or Cell phones. The original date for cablecards was originally July 2000. Five years later, we are still waiting, and meanwhile the FCC is letting the CableCos get away with murder. As for the DBS companies? They have an even better deal.

Let's put aside the question of whether it was correct of the FCC to require Cablecos to use cablecards. If it is correct to require them to use cablecards, then because the reasons for exempting DBS companies no longer are valid, it is consistent with FCC stated rationale and stated policy to require DBS companies to support use of such access cards in third party devices.

Where have I erred?

Granted, if I have not erred, given FCC's track record, I fully realize we might not see a DBS "cablecard" standard until 2012.

I guess the near term question of the greatest immediacy has to do with remedies that companies can realistically petition the FCC to put in place within the year.

For example, consider opening up DirecTivo service support.

If it was Congress's desire that companies like Tivo be able to compete with Provider supplied boxes, then what rationale can the FCC provide for allowing DirecTv to prohibit users of DirecTivo's from switching their support from Direct To Tivo, and getting new software from Tivo instead? Why is it not realistic for the FCC to grant such a petition?


----------



## dmdeane (Apr 17, 2000)

MighTiVo said:


> Sorry for the bad news, MS has most US Telcos using a MS proprietary standard.
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/01/ms_iptv_strategy_in_tatters/


Yeah, but this is like, what, the third or fourth attempt by MS to buy its way into the TV industry, is it not? I can see an infant industry allowing MS to shower it with money for a while (or with "free" software and hardware development or other services), but if IPTV really takes off, why would they not want to open their systems up to some competition rather than be shackled to MS, especially when something open, and mandated by the FCC for cable, already exists in the form of CableCARD? My real curiosity is whether the FCC can mandate CableCARD for the IPTV folks as well; I'm uninformed on the legal and regulatory aspects, not to mention the technical problems. Just curious.


> Too bad TiVo doesn't have the money and the clout to get fully into the IPTV game. After all, Series 2 TiVo's are essentially ready for basic IPTV services today!
> http://www.dtg.org.uk/news/news.php?class=companies&subclass=TiVo&id=825


IPTV is far too new and speculative a thing for TiVo to waste its limited resources on at the moment. Look how long it is taking TiVo to get into CableCARD, for instance. But I wouldn't count TiVo out of the game just yet. If TiVo continues to expand its relationships with cable TV and IPTV grows up as a competitor to cable TV, we'll see TiVo working up similiar relationships with the telcos. I doubt very much the telcos signed any truly exclusive deals with MS that they can't be free of in a year or two.


> Sure would be a nice way to ease IPTV into 2million households instead of requiring a forklift of consumers existing STBs and existing services.
> As I understand it, the telcos just don't have enough faith that TiVo will be around to invest in using their technology.


Oh, TiVo will be around. "Faith" has nothing to do with it. MS bought their way into this party, and the telcos will gladly let MS buy them their drinks for the evening. But that doesn't mean that the telcos will be asking MS to spend the night with them afterwards. The telcos weren't "snubbing" TiVo; they were simply taking advantage of MS's desperation to buy into the TV business to help finance the early stages of their IPTV development.


----------



## dmdeane (Apr 17, 2000)

Justin Thyme said:


> If it was Congress's desire that companies like Tivo be able to compete with Provider supplied boxes, then what rationale can the FCC provide for allowing DirecTv to prohibit users of DirecTivo's from switching their support from Direct To Tivo, and getting new software from Tivo instead? Why is it not realistic for the FCC to grant such a petition?


If your understanding of the law is correct in regards to DBS, I also assume it applies to the telco's move into IPTV. Has the FCC made any comments about IPTV? Or are they ignoring the issue? Are they asleep at the switch over there at the FCC, or is there an ideological commitment not to "interfere" with the "free market" regardless of what Congress intended?


----------



## wolverines (Jul 15, 2005)

Cablecard was a standard hammered out between the cable companies and the consumer electronics companies. Those cable cards are designed to work only with cable, not dbs. I don't think you'll see a day when we have a dbs standard. Market principles dictate otherwise. The cable companies don't compete with each other, use 2 primary suppliers (SA and Motorola) and it took them forever to come up with standard. Everyone wants something different. Given that, can you imagine the two competing dbs companies agreeing? I'd expect them to fight an FCC mandate tooth and nail.

As a consumer I'd love to see it of course, but doubt I will.


----------



## dmdeane (Apr 17, 2000)

jsmeeker said:


> A co-worker showed me the lineup for FIOS for his community. Pretty impressive. ALL the local stations in HiDef. Too bad it will be years, if ever, before I see something like that where I live.


I know someone who has the FIOS broadband ISP service; he now usually hosts my coworker's XBOX Live Halo 2 games since his bandwidth is so much superior to ours. I believe they don't offer the IPTV yet in his community, but that might have changed. Unfortunately they don't even offer the FIOS broadband ISP service yet in my community, so I am condemned to wait. Just as well; I don't have an HDTV set yet and probably won't for many years. It's just not high yet on my list of priorities. I can wait. TiVo can wait too; standard def cable TV is still the "choice" (or rather default position) of the vast majority of TV users at the moment. That will change, but it still gives TiVo plenty of time. Most people aren't on the "cutting edge".


----------



## JimSpence (Sep 19, 2001)

I think the FCC should write a rule that allows DBS companies to let subscribers get all broadcast networks that they can't receive OTA and don't yet have locals via DBS. What? You say I can? It's called DNS waivers. But, that's only good for the four major nets, not WB or UPN.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

wolverines said:


> Cablecard was a standard hammered out between the cable companies and the consumer electronics companies. Those cable cards are designed to work only with cable, not dbs. I don't think you'll see a day when we have a dbs standard. Market principles dictate otherwise.


Maybe I misunderstood you, but Cable companies are actually hostile to the cablecard initiative and are doing everything they can to resist the FCC ruling that require them.

The reason you don't have this







in your home is not due to market forces. Market forces are in nearly all cases are good, however as with all things, there are exceptions. Market forces allow natural monopolies to dictate consumer choice, and most people think that is a bad thing.

The cableco's are not doing cablecard because they want to. They hate the concept in the same way the Phone company hated the idea of consumers going to BestBuy to purchase any phone that suited their needs.

If market forces had their way and alternate navigation devices were not allowed to access the phone company's network, then the phone company would have controlled your computer's access to the outside world. You may not recall acoustic coupler modems. Didn't the engineers realize it would have been much more reliable to connect their circuits directly to the phone line? Of course they did. But until the FCC came out with the Carterfone rulings that anyone should be able to make devices that connect to the phone network, it was illegal to do anything other than the acoustic coupler.

It was more than being able to buy phones that look like Mickey Mouse. The growth of the internet would have been very very different if all modem manufacturing was controlled by the phone company.

The Carterfone ruling was good for industry. It was good for consumer choice. I think that is all the FCC and Congress is trying to do with guaranteeing that third party companies can make devices that directly access the DBS and cable company networks.

Why the Satellite companies should be exempted from the same requirement the cableco's must obey is beyond me. Interoperability and having a single standard is not the point. What is the point is being able to do the same thing you do when you buy any phone that suits you and plug it into the wall and it works. The world is much different now than the world of C and K Band big dishes accessing multiple satellites using satellite tuners available from a variety of third parties. That is not reality any more for 99.9% of satellite users. The only choice satellite users have for direct connection is what the satellite company forces down their throats.

Ask any DirecTivo owner how they feel about being locked out of the features that all the other Tivo owners enjoy. Rupert Murdoch wants everyone connecting to Direct to use a DVR manufactured by another of his companies. He can fairly claim that his new DVRs will do everything that the DirecTivos do. Naturally, because he has not allowed the DirecTivos to get HME or TivoToGo or any other of the new features.

Murdoch is doing it quite simply because he can.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

dmdeane said:


> If your understanding of the law is correct in regards to DBS, I also assume it applies to the telco's move into IPTV. Has the FCC made any comments about IPTV? Or are they ignoring the issue?


First off, I don't know jack about the law, or the regulatory environment. My background is software and to a much lesser extent, electronics engineering. Until before I read what DT_DC pointed to I completely misunderstood their policy on satellite companies. Like everyone else, I am here to learn, and just report back what I learn. If it is wrong, hopefully someone will correct me.

Anyhow, if you take a look at the FCC policy document that DT_DC referenced above, you will see that they noted that they generally give waivers for newcomer companies and technologies. IMHO, that is goodness. We should be extremely reluctant to allow bureaucrats to interfere unless there is no other way to mitigate the few negative effects that unfettered market forces have. It is way to early to see how internet delivered television (IPTV) is going to play out. If consumer's are not being corralled into paying to the same vendor because it way to inconvenient to do otherwise, then why muck with it. Don't fix what isn't broken, and all that.

But whether or not our societies general attitude about regulation should be one way or another is beyond the scope of this question. The fact is that we have a regulatory environment that requires cablecos to do one thing but doesn't require the same of satellite companies.

Seems to me that it should be a level playing field between the cablecos and the DBS carriers like DirecTv and Dish Network.


----------



## interactiveTV (Jul 2, 2000)

Justin Thyme said:


> The fact is that we have a regulatory environment that requires cablecos to do one thing but doesn't require the same of satellite companies.
> 
> Seems to me that it should be a level playing field between the cablecos and the DBS carriers like DirecTv and Dish Network.


 A level playing field is not the same as equal and same.

If the goal is to force what was once a regulated monopoly (cable) to allow consumers to purchase rather than lease the set-top, cable card makes sense.

The DBS companies aren't geographically restricted. If I buy a DirecTV box -- and I can *buy* one now -- I can move from NYC to Ohio to California to Texas and still use it. Cable card gives the consumer that same ability.

It makes absolutely no sense to me to force a DBS to "open" their product to other set-top makers. On what basis? If consumers don't like the Direct choices on STB and programming, they can choose Dish. That isn't true with cable which originated as a regulated monopoly granted by a local authority. Since many places in the country *can't* use a DBS dish due to line of sight or other issues -- mainly cities including much of NYC -- the *only* consumer choice is cable.

Should the FCC force a company to open its product because another -- a regulated monopoly is being forced to? How does that create a level playing field? It helps to define the field. If, for example, we say the field is allowing consumers to purchase a STB and be able to use it coast to coast, then the field already is level.

Should we force Apple to allow *any* MP3 player to work with iTunes and thus create consumer choice and a "level" playing field? Heck no. They earned their place, it is still not a monopoly and plenty of consumer choice exists and you can't punish a company for success.

A level playing field isn't equal and same. There is no reason why the DBS companies should be forced to allow *HUGE* consumer electronic companies to profit off the installed base of customers they have built. It isn't like Samsung, Panasonic, Sony, and Nokia are poor, little ants that need protection from the big anteaters.

The fact is the regulatory requirements might require different things but that doesn't mean it isn't fair. Apple chose to not open its system, Intel and Microsoft did. If the products that evolve from Cable Card lure consumers in, the DBS companies will surely follow. With cable passing 103 million of the 106 million TV households (NCTA) and with the vast, vast majority of those served by only one cable company, it is an entirely different market situation. Almost any home that can get Direct can choose Dish if it wants.

I see no snowballs chance in hell in the NCTA convincing anyone to force open the DBS set-top. I also don't believe they should be based on the consumer choice. I also think it would only increase consumer cost and delay the HD upgrades which are forthcoming.

_ITV


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

I see your point. 

The FCC is applying the free access for all phone manufacturers principle to Cable companies and not satellite providers for the benefit of New York city.


----------



## bidger (Mar 30, 2001)

Justin Thyme said:


> Ask any DirecTivo owner how they feel about being locked out of the features that all the other Tivo owners enjoy.


 OK, you can start with me. IMO, it's no BFD. My SA TiVo can't offer me the features that my D-TiVos can, so it's only natural that the SA should offer features the D-TiVos can't.

The mindset seems to be that SA and D-TiVos are one and the same. Funny, I knew there were differences when I bought my first set of each in 2000 and 2001. I expect TiVo to make choices on whatever features to offer on their sets that best benefit TiVo and DirecTV to do the same.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

If you think TiVo would actually sell and support units for DirecTV services directly if they were permitted to, then you've probably made an assumption that's not necessarily based upon TiVo's historical behavior. They'd have to invest in design, manufacture, marketing and support themselves. TiVo hasn't shown the willingness to do this on their own. They haven't even gone very far with the one product line they do market on their own -- the standalone unit and the DVD standalone unit. Where's the standalone HD/ATSC unit? Vaporware repeatedly, year after year of dog-and-pony-shows with such products. TiVo needs a partner to accomplish most anything. Without DirecTV's desire to have TiVo involved, TiVo won't be. Even if the FCC says they can.

The FCC making a rule is not an automatic guarantee of anything except of an increase in bureaucracy.


----------



## interactiveTV (Jul 2, 2000)

Justin Thyme said:


> I see your point.
> 
> The FCC is applying the free access for all phone manufacturers principle to Cable companies and not satellite providers for the benefit of New York city.


wow. Your sarcasm managed to ignore 4 other on-topic points that back up my opinion.

That cable is a MONOPOLY, DBS isn't
That a purchased cable set-top is limited to only that company's service area, DBS isn't
That the playing field need not be level for things to still be fair
That DBS customers ALREADY OWN their set-tops, cable customers don't

IF the point is to allow consumers to PURCHASE rather than LEASE then why WOULD we regulate DBS? They already purchase. Since the consumer purchase of a cable STB would be geographically limited and not permit the consumer, if he didn't like the choices to switch to another cable provider, cable card regulations can fix those. Those things aren't broken on DBS. The question would then become, what is the point of cable card and does it achieve it? But hey, why discuss that when you can make a snide, sarcastic comment that doesn't address anything substantive in my post? 20 cheap points for you, Justin. congrats.

I guess, Justin, if you'd rather have a conversation with yourself, give an opinon, then come back with just sarcasm to a response, you can have this and other other 400 posts per day you do all to yourself.

There was one slight reference to NYC -- and yet you made it the sum of your well reasoned response which actually very inaccurately doesn't reflect my point -- but you'd rather not have a real discussion I guess. Pity.

_ITV


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

dswallow said:


> They'd have to invest in design, manufacture, marketing and support themselves.


 Why. DirecTivo's already exist. Why shouldn't customers be allowed to switch the contract for the DVR service portion of their contract from Direct To Tivo?

Cell phone companies create all sorts of barriers to exit. One of them was that they refused to alow owners to retain their phone numbers. The FCC created a rule in 1998 that consumers should be able to retain their numbers.

ITV- to your points:
1. Is or is not a Monopoly. Irrelevant. Cell phone companies are not a monopoly either. Does that mean the FCC's ruling on phone number retention was bad for consumers? In any case the only support you provided that Cable companies were a classic monopoly was that apartment dwellers in NYC could not install individual dishes from their apartments. It was a flimsy proposition, deserving of the humor I awarded it.

2. Geographic mobility. Since Phone company phones could also be purchased and were geographically mobile in the US, does that mean that it was wrong to require the phone company to allow third party phones be directly connected to their networks?

3. Ownership. That satellite consumers are forced to buy a DVR for $300 or other navigation equipment which will not work with any other vendor means that Satellite companies can incrementatlly increase charges however they want because they know the barrier to exit is so high that consumers will accept the additional charges rather than switch to another vendor. Locking in the consumer to high priced proprietary equipment defeats market forces.

Such defeat of market forces seems to have been the motivation behind Congress's mandate to the FCC to assure that third parties could provide navigation devices to access the video networks in the same way that the carterphone ruling allowed access to the phone networks.

The FCC granted a waiver based on reasons articulated in the FCC paper I cited and paraphrased.

None of your responses have challenged the fact that all those reasons no longer are true.

Is it your point that the FCC would base a continuation of the waiver on some other points- such as other ones you listed? If so, I'd be interested in the examining similar FCC rulings that used such rationales for such waivers.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Justin Thyme said:


> Why. DirecTivo's already exist. Why shouldn't customers be allowed to switch the contract for the DVR service portion of their contract from Direct To Tivo?
> 
> Cell phone companies create all sorts of barriers to exit. One of them was that they refused to alow owners to retain their phone numbers. The FCC created a rule in 1998 that consumers should be able to retain their numbers.
> 
> ...


Sorry, with my response I was leaning towards the idea that a new piece of hardware is required. I generally ignore the SD stuff these days. Long live HD.  I guess there's no other barrier to the idea of another entity providing different software/navigation to the existing TiVo-based platform.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

Justin Thyme said:


> Why. DirecTivo's already exist. Why shouldn't customers be allowed to switch the contract for the DVR service portion of their contract from Direct To Tivo?
> 
> Cell phone companies create all sorts of barriers to exit. One of them was that they refused to alow owners to retain their phone numbers. The FCC created a rule in 1998 that consumers should be able to retain their numbers.
> 
> ...


OK Justin, assuming that all of your mumbo-jumbo is correct, can you explain what you personally as a consumer will gain if FCC forces satellite providers to use cable card equivalent? There 2 satellite providers - Dish and DTV. So assuming you get your wish, what do you gain what you don't have already except for higher cost and need to buy additional hardware? Sure, you'd be able to tell Dish that if ... (whatever) I'll switch to DTV. Can't you do it now? If you want to forfeit your Russian programming, you can switch to DTV for free. Opposite is also true. So what's your problem? Why government needs to get involved? There is no "satellite" card TiVo on the horizon and even if it was - would you spend $1000 to prove a point? Not likely.


----------



## interactiveTV (Jul 2, 2000)

Justin Thyme said:


> Why. DirecTivo's already exist. Why shouldn't customers be allowed to switch the contract for the DVR service portion of their contract from Direct To Tivo?


 Because Direct PAID for that customer, not Tivo. The contract between Tivo and Direct was clear. Direct paid for the box, paid for the marketing, paid for the support. Why should Direct, which paid to acquire the consumer be forced to give her away?



Justin Thyme said:


> Cell phone companies create all sorts of barriers to exit. One of them was that they refused to alow owners to retain their phone numbers. The FCC created a rule in 1998 that consumers should be able to retain their numbers.
> 
> ITV- to your points:
> 1. Is or is not a Monopoly. Irrelevant. Cell phone companies are not a monopoly either. Does that mean the FCC's ruling on phone number retention was bad for consumers?.


 Number retention but NOT phone retention. I can't take my Sprint phone to Cingular, can I?

The phone number is actually tied to the person and does not belong to the phone carrier. You actually back up my point. The FCC didn't force cell companies to use the same technology (as Korea and other countries did). TDMA, CDMA, etc. Consumer's can't always (in some cases you can) use their phone when the switch, can they? Phone companies even have the "gall" to sell LOCKED phones. Oh, the horror.



Justin Thyme said:


> In any case the only support you provided that Cable companies were a classic monopoly was that apartment dwellers in NYC could not install individual dishes from their apartments. It was a flimsy proposition, deserving of the humor I awarded it..


 No, I didn't. First, I said MANY cities, including NYC. Two, within cable, ONE cable provider consists of the entire offering in 90%+ of the homes. Cable systems ARE a monopoly within the structure you've set up or are you saying that I should be able to buy one box that works with EITHER cable or DBS? If not, then the universe you define makes cable a monopoly.



Justin Thyme said:


> 2. Geographic mobility. Since Phone company phones could also be purchased and were geographically mobile in the US, does that mean that it was wrong to require the phone company to allow third party phones be directly connected to their networks?.


 At the time, phone companies were STILL monopolies. The phone was the ONLY choice a consumer had. A regulated monopoly plays under different rules. Or should we apply your logic to ALL markets and force EVERY hardware/service market open?



Justin Thyme said:


> 3. Ownership. That satellite consumers are forced to buy a DVR for $300 or other navigation equipment which will not work with any other vendor means that Satellite companies can incrementatlly increase charges however they want because they know the barrier to exit is so high that consumers will accept the additional charges rather than switch to another vendor. Locking in the consumer to high priced proprietary equipment defeats market forces.


 $300??? where? I can get a STB for FREE. The DBS pays for the box and they call it their customer acquisition cost. Much like a locked Verizon phone. And what high barrier to exit? The contract that says in exchange for getting the hardware at below cost, a customer must remain for a specified period of time (1 year, for example?) There's nothing wrong with such contracts and I fail to see how a FREE box is a barrier to exit. They CAN increase charges but consumers WILL switch. The mere possibility of the boogey man doesn't make your case.

Direct has a free DVR after rebate right now
Dish has a free DVR with new service right now

My cellular company is offering a free phone with new service right now. Without hacking the phone, it won't work on anyone else's network. What was your point again?



Justin Thyme said:


> Such defeat of market forces seems to have been the motivation behind Congress's mandate to the FCC to assure that third parties could provide navigation devices to access the video networks in the same way that the carterphone ruling allowed access to the phone networks.
> 
> The FCC granted a waiver based on reasons articulated in the FCC paper I cited and paraphrased.
> 
> ...


Really? Let's quote the FCC ruling....

* We believe, however, that differences in the marketplace for DBS equipment, where devices are available at retail and offer consumers a choice, as compared to equipment for other MVPD services, particularly cable operators, provide justification for not applying the rule separation of security functions to DBS services. *

Again, your example of cell networks is, as you would say, deserving of humor. There is no forced interoperability of handsets by the FCC. Number portability is a different animal.

If, as I believe, the MAIN FACTOR is retail choice then the DBS market ALREADY meets that standard.

It appears your whole motive in trying to misread and force a ruling on one class, a monopoly business (cable) is to help Tivo. Direct contracted Tivo to make a product for it. It paid for the hardware, it paid for the customer acquisition, it paid for the service. How Tivo deserves to keep that customer is more than a reach. It might be a great Tivo Army rallying cry but it seems flimsy to me.

Does the quote above not make it clear that RETAIL CHOICE was the key factor? If so, how do DBS companies (Dish and Direct) NOT meet the test? FREE DVR seems to benefit the customer.

_ITV


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

I've always found it annoying when people refer to DirecTV as "Direct"; it's not like their name is "Direct TV" and they're just shortening it.


----------



## interactiveTV (Jul 2, 2000)

dswallow said:


> I've always found it annoying when people refer to DirecTV as "Direct"; it's not like their name is "Direct TV" and they're just shortening it.


 I've always found it annoying when people use "loose" when they mean "lose" but that's just me.

I also find it annoying when those little ketchup (or is it catsup?) packs won't open even though I tug at the indicated tear point.

And why doesn't everyone use "TiVo" rather than the most often used "Tivo"?

How hard can it be to hit that shift key while you type the "V"?

Personally, I think using "DTV" is more confusing as it is also used for the silly "digital television" moniker.

I've always found it annoying... the new thread by Andy Rooney...

_ITV


----------



## MighTiVo (Oct 26, 2000)

dmdeane said:


> IPTV is far too new and speculative a thing for TiVo to waste its limited resources on at the moment. Look how long it is taking TiVo to get into CableCARD, for instance. But I wouldn't count TiVo out of the game just yet. If TiVo continues to expand its relationships with cable TV and IPTV grows up as a competitor to cable TV, we'll see TiVo working up similiar relationships with the telcos. I doubt very much the telcos signed any truly exclusive deals with MS that they can't be free of in a year or twh, TiVo will be around. "Faith" has nothing to do with it. MS bought their way into this party, and the telcos will gladly let MS buy them their drinks for the evening. But that doesn't mean that the telcos will be asking MS to spend the night with them afterwards. The telcos weren't "snubbing" TiVo; they were simply taking advantage of MS's desperation to buy into the TV business to help finance the early stages of their IPTV development.


The Telcos are spending a LOT of money building out the IPTV infrastructure. Sure there isn't anything going on in retail right now but there is a lot going on with hardware manufacturers and build out of the network. It isn't that the Telcos are snubbing TiVo, they just don't have enough faith that they will be around forever. As several CTO's have said "MS isn't going away anytime soon". 
TiVo can't wait for someone to come to them, they have to get out there and push their way in.

Back to the OP topic, even if there isn't a portable technology for DBS, at the very least, consumers should be allowed to purchase 3rd party equipment that can work with the network. This would include the ability for the third party manufacturer to build in any technology allowed by law and should be consistent with other program delivery.

In other words, you could get a free DVR from the provider, or you could purchase your own. TiVo should be allowed to sell a DTV receiver with all the capabilities and compatibility of their stand alone series 2. That doesn't mean that a person under contract with an existing free receiver could transfer that box to TiVo without financial penalty though.


----------



## MighTiVo (Oct 26, 2000)

interactiveTV said:


> Number retention but NOT phone retention. I can't take my Sprint phone to Cingular, can I?
> 
> The phone number is actually tied to the person and does not belong to the phone carrier. You actually back up my point. The FCC didn't force cell companies to use the same technology (as Korea and other countries did). TDMA, CDMA, etc. Consumer's can't always (in some cases you can) use their phone when the switch, can they? Phone companies even have the "gall" to sell LOCKED phones. Oh, the horror.
> 
> _ITV


You certainly can not take a phone to an incompatible network, but you can take a phone that supports multiple technologies. You can also purchase a phone for full price (or used) that you can take with you to another network.

This gives you the consumer the ability to purchase the type of technology they want to use.

As I said in my last post, what I think needs to happen is DBS should be forced to allow 3rd party manufacturers to sell STBs. 
We should be able to purchase a new DTV STB from TiVo that supports MRV, HME, HMO, etc. is compatible with other stand alone STBs, heck even a cable card STB.
We would need to pay TiVo for their sub, and pay DTV the additional receiver fee.

As a DTV customer you could then have the choice,
1) Purchase (or get free) a DVR from DTV with a very low monthly fee with limited capabilities.
2) Purchase a DVR from TiVo with full subscription costs and full support for upgrades from TiVo.

This should be the same for DTV and Dish which would allow TiVo to produce a box that supported either, or perhaps dual technology and support both.


----------



## interactiveTV (Jul 2, 2000)

MighTiVo said:


> Back to the OP topic, even if there isn't a portable technology for DBS, at the very least, consumers should be allowed to purchase 3rd party equipment that can work with the network. This would include the ability for the third party manufacturer to build in any technology allowed by law and should be consistent with other program delivery.
> 
> In other words, you could get a free DVR from the provider, or you could purchase your own. TiVo should be allowed to sell a DTV receiver with all the capabilities and compatibility of their stand alone series 2. That doesn't mean that a person under contract with an existing free receiver could transfer that box to TiVo without financial penalty though.


 Why?

On what basis should the government interfere?

You can purchase one of many different STBs from either of the DBS companies.

Why should they be forced to, as you are requesting, separate security functions out from their boxes? Unlike cable companies, you OWN the box, you have CHOICES, and you have more than one provider (there are two DBS companies).

I guess this demand to regulate DBS seems strange to me. On what basis should Tivo be allowed to make money off of Direct's customer base? I can't choose OnStar on my BMW. Should DOT force BMW to allow OnStar to offer its service on my car? Why?

DirecTV (happy?) spent billions building its system without the benefit of a monopoly. So did Dish. I cound 9 different DISH STBs I can choose and I can OWN each and every one rather than get locked into a forced lease payment.

If the goal of the FCC was to give RETAIL CHOICE and allow OWNERSHIP, the DBS providers already meet those two requirements. The extra regulation you are requesting seems to be onerous and against the free market principals that drive R&D. The cable companies built their plants on the back of a regulated monopoly. It's a different origin and they still don't permit ownership or choice. However, it isn't the government's job to force companies to offer consumer choice merely because.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm merely wondering what your basis for your request is. What are the benefits (not just to consumers but also to the DBS companies which spent billions in a competitive enviroment) and what are the drawbacks? Should the government also force Apple to open iTunes? What about forcing Apple to make the iPod work with other online music stores? What about forcing BMW to allow me to use OnStar versus BMW Assist? How would this affect R&D?

Why should a DBS company be forced to allow anyone to make their boxes?[ b]They already offer consumers choice and the abilty to own. [/b]DBS set-tops are as evolved or more so than their cable counterparts and are price competitive. Tivo aside, who doesn't deserve -- in any sense -- government assistance, it seems it would only increase the costs of the box, hamper customer service, and create a disincentive for DBS companies to improve services. If you don't like Dish, get DirecTV. And vice versa. You can still choose and buy your box.

_ITV


----------



## MighTiVo (Oct 26, 2000)

>Why should they be forced to, as you are requesting, separate security 
>functions out from their boxes? Unlike cable companies, you OWN the box, you 
>have CHOICES, and you have more than one provider (there are two DBS 
>companies).

The security function as managed by the smartcard need not change. Although I personally think it is unreasonable to marry the card to the box and you should be able to move the card around at your leisure.

>I guess this demand to regulate DBS seems strange to me. On what basis 
>should Tivo be allowed to make money off of Direct's customer base? I can't 
>choose OnStar on my BMW. Should DOT force BMW to allow OnStar to offer its 
>service on my car? Why?

Perhaps the automotive security market needs to be opened up. BMW should not be forced to make their box compatible with OnStar, they should be able to choose to though. Perhaps OnStar might choose to makes it service compatible with a BWM assist box. In either case, the consumer should be allowed to choose. TiVo, RCA, Pioneer, Toshiba, Sony, Kenwood, etc. should not be forced to build a DTV receiver either. They should be allowed to though. And a 3rd party should be able to make an OnStar compatable device to install in older cars.

>If the goal of the FCC was to give RETAIL CHOICE and allow OWNERSHIP, the 
>DBS providers already meet those two requirements. The extra regulation you >are requesting seems to be onerous and against the free market principals that 
>drive R&D.

All I am suggesting is that TiVo be allowed to provide DTV service like they did originally. DTV bought the customers and lowered the price, that is great. But then they dropped support. Consumers should be able to choose from a STB direct from the provider or from the free market, just like they can with cell phones and how they will be able to do with cablecard.

>I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm merely wondering what your basis for your 
>request is. What are the benefits (not just to consumers but also to the DBS 
>companies which spent billions in a competitive enviroment) and what are the 
>drawbacks?

Benefits to DTV/Dish; consumers being able to purchase equipment that provides the functionality they want without DTV/Dish needing to make equipment that does everything for everybody.

Drawbacks to DTV/Dish; loss of control, consumers could do anything legally allowed with content, loss of guaranteed revenue stream from their own stb.

>Should the government also force Apple to open iTunes? What 
>about forcing Apple to make the iPod work with other online music stores?

If Apple restricted use to only iPods then you might have a case here but I am not so sure. If all online music stores were locked into their own portable device then there would definately need to be some changes. As it is anybody can make a portable device that can use music from iTunes and an iPod can play music from other sources.

In the same way, anybody should be able to make a STB that works with DTV, Dish or both, but DTV shouldn't be forced to make a STB that works with Dish.

>What about forcing BMW to allow me to use OnStar versus BMW Assist? How 
>would this affect R&D?

It probably would be a good idea to allow consumers freedom of choice on automobile monitoring service just as is available through home security systems. There might not be the same level of service if you choose an alternative though. 
It would be up to the 3rd party service provider to make their system compatable with the branded hardware and the 3rd party hardware manufacturer's responsibilty to make the equipment work with the existing service. Government interaction would only be required to assure that a minimal set of standards were published and available.

R&D would be used to assure that the highest level of service could be provided through the manufacturer instead of relying on the fact that the consumer is tied to them no matter what level of service they provide.

>Why should a DBS company be forced to allow anyone to make their boxes?[ b]
>They already offer consumers choice and the abilty to own. [/b]DBS set-tops are 
>as evolved or more so than their cable counterparts and are price competitive. 
>Tivo aside, who doesn't deserve -- in any sense -- government assistance, it 
>seems it would only increase the costs of the box, hamper customer service, and 
>create a disincentive for DBS companies to improve services. If you don't like 
>Dish, get DirecTV. And vice versa. You can still choose and buy your box.

Who gets government assistance? Right now DTV does by providing them a protected market for the STB. It should simply be opened for anyone to create a tuner. There are lots of options that don't exist with existing STBs. What about Moxi? They could have just sold the box on their own instead of getting shut out. How about a PCI tuner for a Media Center PC or MythTV box. Built in Scalers & Scan Converters, there is no end to the technology out there that existing DBS boxes don't provide. This is solved on the cable side with the cablecard. Customer service would be provided by the 3rd part manufacturer.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

montge said:


> Lets reverse this around. Why didn't the cable industry or terrestrial TV adopt/work with our international counterparts to establish a common standard. Cablecard is very technically simular to the way DVB (mostly related to the CA standards) set of standards works. It also seems like ATSC is pretty simular in a lot of ways to the DVB standards also, with most of the differences being related to audio encoding, and video sizing. (For those that are interested, look up DVB-T, DVB-C, DVB-S in google and you'll see additional info on these standards.)
> 
> Why did the US cable industry and TV industry re-invent the wheel on this? They could have adopted a well established standards that a large percentage of the world uses.
> 
> ...


Two words:
DirecTV
General Instruments.

DirecTV came along before DVB was locked in, so couldn't easily, or just didn't want to convert to DVB.

GI just didn't want to play the DVB game, they wanted and end-to-end "monoploy" on TV distribution hardware, so came up with their own format, which they more or less presented to the FCC as ATSC for OTA digital.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

MighTiVo said:


> As I understand it, the telcos just don't have enough faith that TiVo will be around to invest in using their technology.


They don't need to, just develop a standard third parties could make/incorporate into their boxes.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Justin Thyme said:


> 3. Ownership. That satellite consumers are forced to buy a DVR for $300 or other navigation equipment which will not work with any other vendor means that Satellite companies can incrementatlly increase charges however they want because they know the barrier to exit is so high that consumers will accept the additional charges rather than switch to another vendor. Locking in the consumer to high priced proprietary equipment defeats market forces.





interactiveTV said:


> $300??? where? I can get a STB for FREE. The DBS pays for the box and they call it their customer acquisition cost.


Was the subject STBs? Let's work at persuasion and illumination through facts not attempting to convince through sleight of hand. The lowest price Dish Network *DVR* is $299.

http://www.dishnetwork.com/content/products/receivers/dvr/index.shtml

Since you have refused to confront the fact that the reasons that the FCC gave for awarding a cablecard waiver to the DBS companies are now obsolete, and refused to confront the fact that Congress's directive to the FCC to insure consumer choice on third party navigation devices for all MCVPs (bureaucratease for video providers- both satellite and cable) we progress to your very general motivation/ value to society questions.

Vertical Monopolies are not good for consumers. Sure- at the begining of the car manufacture, Shell could have purchased Dodge and made cars that only ran on fuel only manufactured under patent by Shell. And they could have sold Dodge cars at a lower price subsidized by the fuel revenues. If the industry had developed that way, would it have been a good thing?

In a monopoly, the barriers against consumer switching are absolute. If the barriers against switching are so high that it is not practical for most people to switch, then the supposed "consumer choice" is a sham. Monopolistic behavior is not a black and white affair- There are many systems tantamount to a monopoly. These psudeo monopolies even spend a good deal of their time measuring the balance between how far they can go to soak their customer base before the consumers start overcoming those significant barriers to exit. They call it churn rate.

There are many cell phone models that can be used with different carriers. Multiple band cell phones are extremely popular in Europe for this reason. Personally, I'd really like it if I could switch from one carrier to another when they decide to not to maintain their quality of service in my area, or another carrier offers some much more attractive rates. If I could try a newcomer local provider, why not for a month. I keep my number and my handset with the features I like.

More consumer choice with providers, more competition for service, more competition for multiple carrier handsets.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Justin Thyme said:


> Was the subject STBs? Let's work at persuasion and illumination through facts not attempting to convince through sleight of hand. The lowest price Dish Network *DVR* is $299.
> 
> http://www.dishnetwork.com/content/products/receivers/dvr/index.shtml


That's list price. In actual practice, you should be able to get some type of DVR/PVR from Dish for FREE. A local installer runs lots and lots of radio spots mentioning MULTIPLE DVRs/PVRs from Dish for free.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

If you take a look at the fine print on the Dish site, free units are only with new installations/ new customers, and it is one unit.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

interactiveTV said:


> That cable is a MONOPOLY, DBS isn't
> That a purchased cable set-top is limited to only that company's service area, DBS isn't
> That the playing field need not be level for things to still be fair
> That DBS customers ALREADY OWN their set-tops, cable customers don't


If the point is simly ownership, you are correct., But JustinThyme's argument, at minimum, is at least the opportunity for 3rd party provider agnostic satellite, or even cable/satellite STBs, so if you do purchase a box you like, you can use it with provider X or provider Y, either in the same place, or if you move.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Justin Thyme said:


> If you take a look at the fine print on the Dish site, free units are only with new installations/ new customers, and it is one unit.


but it's still free, contrary to your original remarks.

Not sure about the multiple thing. This particular installer mentions multiple room installs and PVRs in each.


----------



## MighTiVo (Oct 26, 2000)

classicsat said:


> They don't need to, just develop a standard third parties could make/incorporate into their boxes.


The telcos aren't developing anything, they are buying what someone else has developed. Microsoft has the clout to stand behind their product and that is what they are buying. (I didn't say it was a good thing, it is just what is happening).

And speaking of standards, TiVo should be working on making MRV and HME licensable standards!


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

jsmeeker said:


> but it's still free, contrary to your original remarks.


 My original remark was that the Satellite companies charge $300 for a DVR, and that locks in the customer. Under certain conditions you can get them for free, new customers can get at most one, but only if you agree to lock yourself in to the provider. If you decide to leave early, then you pay very high exit fees, making the barrier to exit the same.

So what's your point?

[Technical point- in Dish's case you can get multiple rooms, but not multiple DVRs for free. What they give you for "free" is one DVR- the other units are not DVRs, but dumb clients].


----------



## MighTiVo (Oct 26, 2000)

classicsat said:


> If the point is simly ownership, you are correct., But JustinThyme's argument, at minimum, is at least the opportunity for 3rd party provider agnostic satellite, or even cable/satellite STBs, so if you do purchase a box you like, you can use it with provider X or provider Y, either in the same place, or if you move.


I don't even argue that at this point the satellite STBs need be universally compatable. Just like cell phones they could be built for one network or another. If the manufacturer was inclined they could also be dual band.

Any company should be able to create a STB that can tune DBS broadcasts though. I can't see any reasonable argument against that.

Since jsmeeker seems to think DBS DVRs are free, perhaps nobody will buy one and thus the market may never develop. Fine, but it should be able to.

The bottom line for us TiVo owners is we should be able to purchase a new receiver from TiVo that can tune DBS broadcasts and use all other current TiVo technology by paying a TiVo subscription of $300/TiVo instead of the lower cost $5/month per account from DTV. Either way the $5/stb would also be paid to DTV.
DTV should not have the final control on how content is used in our homes by controlling the set top box.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

And we aren't just talking third party STB's or DVRs, but any device that connects to a satellite or cable network, including computer interface cards. Every third party, including Apple and Microsoft should be allowed to make navigation devices into that content.

But the discussion this morning concerns the societal benefit / high level argument of whether it is desirable. Even with the most ironclad economic, political, and consumer benefit arguments, if you don't have regulatory precedents and law to back it, the FCC cannot act. So I have been trying to understand that mechanism. 

As the FCC pointed out in the quoted cablecard news release, the access card (nee "cablecard") initiative is simply the analog of the carterphone principle where any third party "navigation" device should be allowed to connect to a telecommunications network.

It unlocks market forces from the artificial restraints that the vertical monopolists would place on consumer choice. Unlocking those market forces drove tremendous innovation in use of telephone networks. The cable companies have had this principle applied to them by the FCC, it is difficult to understand why the satellite companies should continue to enjoy a waiver since the original reasons for the waiver are either no longer true or not relevant.


----------



## interactiveTV (Jul 2, 2000)

Justin Thyme said:


> The cable companies have had this principle applied to them by the FCC, it is difficult to understand why the satellite companies should continue to enjoy a waiver since the original reasons for the waiver are either no longer true or not relevant.


You refer to the "original reasons for the waiver" yet, besides a paraphrase, you don't point to those reasons so again, I quote...

*We believe, however, that differences in the marketplace for DBS equipment, where devices are available at retail and offer consumers a choice, as compared to equipment for other MVPD services, particularly cable operators, provide justification for not applying the rule separation of security functions to DBS services. *

And yet again, Justin, I ask, if the intent was to have STBs available at retail and offer choice (and let's remember that "choice" doesn't mean "open"), don't we have that RIGHT NOW with DBS?

And yet again, this ALL seems Tivo driven. Direct licensed TiVo. TiVo was a SUPPLIER of a part. Sure, it was a large and visible part but no one is forcing BMW to continue to use Bridgestone tires or force BMW to give the customer a choice.

I fail to see, beyond you repeating it, how DBS companies fail to live up to the intent of the original waiver.

You also completely ignored the FACT that I can't use my Sprint cellphone on the Verizon network. Your example of number portability -- and your sarcasm about NYC -- seems to have fallen flat yet like so many discussions it seems that if your point is refuted you merely ignore it and continue to repeat the original mantra regardless of anything else.

Let's highlight for the third time the differences betwen cable and DBS and why the waiver was applied to DBS -- or, more accurately because if you understand regulation it is difficult to regulate so narrowly but easier to regulate broadly and grant waivers...or let's not. You can go read the four points and ignore them all over again or you can actually QUOTE the FCC and show me where "original reasons for the waiver are either no longer true or not relevant."

I'm more than willing to discuss it and very open to someone changing my mind. However, merely repeating the line, "original reasons for the waiver are either no longer true or not relevant" over and over and over doesn't really make the point. It just becomes FUD.

Meanwhile, the justification clause is usually the most powerful and I quote it again:

*We believe, however, that differences in the marketplace for DBS equipment, where devices are available at retail and offer consumers a choice, as compared to equipment for other MVPD services, particularly cable operators, provide justification for not applying the rule separation of security functions to DBS services. *

and ask yet again, IF DBS IS AVAILABLE AT RETAIL AND DOES OFFER CHOICE (9 different boxes from Dish, for example), how can you say the original reasons are no longer true??

_ITV


----------



## interactiveTV (Jul 2, 2000)

Justin Thyme said:


> It unlocks market forces from the artificial restraints that the vertical monopolists would place on consumer choice. Unlocking those market forces drove tremendous innovation in use of telephone networks. The cable companies have had this principle applied to them by the FCC, it is difficult to understand why the satellite companies should continue to enjoy a waiver since the original reasons for the waiver are either no longer true or not relevant.


 DBS is not a monopoly. The phone networks were. The cable networks were. You seem to ignore this incredibly important difference. And the term, "vertical monopolist" is a joke. We used to say, when Ford purchased its part supplies that they were vertically integrated.

Maybe we should all move to East Germany circa 1973.

The "market forces" are called FREE markets where COMPETITION exists. In DBS it does exist, in cable it DOES NOT. "Artifical restraints" seems to be what you are proposing.

Repeat after me so we don't have to do this again. There are TWO DBS companies. It is NOT a monopoly. There is only ONE cable company in 90%+ of the markets and cable WAS a REGULATED MONOPOLY. It's no longer regulated but still, in terms of cable, a monopoly.

If you don't understand the differences between cable (MONOPOLY) and DBS (NOT A MONOPOLY) then it's all one silly discussion.

And, yeah, DBS meets the waiver requirement but whatever. It's like banging my head against the wall. It feels so good when I stop.
_ITV


----------



## MighTiVo (Oct 26, 2000)

Justin Thyme said:


> And we aren't just talking third party STB's or DVRs, but any device that connects to a satellite or cable network, including computer interface cards. Every third party, including Apple and Microsoft should be allowed to make navigation devices into that content.
> 
> But the discussion this morning concerns the societal benefit / high level argument of whether it is desirable. Even with the most ironclad economic, political, and consumer benefit arguments, if you don't have regulatory precedents and law to back it, the FCC cannot act. So I have been trying to understand that mechanism.
> 
> ...


Doesn't apply directly here, but noteworthy that the FCC has never been evenhanded across technologies. Telcos were forced to allow 3rd party providers into their buildings and unbundling of services for fixed rate wholesale. This led to Telcos completely stopping any infrastructure investment as the regulated wholesale rate was lower than they could afford for cost recovery. A direct consequence of this (in my opinion) was the collapse of the major hardware provider for the phone network - Lucent Technologies.
The cable companies were never put under this control. You can still purchase 3rd party DSL and local service over incumbent telco lines, but you can not purchase 3rd party television service or internet access over cable lines. WHY NOT?

At least there have been recent rulings that allow telcos to invest in their data and video infrastructure knowing they will have full control over their investment.
This is why you will see VOIP and IPTV sooner than you may expect.

http://www.thefuturefaster.com/


----------



## MighTiVo (Oct 26, 2000)

interactiveTV said:


> You also completely ignored the FACT that I can't use my Sprint cellphone on the Verizon network.
> 
> _ITV


That is simply because you chose a phone that was compatable with only one network. There are dual and tri band phones available that will allow you to use them across multiple technologies.

The cellular network never has been a monopoly. Since the beginning it was regulated that there would be at least two providers in every market. Still we all have the choice of buying cell phones from a variety of manufacturers, not just from the provider.

The point here is not that every device must be compatable with all technologies but that you have the choice to purchase your own phone from a variety of manufacturers and use it on the network of your choice.

Nobody; DTV, Dish, TiVo, Microsoft, etc. should be required to make their systems compatable with others. However the network should be open enough to allow anyone to build a device that is.

Bad for TiVo, because Replay should have been able to sell a DTV DVR as well.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

interactiveTV said:


> You refer to the "original reasons for the waiver" yet, besides a paraphrase, you don't point to those reasons so again, I quote...
> 
> *We believe, however, that differences in the marketplace for DBS equipment, where devices are available at retail and offer consumers a choice, as compared to equipment for other MVPD services, particularly cable operators, provide justification for not applying the rule separation of security functions to DBS services. *
> 
> And yet again, Justin, I ask, if the intent was to have STBs available at retail and offer choice (and let's remember that "choice" doesn't mean "open"), don't we have that RIGHT NOW with DBS?


 No, I repeat again, that was not the intent. The original intent of congress, as I quoted the FCC stating, was to allow third party's to access MVPD networks. And I pointed to the original FCC source material for everyone to read if my paraphrase (which I admitted might be inaccurate) was fair or not. To "prove" your point, you have simply quoted from the summary statement which no one disputes fairly represents the conclusion they made at the time. But you have conveniently not included the text immediately following which supports that summary statement. Even if you had included just one more additional sentence, the context would be more clear to readers. After reading the fuller passage, I think most people would question if the support for the waiver is valid any longer.

Since it is always the case that honest people can disagree on which paraphrase is correct, or which selective quote is representative, I quote the entire passage and people can decide for themselves if your charactization is fair. In any case, I'm not sure many would agree with your notion that the limited carrier dictated choices represent real and competitive choices for the consumer. As for your tiresome repetition of the fallacy that classical monopolies are the only threat to free market forces, I repeat my statement that the spectrum of monopolistic behaviors is not a simple black and white affair. Murdoch is shooting for a vertical monopoly from content all the way to the DVR. There is a reason why Turner refered to him as Adolf Hitler.



FCC 98-116 p.26-27 said:


> 1.64 We believe, however, that differences in the marketplace for DBS equipment, where devices are available at retail and offer consumers a choice, as compared to equipment for other MVPD services, particularly cable operators, provide justification for not applying the rule requiring separation of security functions to DBS service. We are reluctant to implement a rule that could disrupt an evolving market that is already offering consumers the benefits that derive from competition. In the DBS environment, there are three service providers and at least ten equipment manufacturers competing to provide programming and equipment to consumers.[*151] The equipment is available at retail stores. The result, over a relatively short time frame, has been lower equipment prices, enhanced options and features. Requiring DBS providers to separate security would serve a limited purpose and disrupt technical and investment structures that arose in a competitive environment.
> 
> 1.65 Additionally, DBS service providers are relatively new entrants in the MVPD service marketplace, particularly when compared to incumbent cable operators. Total DBS subscribership constitutes only 8% of the MVPD market, as compared to 87% of the MVPD market for cable. With DBS equipment available in retail stores, and with DBS possessing substantial incentive to pursue additional market share through additional services and improved equipment, we do not think that requiring DBS service providers to separate security elements will serve the goal of enhanced competition in either the service or equipment markets. We note that in many instances, the Commission refrains from imposing regulations on new entrants.
> 
> ...


Are the satellite companies any longer the frail newcomers with extremely limited market share? Do we have 10 different equipment vendors vieing to offer the best DVR that connects to the DirecTV network? No- Murdoch wants everyone to use just one, and coincidentally it will be manufactured by one of his companies.

FCC action will hardly "disrupt an evolving market", but will unleash market forces so that consumers may choose which third party navigation device is best, as Congress intended.


----------



## interactiveTV (Jul 2, 2000)

Justin Thyme said:


> Are the satellite companies any longer the frail newcomers with extremely limited market share? Do we have 10 different equipment vendors vieing to offer the best DVR that connects to the DirecTV network? No- Murdoch wants everyone to use just one, and coincidentally it will be manufactured by one of his companies.


 As usual with regulation, it isn't the cause but the effect and the EFFECT as you quoted was..

lower equipment prices, enhanced options and features

Let's see...

1) equipment prices: $0 (yes with new subscription but that's part of customer acquisition cost but is still an effect of competition). Even without, very nominal cost.

2) enhanced options and features: HD, PVR, dual tuners. Seems on par with the market and support costs, especialy for a 1-way system (cable is a two-way plant so things like VOD don't work exactly the same)



Justin Thyme said:


> FCC action will hardly "disrupt an evolving market", but will unleash market forces so that consumers may choose which third party navigation device is best, as Congress intended.


 Obviously that was expected to change and it has but cable STILL has 69.44% of the MVPD market and DBS has 27.43% (NCTA Industry Overview 2005).

Also, if you continue to quote, another reason mentioned was that DBS product already have geographic portability which "mitigates against a rule..."

As I said, the key is the justification clause is usually the key. The only effectual change is the paring down of maunfacturers. COST AND FEATURES have improved dramatically. My STB from Time Warner, however, has increased in LEASE cost and has added few new features. I also have a very limited choice and cannot BUY and cannot take it with me.

Your reading of the original intent seems flawed to me and seems to focus on the wrong things and ignore the CLEAR language where "justification" is used. The PRIMARY point is clear. Even on the secondary points, of price, features, and market only market has changed and that was to be expected.

_ITV


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

I'm sure your clients would agree with your perspective on whether those represent real consumer choice, or the strangulation of market forces. BTW- who are your clients?


----------



## interactiveTV (Jul 2, 2000)

MighTiVo said:


> That is simply because you chose a phone that was compatable with only one network. There are dual and tri band phones available that will allow you to use them across multiple technologies.


 Yup. And someone chose DISH instead of DirecTV so tough luck if you can't use one STB on the other.

And, by the way, nothing FORCES a cellular company to offer someone's phone. If you, me and Justin design a phone, Verizon is free to say, "no thanks. We don't want that on our network." That's how THEY chose it to be. Cingular? Any GSM will do. That was their choice. Different choices, different systems. Free markets at work. Don't like Cingular? Go to Verizon. Vice versa.

That seems to be ignored. If DirecTV's set-tops suck, the market will take care of itself.

BTW: My tri-band phone won't work with Verizon. Only with Cingular because it's GSM and Verizon isn't. Should the FCC force all cell companies to use the same technology like Europe and Asia does? Would Nextel's PTT feature ever have existed if they had?

Should the FCC jump in and crown blu-ray over HD-DVD? Should all standards battles be settled on day 1? There aren't easy answers to those questions and I'm not pretending to have them. I do believe Justin hasn't read too many FCC regulation papers and is reading what he wants to read and ignoring the thrust of what is going on because he WANTS Tivo on DirecTV. A nice notion but serious over-regulation. I don't believe even Tivo would try and force that hand. It's completely over-stepping the FCC's bounds and can show no real consumer benefit which would be required in the absence of corporate or public good or true government interest.

STBs are free or dirt cheap. The feature sets are very advanced. The boxes are purchasable and work anywhere in the 48 states. If cable can get to that state anytime soon, it would be a real improvement. In the meantime, trying to "fix" something that isn't broken instead of letting market forces do their job is silly. History shows that it doesn't work.

Yeah, let's protect US Steel some more.

_ITV


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I have to agree with InteractiveTV on this one. While it would be awesome if there was one universal standard that could be used for either cable or DSS I don't believe the government has the right to step in a force them to adopt such a standard. As he has pointed out many times in this thread cable is a regulated monopoly, much like your power or gas company. You don't have a choice which cable you have access to, so the government has to step in and make sure the one cable company in your area doesn't take advantage of that fact. DSS on the other hand is more of a service. Anyone who wants it can get it (provided they have line of sight), and the equipment you purchase for use with their system will continue to work regardless of where you are in the country. What CableCARD aims to do for cable, DSS already does. 

Oh and don't assume that just because CableCARD is an open standard CE manufacturers are allowed to do whatever they want with the information grabbed from the card. CableCARDs are regulated as to what CE manufactures can and can not do with the device. This includes strict requirements when it comes to encryption and copyright management. It's not just some generic standard that anyone can tap into and spew out raw unencrypted MPEG data. Companies like TiVo will need to get approval to include features such as TTG and MRV in a CableCARD, just like they do now from DirecTV. If the people who control CableCARD say no then they're SOL. That being said I believe that the CableCARD people have already approved local network streaming provided copy controls are honored, so it should be safe to assume that the CableCARD TiVo will at least include MRV. TTG is kind of a gray area, and a fairly unique feature, so we'll have to wait and see if they got approval for that. 

Dan


----------



## kb7oeb (Jan 18, 2005)

Verizon does not care what phone you use, give them an ESN and they will activate it. The reason you can't take a compatible sprint phone over is because they place a subsidy lock preventing the phone from being programed to work on another carrier. Some carriers will give you the unlock code after a certain length of time allowing you to use the phone on any compatible carrier.


The cablecard as we know it might already be dead, over on avsforum I read about how cable companies are starting to use switched video to save bandwidth. With out two-way communication you have no way to request the channel you want to view.


----------



## dgh (Jul 24, 2000)

Dan203 said:


> I don't believe the government has the right to step in a force them to adopt such a standard. As he has pointed out many times in this thread cable is a regulated monopoly,


But will they anyway?

There wasn't a monopoly in TV set manufacturing and the FCC mandated DTV tuners because they didn't like what the free market was doing. I don't think that the FCC really lets monopoly v.s duopoly vs. true free markets control its decisions.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

kb7oeb said:


> The cablecard as we know it might already be dead, over on avsforum I read about how cable companies are starting to use switched video to save bandwidth. With out two-way communication you have no way to request the channel you want to view.


CableCARD 1.0 support is mandated by the FCC so the CableCARD can't be dead. In fact I believe backward compatibility with CableCARD 1.0 is required even when they get around to supporting CableCARD 2.0.

Dan


----------



## kb7oeb (Jan 18, 2005)

http://www.bigbandnet.com/news/inTheNews/2004/news_072604.php (google searched for cablecard switched video)

There are posts on avsforum about people losing channels that have converted to switched mode. Cable card will still work with popular channels but not switched channels.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

First off, there are two separate things to discuss- what we want theoretically regarding regulations from a poltical and economic philosophical perspective, and simply trying to predict what the FCC is and is not justfied in doing based on Congressional law and FCC precedent. I would hope we could focus on the latter and not the former, but as ITV rightly pointed out, it is important to provide the social benefits context for a policy move. So I guess it is fair play. I am pretty much against bureacrats meddling in technology. Anything that unleashes market forces I am pretty much for. I know some on the left don't agree with that- Ok. I'd rather talk about what is consistent with Congressional law and FCC regulations. If this gets into a libertarian vs. socialist slugfest, let's take that part to the Happy Hour forum.


Dan203 said:


> cable is a regulated monopoly, much like your power or gas company.


 But nowhere in the rule document did the FCC say that DBS's were exempted from the cablecard rule because they were not a regulated monopoly. They did say it was because they were newcomers without significant market power. Congress's telecommunications act directed itself towards anti-competitive behavior of MVPD's. They could have said only cableco's, or only regulated monopolies, but they didn't. The requirement for third party access to MVPD networks was for all MVPD's. The reason the FCC gave for going against Congress's wishes and granting an exception for the satellite providers was because of the precedent of not burdening newcomers to a market with new restrictions. Are they weakling newcomers anymore? No.

Here's what congress said in the 1996 telecommunications act:


Congress 1996 Telecom act said:


> The Commission shall, in consultation with appropriate industry standard-setting organizations, adopt regulations to assure the commercial availability, to consumers of multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems, of converter boxes, interactive communications equipment, and other equipment used by consumers to access multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems, from manufacturers, retailers, and other vendors not affiliated with any multichannel video programming distributor.


And regarding waivers, shortly thereafter the FCC states:


Section 629 continued said:


> (c) WAIVER- The Commission shall waive a regulation adopted under subsection (a) *for a limited time * upon an appropriate showing by a provider of multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems, or an equipment provider, that such waiver is necessary to assist the development or introduction of a new or improved multichannel video programming or other service offered over multichannel video programming systems, technology, or products.


 When is the DBS "Limitted time" for the waiver over? The distortions being created are due to the fact that the FCC is not doing what congress said- that they should insure that third party devices should have direct access to MVPD networks. The carriers understand how they will compete with other MVPD's. The real storm they see on the horizon is what happens if DVRs compete with their own services like PPV or VOD, either because they provide internet delivery of the same, or because the user has such a store of easily accessible content that they have little desire for additional services. There is a reason why both the Telephone company then and the carriers nowdays like their vertical monopoly where they control the access device. If you control the access device, you control consumer usage patterns that benefits the sale of additional services.

The ruling is outdated in that it did not forsee that providers of third party navigation devices would become the victim of anti-competitive behavior. The FCC granted waivers for anti-subsidy rules to the Satellite providers because "DBS lacks market power". Few would argue that satellite companies lack market power these days, especially when compared to many of the third party manufacturers of navigation devices like Tivo, Replay, and Snapstream, and emerging internet suppliers of video like Netflix.

And its not just Tivo or Snapstream. Every CE company is reluctant to build new DVR devices because none of them knows how to compete with free cableco DVRs.

How many today would agree these days with the "affiliation" section passage:


FCC 98-116 page 37 section 1.83 said:


> We believe the structure of the rules will make sure that equipment is available from sources outside of the control of the service provider.


 Is that true today? How about all of those unused network options on the back of the Motorolla boxes. Seems to me it would a real nice source for internet delivered video. Wonder why the cableco's don't enable those features? Simply carrying the Motorolla logo- is that evidence of being "outside the control" of the service provider?

By controlling the software, doesn't every MVPD have absolute control over the device?

Is DirecTivo out of the control of DirecTV? What a coincidence that Direct has declined to allow any Tivo feature that Murdoch's NDS DVR boxes will never do. I wonder why they don't want Tivo's ability to display video sourced not from their network, but from the internet?

It's a racket, and everyone knows it is. Congress figured that independent third parties should slug this out- not FCC bureaucrats. They decided to let the marketplace decide which form of navigational device is best. The question is when the FCC will faithfully carry out Congress's 629 directive to ensure third party access to MVPD networks.

The FCC can start with lifting the waiver for the satellite companies on the "cablecard" rule. While they are at it, they can reconsider the Affiliation rule, and address the anti-competitive victimization of third party navigational products allowed due to the FCC's mistaken waiver of anti-subsidies rules.


----------



## interactiveTV (Jul 2, 2000)

Justin Thyme said:


> The distortions being created are due to the fact that the FCC is not doing what congress said- that they should insure that third party devices should have direct access to MVPD networks.


 I don't see the words "direct access" anywhere. Please provide the quote because it is important. I see "commercial availability." I know you're not a lawyer but your reading is flawed.

Also, section 629 is a jurisdictional clause. It gives the FCC the authority that it might not otherwise have had. That is its purpose.

And, you might not like it but for the most part regulations are usually written broadly to encompass the unanticipated. They may, however, be targeted at one industry or one specific group of companies but from a legal standpoint you are better off lumping everyone in -- even those not yet anticipated -- and excluding the ones that aren't your targets.

And, what the FCC didn't say ("They could have said only cableco's, or only regulated monopolies, but they didn't") is silliness. If you want to give broad powers you encompass the universe then exclude.

Think of about it. Congress was empowering the FCC with extremely broad power to regulate. It is very usual in the law. Justin, I'm sure there are things software programmers do that would be similar to this (give me everything in that memory register except XYZ instead of give me ABC). I don't know enough about it to give you something that would make sense but I hope you understand the point.

I keep highlighting the MAIN clause for the FCC's reasoning and you keep ignoring it. You read enough of these types of documents and it's easy to find the main arguement. The rest is filler. They wanted retail sales and consumer choice. The early industry thing was nice but some junior counsel filled out the laundry list. The clarity is there.

As for forcing a company to adopt a product that directly competes with its own business, I don't see how. Why? Maybe we should force Tivo to allow people who write applications for it to be included on the box? I mean, at what point are you advocating a company eat its own young.

"anti-competitive victimization" is a nice phrase but it has the smack of hyperbole. DirecTV is a public company (or part of one) that has the fiduciary duty to earn a return for its shareholders. If it can please consumers, all the better for business but it IS a business. If consumers don't like it, they have a choice. How forcing Direct to turn on things such as Internet television seems very odd to me. Should we force Mcdonalds to serve Burger King fries?

I am, on a sincere note, glad we could get past the glib, sarcastic response and actually discuss this. There are some interesting questions but I don't hear, honestly, too many complaints about PRICE or FEATURES from DBS users. Cost of programming is probably the biggest consumer complaint and ESPN and others have more to do with that than DirecTV does. The only complaints seem to be from Tivo users. There might be MORE that consumers want but a free DVR seems to be more than I get with cable.

As a cable user, I'd be thrilled to buy ANY box with the current feature set of a DBS box one can get for free. With 70% of the MVPD market, cable still dominates and still doesn't offer the two basic requirements the FCC laid out: retail availability and choice.

_ITV


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

interactiveTV said:


> As for forcing a company to adopt a product that directly competes with its own business, I don't see how. Why?


 I don't understand this passage. What product directly competes with its own business? We are talking about access for navigation devices. If people want to buy a device that can switch between two different video networks depending on which is cheaper, it is not the device the MVPD is competing with, but the other MVPD.


----------



## interactiveTV (Jul 2, 2000)

Justin Thyme said:


> I don't understand this passage. What product directly competes with its own business? We are talking about access for navigation devices. If people want to buy a device that can switch between two different video networks depending on which is cheaper, it is not the device the MVPD is competing with, but the other MVPD.


 All that and this is what you what to respond to? OK...I was referring to your off-hand reference to



Justin Thyme said:


> How about all of those unused network options on the back of the Motorolla boxes. Seems to me it would a real nice source for internet delivered video. "


And I checked and kb7oeb is absolutely correct and I was wrong. Verizon *will* activate a phone if it meets the critera below (define "compatible with out network and calling plan though"...pretty nebulous that part)

According to Verizon:

'Your wireless phone is any device you use to receive our wireless voice or data service. It must comply with Federal Communications Commission regulations and be compatible with our network and your calling plan. Whether you buy your wireless phone from us or someone else is entirely your choice."

They do add this little nicety though which pretty much cedes ultimate control...

"At times we may change your wireless phone's software or programming remotely and without notice."

_ITV


----------



## RARamaker (Dec 1, 2000)

Dan203 said:


> I have to agree with InteractiveTV on this one. While it would be awesome if there was one universal standard that could be used for either cable or DSS I don't believe the government has the right to step in a force them to adopt such a standard. As he has pointed out many times in this thread cable is a regulated monopoly, much like your power or gas company. You don't have a choice which cable you have access to, so the government has to step in and make sure the one cable company in your area doesn't take advantage of that fact. DSS on the other hand is more of a service. Anyone who wants it can get it (provided they have line of sight), and the equipment you purchase for use with their system will continue to work regardless of where you are in the country. What CableCARD aims to do for cable, DSS already does.
> 
> Dan


I have to disagree with the free market argument for one reason - the FCC has given DirecTV and Dish a monopoly over the satellite market. No one else can start a Satellite service without the very few frequencies that Dish and DirecV own. Just ask VOOM. That, combined with the cable monopoly, provides very few options for consumers. The analog market was open to anyone with a tuner. Anyone remember VCRs. Do you think the cable industry would have developed the VCR if only cable/satellite companies were able to build compatible units. If they did, what do you think they would cost?

Now enter TiVo and Replay. Since the DVR market developed using analog tuners, there was open competition. Anyone remember the many "Which is better - TiVo or Replay?" threads that we had. Satellite and Cable decided that they needed have a competitive product to attract customers. What will happen to that competition if you need to break contracts to switch service providers to get a competitive product?

How would you feel if you had to buy a new TV to switch cable or satellite companies? The issue is the same. The service providers came up with standard ways to hook up TVs (Component, DVI, etc), why shouldn't they do the same for DVRs?

Russ


----------



## interactiveTV (Jul 2, 2000)

Justin Thyme said:


> I'm sure your clients would agree with your perspective on whether those represent real consumer choice, or the strangulation of market forces. BTW- who are your clients?


 Funny. I missed this snide question earlier. I guess when you can't argue the law you try to infer bias through a character attack. So, Justin, for the record, I don't represent anyone connected to this industry in any direct way. I do work with some entertainment clients but you'd be more likely to pay to go see them in concert or watch their TV show or movie than anything else. I don't think they would even know what DBS stands for.

If you'd like to make another inaccurate assumption and try to impune my character, that I'm bought and paid for and hold an opinion because of a retainer, go for it. I find it snide, disgusting, and the sign of a weak arguement. Do I know, have met with, and conducted business with some of the largest players in the entertainment industry? Yes. My luxury now is to be able to work the way I want, with whom I want. Actually, I find that teaching gives me a great joy in a way I never would have thought years ago. I've earned it after years of hard work and I can guarantee you that one doesn't reach that level by falling back on snide comments when unable to discuss the topic at hand.

You can be as "sure" as you want. Once again, Justin, you've made an error in judgement. You're wrong. It's that simple. No one I currently work with directly would even *have* an opinion on this let alone care what mine is. If you want to wonder if XBox is better than PS2, I'm sure one or two would certainly have an opinion and if your daughter needs some tickets, let me know.

This is your freebie. You took your cheap shot. You couldn't discuss on topic and went for me personally and my character implying I'm bought and paid for. Enjoy it.

_ITV


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

ITV- Full disclosure is fair game. Certainly, you have derisively questioned my motives, so turnabout is fair. I merely choose to do it with far less ink. I appreciate your disclosure and accept it at face value. In all sincerity I do. Correspondingly, I will disclose that I also am not an employee nor do I have clients who are any players in this market, nor am I a day trader nor are any of my friends or family so connected. I am simply a retired software guy who was involved with unrelated navigation software products. Navigation technologies like browsers and search greatly interested me then, and products involving navigation have been at the center of some major movements in the consumer technology field. That is why I expend a great deal of time thinking about such subjects rather than thinking about what Barney is singing about or about the contents of my youngest daugher's diapers.

Now back to the matter at hand. You are expending a great deal of time explaining why passages don't mean what they say, why we should ignore other passages since they were "really" only filler or were "really" only written by junior clerks. Further, you attempt to convince through repeitition why concepts that don't appear in the documents really are the key concepts.

People would be better served not reading our endless banter reiterating points, and spend it reading some of the original source material. I think people would be really surprized to read what they actually say rather than base their opinions on what commentators tell us they say.

For example, you have asserted that the key concept guiding the waiver is the satellite companies' status as not being classical monopolies.


interactiveTV said:


> Repeat after me so we don't have to do this again. There are TWO DBS companies. It is NOT a monopoly. There is only ONE cable company in 90%+ of the markets and cable WAS a REGULATED MONOPOLY. It's no longer regulated but still, in terms of cable, a monopoly.


 If this is the key reason why they have a waiver- I repeat my question- why doesn't the justification for the cablecard waiver not make any mention of monopoly or forms of the word or synonyms? Why does it instead base it's summary statement which you quote out of context, not to any references to monopoly or related concepts, but to now untrue statements- 1) that the satellite companies were once frail newcomers 2) that there was once a vibrant third party navigation device aftermarket, and 3) that they were once weak companies without market strength?

There are some fair questions that reading the waiver text raises about whether any of their reasons justifying the waiver are valid today. There appears to be a valid question whether the "limited time" for this waiver to be granted has not already expired. We are coming up on 10 years since Congress passed this law governing their behavior. How much longer do we wait until Congress's intent is fulfilled?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

even I agree with ITV on this one. While it seems unfair to TiVo and other 3rd party navigation devices it really is not a remedy needing a new law/ruling. No one has mentioned in all this that I could get DirectTV or Dish STB and hook up a TiVo stand alone to it and record all the shows I want. I think the TiVo HD prototype had a way to hook up to DirectTV as well, though not sure on that.

requiring integration via a smart card of some type that all 3rd parties can use seems to be a law/ruling in search of a market that does not exist. how do you propose the two way communication to allow real navigation happen with these 3rd party products for DBS? It is a large kettle of technological fish in this idea as well.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

It's not a new law. It's conforming to a law that is nearly 10 years old. 

Two way communication? Isn't that generic to any problem with acccess cards (nee cablecards)? If it is an accurate objection for dbs, then it is for cablecards. Do you then advocate ejection of the cablecard rule?

Read the orginal law at the fcc documents. I can't emphasize this enough.

Congress said that MVPD's should allow third party access to their networks for providing "converter boxes, interactive communications equipment, and other equipment used by consumers to access multichannel video programming"

Using an SA Tivo requires you to own a second navigation device that does the conversion of digital to analog. Congress said that third parties get to do converter boxes, and further, that the boxes not be under the control of the service providers. That's not a new law or a new concept. 

Nearly 10 years after this law was made, we are still waiting. We are getting there with cablecards, but we aren't there yet.


----------



## interactiveTV (Jul 2, 2000)

Justin Thyme said:


> ITV- Full disclosure is fair game. Certainly, you have derisively questioned my motives, so turnabout is fair.


 I did?

I certainly questioned why protecting Tivo is more deserving than other companies as your DBS stance as outlined here certainly makes direct mention of allowing Tivo to independently sell a DirecTV box. I also clearly expressed my shock at your dragging someone behind a truck comments but I don't recall anything beyond "consultant speak" comments which is more on the type of language used (buzzwords and phrases that seem to say little).

Beyond that I can't recall a single instance of such a character attack (though I do admit I reacted quite strongly to your truck dragging comments), your defense of "turnabout" doesn't hold much water to me.



Justin Thyme said:


> Now back to the matter at hand. You are expending a great deal of time explaining why passages don't mean what they say, why we should ignore other passages since they were "really" only filler or were "really" only written by junior clerks. Further, you attempt to convince through repeitition why concepts that don't appear in the documents really are the key concepts.


 No. That is incorrect. You make inaccurate readings...

I ask again...

Where do the words, "direct access" occur?



Justin Thyme said:


> The distortions being created are due to the fact that the FCC is not doing what congress said- that they should insure that third party devices should have direct access to MVPD networks.


You are interpreting the document and I'm asking from where you get "direct access."

As for understanding that there will be stronger points and weaker points, I fail to see why this is such a complicated concept.

I do not just make up points though. The "fact" referenced by you is one that eludes me. If you can point to a portion of the document where congress wanted to "insure...direct access" I will gladly cede the point. I can't make ANY defense of your reading of the text at all. None.

You err by referring to your intepretation as a fact and you further err by not being able to show ANYWHERE even a close mention to the basis for your opinion.



Telecom Act said:


> Section 629 of the Communications Act, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 instructs the Commission to "adopt regulations to assure the commercial availability, to consumers . . . of . . . equipment used . . . to access multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems, from manufacturers, retailers, and other vendors not affiliated with any multichannel video programming distributor."


Direct access? Seems to NOT be the focus. "Commercial availability" seems to be the crux. The affiliation clause certainly gives some pause but even ownership % rules have been bent, broken, and amended. "Affiliation" in the world of media is a tough thing. Even Tivo is "affiliated" with a major cable company.

Let's further quote...



Telecom Act said:


> The Commission believes that the steps taken in this Report and Order, if implemented promptly and in good faith, will result in a broad expansion of the market for navigation devices so that they become commercially available through retail outlets. This will create incentive for innovation, choice and better prices."


What do they WANT?

WHAT is the GOAL as stated? What's the desired RESULT as stated?

*commercially available through retail outlets. * All by itself. Number 1 goal.

How? "broad expansion." Does that mean everyone and their mother must be able to make the box? Maybe, but probably not. It's a little undefined, wouldn't you say? So why not look at the WHY...

WHY? Because it will create:

* innovation
* choice
* better prices

The GOAL is very clear and CLEARLY stated (http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/News_Releases/1998/nrcb8013.html)

The desired RESULT is clearly stated

If things dramatically change, the sunset clause could obviously be enacted but in the meantime...

DBS set-tops *are* available at retail. Goal as stated is true
Do we have innovation? Heck yes. Dual tuners, HD, some neat stuff
Do we have choice? I can choose from *9* different Dish set-tops
Do we have better prices? I believe the average STB at the time of the ruling was in excess of $600 (subsidized so actual price). Today? $0.

Let's keep going...WHY focus on Cable and not DBS?



Telecom Act said:


> The focus of Section 629, however, is on cable television set-top boxes and cable modems, devices that have historically been available only on a lease basis from the service provider."


Lease basis? from the service provider? Hmmm....

No mention of monopoly you say?



Telecom Act said:


> Existing equipment rate rules applicable to cable systems not facing effective competition fulfill the statute's requirement prohibiting subsidies


Not facing effective competition? Interesting. Since Sherman, we've had some interesting definitions of "monopoly" and waded into the "natural monopoly" issues but since "temporary monopolies" are not only permitted but protected (a patent on a drug is considered a temporary monopoly"), "effective competition" is a much easier threshold to set. It saves the FCC the need to actually get something legally declared as a "monopoly." Semantics, to be sure, but smart. Why force your hand and have a company take you to court to prove "monopoly" when the less stringent "effective competition" term gives you more latitude?

I can show a CLEAR AND CONCISE goal meanwhile you're spouting "direct access"

And, for your own edification, "similar" to Carterfone "principle" is NOT the SAME as Carterfone. Regardless, I show a clear reading of the stated GOAL, the WHY and the HOW. I don't see "direct access" anywhere. Change my mind, Justin.

Again, you had your cheap shot on my character. Your "turnabout" defense (or, more broadly known as the "two wrongs make a right" defense) doesn't wash with me nor can I recall such an attack on you (again, I was, perhaps, overly upset by your truck dragging comments).

_ITV


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Hmmm. lots of words but no defence of your assertion that the monopoly concept is key to the waiver. Your quote has to do with subsidies waiver not the cablecard waiver. That is incredibly misleading, but the quote speaks for itself. I suppose that's the closest I will get to a concession that the monopoly concept has nothing to do with the waiver justification.

Now you want to make a big deal out of direct access. Ok. Explain to me how you can make a converter box without having direct access to the network. Presumably we should be hooking our third party phones to a telephone company supplied box that has redundant decoding functions.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Justin Thyme said:


> Two way communication? Isn't that generic to any problem with acccess cards (nee cablecards)? If it is an accurate objection for dbs, then it is for cablecards. Do you then advocate ejection of the cablecard rule?
> 
> Read the orginal law at the fcc documents. I can't emphasize this enough.
> 
> Congress said that MVPD's should allow third party access to their networks for providing "converter boxes, interactive communications equipment, and other equipment used by consumers to access multichannel video programming"


cable card 2 spec has two way communication built into it. Easy for cable since they have, well the cable to communicate over.

Things like DirectTV use the phoneline to communicate _back_ to directTV. Going back out the sattelite is tough and expensive so something like the phone line has to be used. A new ruling for mandating a card for DBS would have to deal with this issue. No simple spec in the card itself to use here.

about the only problem I see here is that not many _different 3rd party choices_ are available for DirectTV but is that DirectTV's fault/impedement or just the way the market went ?

question of a different nature - is DirectTV required to keep supporting DirectTiVo DVRs after the contract ends unless they change to something like mpeg4. can they simply say, sorry we do not allow TiVo's anymore even though they would work just finewithin normal DirectTV operations ?


----------



## interactiveTV (Jul 2, 2000)

ZeoTiVo said:


> is DirectTV required to keep supporting DirectTiVo DVRs after the contract ends unless they change to something like mpeg4. can they simply say, sorry we do not allow TiVo's anymore even though they would work just finewithin normal DirectTV operations ?


 If I recall, there was a defined period of time where support for the installed base would be provided. Obviously, you can't ask a company to provide support forever (isn't Windows 98 no non-supported?) but I remember multiple posts on topic referring to such support.

Also, UltimateTV enjoyed support and still does.

To be clear, the contract would not "end" if support is required for an "x" number of years. It would still be in effect.

Companies ARE allowed to discontinue products. Heck, my Series 1 no longer gets updates so its "support" is limited. There, yes, but limited. A consumer *might* have a legal arguement but usually it is a business practice and companies are very interested in keeping acquired customers happy as the cost of acquiring them is not small. That said, I'm pretty sure Apple won't help me much with my Newton, my 8-track will be unfixable, and my original analog (and suitcase like) cell phone won't be supported either by any cell phone company on this planet.

I'll wager DirecTV gives a voucher for something to those HD Tivo users who will be left in the dark with the shift to MPEG4 but an eternity of backwards compatability is not in any user contract. A "subscription" to Microsoft products carries minimum hardware requirements.

I think the most dramatic change will be for those HD Tivo users but the benefit of increased HD channels greatly outweighs the consumer outcry and I'll wager DirecTV does what is reasonable to try and keep as many of those owners with its service.

_ITV


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> cable card 2 spec has two way communication built into it. Easy for cable since they have, well the cable to communicate over.
> 
> Things like DirectTV use the phoneline to communicate _back_ to directTV. Going back out the sattelite is tough and expensive so something like the phone line has to be used. A new ruling for mandating a card for DBS would have to deal with this issue. No simple spec in the card itself to use here.


Why are you dwelling on cablecard2 or cablecard1 characteristics. Perhaps you misunderstand due to the necessary shorthand of the title.

Complying with the "access card" (nee cablecard) rule that separates out low level security access functions from navigation functions is all that is being advocated here. This is the mechanism that the FCC together with the cablecos came up with for achieving Congress's mandate to guarantee third party access to their network. Anything else that achieves the same result for DBS MVPDs would satisfy the law. DirecTv's most simple path to compliance with the 10 year old law might be in agreeing with the FCC to license the portion of the circuit in a direcTivo that handles the security interface to the network so that anyone can sell devices that work with Direct's network. Correspondingly for Dish.

Nothing Congress said required MVPD's to use cablecards or use the the same access technology of other providers. The law merely stated that MVPD's (no exception for satellite) had to allow third parties to manufacture devices such as converter boxes. Such third parties had to be free of the service companies control.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

ZeoTiVo said:


> question of a different nature - is DirectTV required to keep supporting DirectTiVo DVRs after the contract ends unless they change to something like mpeg4. can they simply say, sorry we do not allow TiVo's anymore even though they would work just finewithin normal DirectTV operations ?


This question was largely addressed above, but I'm not totally sure what you mean by "supported" in this case. You seem to maybe suggest that DirecTV may simply disable the TiVo protion of a DirecTiVo when you say "can they simply say, sorry we do not allow TiVo's anymore even though they would work just fine within normal DirectTV operations" Is that what you meant to say?

"Not supported" doesn't always (or even usually) mean "won't work".


----------



## interactiveTV (Jul 2, 2000)

Justin Thyme said:


> Hmmm. lots of words but no defence of your assertion that the monopoly concept is key to the waiver.


THE key? I outlined FOUR major differences between DBS and Cable. FOUR.

I've also stated repeatedly the KEY is RETAIL AVAILABILITY and CONSUMER CHOICE.

That cable is a monopoly (and was a regulated monopoly) has LED to certain undesirable attributes. Two of the KEY ones are: LACK OF RETAIL AVAILABILITY AND LACK OF REAL CONSUMER CHOICE (I can pick from four cable set-tops versus 9 Dish set-tops and I must lease).

First you said my point was for the "benefit of New York City." That snide, sarcastic comment was a poor attempt to deflect from an actual discussion of the points.

Then it was I'm paid by the industry and must be letting the almighty dollar sway my purchased soul.

Now, it's that I've said monopoly is *the* key.

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=3259956&&#post3259956

I think I made *four* points of DIFFERENCE between the two industries.

I think I have REPEATEDLY stated...

*If the point is to allow consumers to PURCHASE rather than LEASE then why WOULD we regulate DBS?*

PURCHASE NOT LEASE. THE POINT. I guess that's not clear enough for you.

I think the key to the waiver is that DBS already meets the minimum requirements, the GOAL as stated. I think I've been clear on that.

You continue to misread not only the text of the regulations (and nice attempt to defend "direct access" but it's not even close to the same thing) as well as my responses.

You attack me personally and defend it with the "two wrongs make a right" arguement.

I think I've been pretty clear on my opinion. I've attempted to back it up with actual quotes and how I believe they illuminate my point.

I'm not always right (I hope for more than 50% and everything else is gravy) and my opinions are not always written in stone. I'm more than happy to have a friend, colleague, student, or someone here convince me otherwise with on-topic, reasoned, and intelligent arguements. I try to outline my opinion as best I can, not to convince others that it is the right or the best opinion but because I must if I expect a well organized and thoughtful rebuttal. Selfish? Perhaps, but while I am not easily swayed I certainly will not hold my ground on foolish pride or to save face. I have no face here nor care much about even being here.

At this point, Justin, I fear there is absolutely nothing that could convince you to take an open look at the points I try as best I can to make. That your mind is made up isn't the issue. It's that you refuse to actually counter an arguement with what the arguement is. You change the rules as you go. You try and define what my points are regardless of what I say. I never made monopoly the key. Nor New York. I didn't make a big deal out of "direct access." I asked how you got from A to B. You never answered. I asked IF retail availability and consumer choice are the keys, then would you agree that DBS already meets the critera. You never answered except with something about $300 boxes. I asked how number portability is a good example when technological portability (CDMA to GSM) doesn't exist in the cell industry and you never answered.

You started this thread. I would imagine it would be from an intellectual curiosity, to discuss, learn, argue, defend but ultimately to shape your own opinion in some enhanced way. Perhaps you just want a platform to give your opinion without any rebuttal at all? I would suggest a blog rather than a forum might be more appropriate.

_ITV


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

jsmeeker said:


> This question was largely addressed above, but I'm not totally sure what you mean by "supported" in this case. You seem to maybe suggest that DirecTV may simply disable the TiVo protion of a DirecTiVo when you say "can they simply say, sorry we do not allow TiVo's anymore even though they would work just fine within normal DirectTV operations" Is that what you meant to say?
> 
> "Not supported" doesn't always (or even usually) mean "won't work".


my question is really - given the current state of DirectTV and ignoring contracts for the moment (assume it is finished and all terms satisfied, etc.) can DirectTV legally simply turn off any access for DirectTV TiVo DVRs simply because DirectTV wants to. (I know it is a bad business move, my question is a legal one)


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Justin Thyme said:


> Why are you dwelling on cablecard2 or cablecard1 characteristics. Perhaps you misunderstand due to the necessary shorthand of the title.


I am dwelling on a standard that includes communication abck to the company for things like PPV ordering and so forth. without that it is not much of a choice for many consumers.


----------



## interactiveTV (Jul 2, 2000)

ZeoTiVo said:


> my question is really - given the current state of DirectTV and ignoring contracts for the moment (assume it is finished and all terms satisfied, etc.) can DirectTV legally simply turn off any access for DirectTV TiVo DVRs simply because DirectTV wants to. (I know it is a bad business move, my question is a legal one)


 You want the legal answer but want to ignore contracts? 

The easiest answer is yes. It becomes even easier if DirecTV changes its underlying technology in some way. It need not be as drastic as MPEG2 to MPEG4. It can change its security protocals in such a way -- I'm not a hardware/software guy so the ease of doing so is beyond me -- that DirecTivo users no longer have a product that is compatible. Again, whether there is something specific in DirecTivo that would allow that to occur but would not "break" the rest of the STBs is beyond my abilities to know.

I think that perhaps your question might be, could they turn them off for spite. Yes? The answer is probably not. That would be a bad faith action and could possibly get them in trouble. However, I'm sure some hardware/software person could tell us how easily DirecTV could make at least a prima facea arguement that the hardware/software "upgrade" was necessary.

Since it would cost DirecTV, in both customer churn and new STBs, I don't believe they will "turn off" the boxes until there is a legitimate upgrade cycle reason. Support might be limited (no exhange on dead boxes, for example) to things like guide data and most certainly no feature updates, but I would expect it to be on par with UltimateTV's support. A slow, steady migration or weaning is much more in DirecTV's interests than pissing off an installed base by flipping a switch and created boat anchors.

_ITV


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

interactiveTV said:


> You want the legal answer but want to ignore contracts?
> 
> The easiest answer is yes. It becomes even easier if DirecTV changes its underlying technology in some way. It need not be as drastic as MPEG2 to MPEG4. It can change its security protocals in such a way -- I'm not a hardware/software guy so the ease of doing so is beyond me -- that DirecTivo users no longer have a product that is compatible. Again, whether there is something specific in DirecTivo that would allow that to occur but would not "break" the rest of the STBs is beyond my abilities to know.


DirecTV has changed they way the encrypt and protect the way they send the signal a few times in the past. If I'm not mistaken, when they do this, they send everyone a new access card for their receivers. I suppose it would be possible for them to do this again and not send the cards to DirecTiVo owners, and also design the cards in such a way as to keep them from even working with a DirecTiVo. Technically, I would think it's possible. But this is a stab in the dark technical guess.

Would they do it? Well, you already did a fine job addressing that issue.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

The upshot of all that is what we all know: DirecTv and Dish Network controls what choices the consumer has with devices that connect to their networks. That is contrary to the intent of Congress. They said very plainly in the act that all mvpd's should allow third party access to their networks, and that the FCC was only allowed to grant temporary waivers. No new law here. After a decade, it's time for the satellite companies to come into compliance with the 1996 Telecom act.

There is no retail availability of boxes which are not under the control of the Satellite carriers. This is not a perspective solely held by those such as myself who are untrained in law.


dt_dc said:


> The Telecom Act of 1996 ordered the FCC to ensure commercial availability of navigation devices ... the ability to buy STBs in stores. DBS STBs were already commercially available in stores so ... the FCC pretty much exempted them from the whole proceeding.
> 
> That being said ... The Telecom Act of 1996 says that devices should be available "from manufacturers, retailers, and other vendors not affiliated with any multichannel video programming distributer." As DBS has moved more towards 'single-sourcing' out their boxes to a single manufacturer ... cable has started to question whether this still meets the definition of "not affilated with".
> 
> ...


] Link to original context of post

The reasons for that exemption are obsolete.

People should not take my word for it or ITV's or DT_DC's. They should simply read the passages of original documents and decide for themselves. The documents are searchable, it is not a big deal.


----------



## interactiveTV (Jul 2, 2000)

Justin Thyme said:


> The upshot of all that is what we all know: DirecTv and Dish Network controls what choices the consumer has with devices that connect to their networks. That is contrary to the intent of Congress. They said very plainly in the act that all mvpd's should allow third party access to their networks, and that the FCC was only allowed to grant temporary waivers.


 there you go again.

Your OPINION of Congress' intent.

My opinion is different and is based on a different reading...



Commission said:


> Commission's goal of providing competition in the telecommunications marketplace by creating a major market for consumers to own equipment used to access video programming and other services in their homes.


Now, HOW that goal is achieved is an interesting question.



Justin Thyme said:


> There is no retail availability of boxes which are not under the control of the Satellite carriers. This is not a perspective solely held by those such as myself who are untrained in law.


 As I pointed out, the "unaffiliated sources" portion is troublesome. Tivo is NOT an unaffiliated source. It has a contract with a MAJOR cable company. Frankly, I'd have a hard time naming three "unaffiliated sources" for a STB. But maybe that's the wrong reading of to what affiliation they refer.

I guess, Justin, I fail to see how Tivo would qualify as a company "from manufacturers, retailers, and other vendors not affiliated with any multichannel video programming distributer."

Comcast doesn't qualify as a multichannel video programming distributer? Tivo certainly has a STRONG affiliation with Charter. A multi-year contract is more than an affiliation? No?

What about Microsoft? They unaffiliated?

Sony?

Moxi?

Pansonic?

Heck, I think Starbucks might be affiliated with a multichannel video programming distributer by now.

So I fail to see how allowing Tivo to sell a box to DirecTV customers -- your stated desired outcome -- would actually CHANGE ANYTHING by the litmus test you chose.

_ITV


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

interactiveTV said:


> You want the legal answer but want to ignore contracts?


 no, I just knew the answer would ne no for now becasue of the contract created to protect both parties in addition to any other legal recourse.



> I think that perhaps your question might be, could they turn them off for spite. Yes? The answer is probably not. That would be a bad faith action and could possibly get them in trouble. However, I'm sure some hardware/software person could tell us how easily DirecTV could make at least a prima facea arguement that the hardware/software "upgrade" was necessary.
> 
> _ITV


not so much spite, but just to clarify the current legal environment of what DirectTV can do if a third party makes a product. That is the flip side of this question - If Joe's DVRs makes a DVR compatible with DirectTV and sells it at say tweeters, does DirectTV have to honor a request from the purchaser to get DirectTV service for that device assuming it works correctly?


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

iTV and JT:

As noted above by JT ( http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=3264198&&#post3264198 ) there's two distinct threads going on here:

1) What is the 'ideal' regulative / legislative approach

2) Given current legislature, what is the correct / expected regulatory approach

I'm not going near #1 ...

But for #2 ... Drop "intent" or "reasons" or "goals" or "aims". It really doesn't matter (especially at the FCC level) ... nor is it relavant to that particular question.

The FCC intent is to implement 47 USC 549:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000549----000-.html
That's the FCC's intent ... that's their purpose ... to implement US Code passed by Congress. and as clearly laid out in the several court cases (including the Broadcast Flag case) ... that's all they have the authority to do.

Now, one can look at Congressional intent if the law is unclear or vague. But guess what ... you could both be right on that one ...

It would certainly appear through the Congressional record and the actual text of 47 USC 549 as if the intent was to go beyond merely "having STBs available at retail and offering choice". That the purpose was to bring a fully cometitive market of third-party STBs.

But ... some others would say that the intent of 47 USC 549 was for Circuit City to sell cable boxes. Circuit City just happened to be headquartered in Richmond, VA which just happened to be the district of Tom Bliley, who durring the writing of the 1996 Telecom Act just happened to be Chairman of the Commerce Committee, which just happens to be the Committee in charge of Telecom law. People particularly like to point to § 549(f) as proof of this.

So hey, you could both be right and you're not going to know unless you can get an honest answer from a bunch of politicians. Good luck.

Anyway ... it doesn't matter. No matter what the intent or goal or aim ... what you're left with is 47 USC 549:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000549----000-.html

And the FCC authority to implement it.

So stop arguing intent ... it's really meaningless.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

ITV- No question those two points are crucial- whether a third party really is a third party, and what kind of access those third parties were to have to a Video Carrier's network. 

Congress stated that third parties should be allowed to manufacturer converter boxes. If there is some term that does the job better than "direct access to the MVPD network" to describe in a shorthand way the kind of low level access to digital signals that a converter box would have to have, by all means, suggest another term. I really don't see the point of disputing whether this notion of "direct access" is necessary to carry out the congressional directive. 

That is, unless you wish to reopen a debate on whether the FCC was correct in requiring the kind of direct access to networks that Cablecards afford. FCC saw that necessity. If you don''t, then fine, but I will not argue their case for you. 

Is affiliation such a complicated concept that it is too confusing for a governmental agency to figure out? Perhaps to those unfamiliar with government. Many are completely unaware that the government does this as a routine matter as part of every competitive bidding process. ITV, I'd be happy to refer you to the countless guidelines on determining the affiliation issued by the federal government, but I am sure you are aware of them. I'm not sure why you raise this- it only appears to me to be a red herring, but if you have some sincere concerns here that the FCC would be too incompetent to handle this, let's hear why.

I think it is pretty clear what DirecTv and Dish are doing with their boxes. They don't want to permit access to their networks by navigation devices with features that they don't have veto over. 

Can the FCC observe that if something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck that it is a duck? I think so.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

The prospect of tripling the number of subscription paying Tivo owners is a powerful stimulus to action. Filing a petition is cheap, and the payoffs.... Well jeez best case say they win on DirecTivos and Tivo only persuades half the 2 million direcTivo users to shift their DVR support from DirecTV to Tivo. Say Tivo prices it to just one dollar over their cost. That's 1 million more per month. Even if they took FCC to court, it would pay costs in the first month(s).

And the payoff in users? It would dwarf the results of their activities with incentives to acquire new users, and let DirecTivo users know that help is on the way. Further, it puts service providers on notice during negotiations that it pays to negotiate with Tivo rather than let matters get to the courts and the regulators. The Tivo logo guy may be cute, but he has teeth.

It's interesting to me that when the Media considers Tivo legal moves they just talk about patents- like them taking Dish Network (Echostar) to court. But they do not consider the FCC. They clearly understand that DirecTv and the carriers see third party navigation devices as an obstacle.

Yet they appear not to understand that what Direct is doing at least goes against the plain english reading of the Law governing Satellite broadcaster's relationship to third party providers (cited above by DT_DC at the cornell site).

Consider the USAToday article "DirectTV poised to take on Tivo"

DirecTV is not supposed to be taking on navigational devices, but allowing them access to their network, at least according to congress. If the FCC fails to bring satellite companies into compliance it isn't the end of the road. The FCC has been taken to court before because it was out of step with the law.

I seriously doubt the cable companies will see any economic reason to petition the FCC over the Satellite companies' waiver. The effect of having third party devices able that allow users to switch between digital cable and satellite would not be a terrible thing for them. Besides, if there is any advantage to third party navigation devices, they can have their cake and eat it without any of the nasty downsides. Due to the Monopsony relationship they have with manufacturers, just as with cell phones, the manufacturers respond more to service vendor demands than to consumer demands. Winning preferred placement with a service provider generates many more sales than adding a feature that might piss off a service provider.


----------



## MighTiVo (Oct 26, 2000)

interactiveTV said:


> Yup. And someone chose DISH instead of DirecTV so tough luck if you can't use one STB on the other.
> 
> And, by the way, nothing FORCES a cellular company to offer someone's phone. If you, me and Justin design a phone, Verizon is free to say, "no thanks. We don't want that on our network." That's how THEY chose it to be. Cingular? Any GSM will do. That was their choice. Different choices, different systems. Free markets at work. Don't like Cingular? Go to Verizon. Vice versa.
> _ITV


I don't have a problem with a Dish STB not working on DTV.

Perhaps nothing forces them to allow the use of a phone, I don't have any information to dispute that. I don't expect there would be any phones that are compatable that they would ban. If there are then that seems a foolish move and would certainly push customers onto other networks that would allow such a phone.

There are plenty of opportunities to purchase non affiliated cell phones. Consumers can choose from many different feature sets and load an amazing amount of 3rd party software. (I can even watch my SA TiVo recordings on my Nokia 6600).

Right now, there is no way at all to buy a non affiliated DBS STB. Dish and DTV control all the software and feature sets on every DBS STB.

Just as the SIM card provided the flexibility with cell phones the cablecard will allow consumers freedom of choice for a digital cable stb.

With DBS we simply do not have that freedom of choice.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

MighTiVo said:


> Right now, there is no way at all to buy a non affiliated DBS STB. Dish and DTV control all the software and feature sets on every DBS STB.
> 
> Just as the SIM card provided the flexibility with cell phones the cablecard will allow consumers freedom of choice for a digital cable stb.
> 
> With DBS we simply do not have that freedom of choice.


exactly the point of my question on Joe's DBS STB company not being able to get their device hooked up unless the DBS company allow's it. And this looks like Justin's point as well. Looks like I am leaning back to thinking something has to change to allow this. The way to have two way communication is a problem though, since talking back up through the sattelite feed is a hassle/expensive. some other means would have to be supported to have a true 3rd party navigation device


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Can you fill me in why 2 way communication is a problem? I mean, I realize their won't be symmetry with cablecard 2.0 functionality, but why does that matter. 

I guess I don't understand what the nature of your objection is.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Justin Thyme said:


> Can you fill me in why 2 way communication is a problem? I mean, I realize their won't be symmetry with cablecard 2.0 functionality, but why does that matter.
> 
> I guess I don't understand what the nature of your objection is.


it is not an objection mind you. Tech hassles are not in themselves a reson to not go forward.

but - say I want to order a pay per view, or I wnat to have an interactive guide or the DBS company wants the unit to check in every so often to do a ensurance check or whatever.

if there is no two way communication then ordering PPV or VOD is out. Do you stipulate a 3rd party tech like a modem and phone call or what?


----------



## dgh (Jul 24, 2000)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Do you stipulate a 3rd party tech like a modem and phone call or what?


I think you leave that level of detail to a committee of interested parties. Could be a modem in the card, could be a secure(ish) path from the card to a modem in the box, could be something else.

Basically current Dish and DirecTV receivers claim to need a phone line (though many users don't hook them up) so if they want to stay in that space, the modem would be the obvious answer.

It seems below the level of detail of a question of "should" - though more interesting than the monopoly vs. duopoly stuff


----------



## MighTiVo (Oct 26, 2000)

ZeoTiVo said:


> exactly the point of my question on Joe's DBS STB company not being able to get their device hooked up unless the DBS company allow's it. And this looks like Justin's point as well. Looks like I am leaning back to thinking something has to change to allow this. The way to have two way communication is a problem though, since talking back up through the sattelite feed is a hassle/expensive. some other means would have to be supported to have a true 3rd party navigation device


I don't understand. With existing DBS STBs the 2way communication to upload data stored on the smart card for PPV purchases is via a phone call.
Dish & DTV would still need to provide the smart cards and support uploading stored purchases over the phone.

The only thing I am suggesting is that navagation, storage, A/V connectivity, network, firewire, usb, gaming, etc. all be able to be decided on by the user without the DBS provider limiting what can be used for or on the STB.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Rats. MighTiVo jumped in first. What he said.... My note read:

Oh. Technically I don't see a big deal. It is more the coordination hassles with the provider. Technically, I'm sure two way would be done using the exactly the same mechanism the Dish company used- modem connections to exactly the same numbers for VOD/ PPV orders.

I believe the 629 section is worded so that the third party boxes have to have access to All MVPD services, in order for the service provider not being able to make the third party boxes undesirable by witholding support for doing important functions. In nearly all cases, I don't see why coersion would be necessary on this point, because those 2 way services are seen as being great sources of revenue for the Carriers. They would likely bend over backwards with sofware and services support to get these features in third party boxes. Other wizzy but non huge revenue generators?- sure they might get huffy about those- things are product differentiator features, and not really video oriented- say dumb client MUG games.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

ok, a modem it is then. It is a tech hassle and a palce for wriggle room.

because

just like cable providers, the last thing they want to do is give up the navigation room for PPV/VOD. they want to completely control that interface.

so the 3rd party guy makes the box and dutifully has the modem so it will call in and the DBS array of services is there.

then he adds in an ethernet jack and makes a deal with some downloader of internet content. Suddenly PPV from DBS is no good.

this is the free market we would all want as consumers, but as a DBS company it would be my worst nightmare and it is being fought just as hard as the cable companies are fighting Cable cards with two way communication. A one way card to tune a single channel on. OK, if we have to. use the same thing ourselves or worse have to make a cable card that has capacity to show multiple channels and allow talking back so our PPV shows up on a menu of many choices.   

I would expect this to be a very hard ruling for the FCC to make happen without a very big hammer and some idea that DBS companies can withstand it.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

The reason why I said that it appears covered is that you would really have to go into contortions to think that some services are covered while others aren't. The passage is inclusive, stating that third party boxes have to have access to the "programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems". No exceptions there.

See the opening statement on the page DT_DC referenced above from the Telecom act:


Telecom Act said:


> The Commission shall, in consultation with appropriate industry standard-setting organizations, adopt regulations to assure the commercial availability, to consumers of multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems, of converter boxes, interactive communications equipment, and other equipment used by consumers to access multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems...


Nonetheless, the greater danger is what you suggest- that if the satellite company is not using the same low level mechanism, that they can play service games with third party devices making consumers associate third party devices with low reliability. The cableco's are blocked from this by requiring them to use cablecards by 2005- er, now 2006.

However they implement this is up to the FCC. It would be nice if they had rules and a set up very similar to cablecard,.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

Justin Thyme said:


> The cableco's are blocked from this by requiring them to use cablecards by 2005- er, now 2006.


Make that July 1, 2007 ... and likely to be delayed beyond that:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-76A1.pdf


----------



## MighTiVo (Oct 26, 2000)

ZeoTiVo said:


> then he adds in an ethernet jack and makes a deal with some downloader of internet content. Suddenly PPV from DBS is no good.


Excellent point and part of the basis for this entire discussion.

PPV and other content such as IPTV or other downloadable media should be competitive as services and shouldn't rely on locking out the competition with a single source STB.


----------



## dgh (Jul 24, 2000)

ZeoTiVo said:


> then he adds in an ethernet jack and makes a deal with some downloader of internet content. Suddenly PPV from DBS is no good.


But this could be added to another box as well. If you're convinced that will kill your PPV model, then you need to work on your PPV business or get into the download business.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

yes, I said this was good for consumers and is the free market approach. but I doubt the DBS companies are going "gee that seems fair"

the other part of my post was that the FCC is barley getting Cable Companies to do this with an already known two way communication and a cable card 2 spec that is agreed upon but just not ratiifed as the industry gets FCC to extend the deadline again and again due to the "hassles" of using the cable card

it will take a big hammer to get the DBS companies to this table and they have all kinds of tech hassles and they can argue.


----------



## MighTiVo (Oct 26, 2000)

ZeoTiVo said:


> yes, I said this was good for consumers and is the free market approach. but I doubt the DBS companies are going "gee that seems fair"
> 
> the other part of my post was that the FCC is barley getting Cable Companies to do this with an already known two way communication and a cable card 2 spec that is agreed upon but just not ratiifed as the industry gets FCC to extend the deadline again and again due to the "hassles" of using the cable card
> 
> it will take a big hammer to get the DBS companies to this table and they have all kinds of tech hassles and they can argue.


I don't disagree, but as consumers we need to push for an open model.


----------



## Dajad (Oct 7, 1999)

What a thoroughly amusing and interesting thread!

Justin Thyme and _ITV, you BOTH know that you are BOTH talking past each other in this thread ... you are never going to resolve it!

_ITV, I love you, but you know in your heart that your are combative by nature and if any "blame" is to be passed around as to who was the first to take this discussion and make it personal in a way that can cause offense (especially to people that don't know you like I do), it was you buddy! You've done it here a 100 times before and you know you'll do it again!

While I typically have sided with _ITV in the past on most issues (but certainly not all), Justin Thyme is winning my heart and mind in this debate.

Keep it up, if you must, but it seems to be more of a stubborn pissing contest at this point rather than informed debate!

But, again, it was thoroughly enjoyable ... one of the best threads I've read in months.

...Dale

P.S. I too want one univeral access card ... and I also want a Pony!


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

> P.S. I too want one univeral access card ... and I also want a Pony!


I can see you wanting a pony, but why would you want to have universal access card? TiVo is not available in Canada and even if it was they could never produce nor sell universal access card TiVo.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

samo said:


> I can see you wanting a pony, but why would you want to have universal access card? TiVo is not available in Canada and even if it was they could never produce nor sell universal access card TiVo.


you can now officially get guide data for Canadian broadcasters in Canada. You just have to buy the TiVo in America so TiVo avoids all the legal requirements of selling in Canada. The Canadian lineups are part of the guided setup now. :up:

No idea on cable Cards in Canada though.

Dajad has started a thread on where to buy TiVo if you live in Canada
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=261465


----------



## Dajad (Oct 7, 1999)

samo said:


> I can see you wanting a pony, but why would you want to have universal access card? TiVo is not available in Canada and even if it was they could never produce nor sell universal access card TiVo.


Samo, you sure are quick. I guess I can hope that I might return to the U.S. one day.

I "intellectually" want a universal card. You are right though, it seems that it won't be useful here as there is no mandate at all in Canada for MSO's to implement cable-cards, let alone the DBS providers! 

...Dale


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

dt_dc said:


> 2) Given current legislature, what is the correct / expected regulatory approach


Just for a completely different spin on things ...

Anyone wanting to open up commercial availability of navigation devices in DBS would be foolish to petition the FCC right now, resources would be much more wisely spent on lobyists in Congress instead of lawyers at the FCC. The FCC is not going to be looking at this issue right now.

1) There are already a few telecom drafts circulating in Congress ... and a telecom reform bill is widely expected in the next couple sessions to adrress a whole host of issues (IPTV, video franchising, VoIP, , network neutrality, must carry, retrans consent, analog cutoff, EBS, E911, etc. etc.). Katrina might have shifted some focus ... de-prioritizing some aspects of telecom reform while cuasing focus on others so we may be more likely to see a split bill. But anyway, telecom reform is coming ... soon. The FCC is higly unlikely to open an issue that won't be resolvable before a telecom reform bill comes and may be impacted by it ...

2) Advance/Newhouse and Charter filed a petition in Court in July challanging the FCC's integrated security ban. Again, any action before this case is heard is unlikely and the court's decision could be very inciteful. GE challanged the ban in 2000 and was denied ... but cable obviously feels they have something new.
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518150885

3) The DBS exemption was recently challanged by the NCTA (although they were arguing that the integration ban should be lifted for everyone ... not that it should be applied to DBS):
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6515782885 (pg 17-20)
And in March 2005 the FCC stated that "Accordingly, the distinctions that led the Commission to differentiate between DBS and other MVPDs in 1998 remain valid":
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-76A1.pdf (pg 21, sec 38)

Now is the time to lobby Congress ... not petition the FCC.


----------



## MighTiVo (Oct 26, 2000)

dt_dc said:


> Just for a completely different spin on things ...
> 
> Anyone wanting to open up commercial availability of navigation devices in DBS would be foolish to petition the FCC right now, resources would be much more wisely spent on lobyists in Congress instead of lawyers at the FCC. The FCC is not going to be looking at this issue right now.
> 
> ...


Thanks for taking the time to post that information.

_Indeed, in the intervening years, the cable-consumer electronics landscape has
fundamentally changed. Two particular events have undermined the whole basis for the integration ban. First, in 2001, the cable industry changed its position with regard to the security of integrated boxes provided at retail. With greater industry confidence in the signal security that could be achieved in the digital environment (as opposed to the well-documented security problems in the analog world), the industry committed to supporting integrated digital boxes sold at retail. Under this initiative, consumers would be able to obtain an integrated set-top box at retail with the assurance that it will be supported by their cable operator._

This seems very reasonable to me. It shouldn't matter if the security process is done via a removable POD or at a lower cost onboard. As long as a consumer can purchase a retail device "with the assurance that it will be supported by their cable operator". That is exactly what we need from DBS as well.

Time to write congress, mention CS Docket No. 97-80 and ask that it be resolved for Cable, DBS, and IPTV in one fair strike across the board!

I am asking why this is the case:
_While it is unlikely the Commission will impose plug & play requirements on DBS or mandate that any manufacturer has the right to build DBS ready equipment, the FCC can take a major step in leveling the playing field by eliminating the integration ban._

There should be one set of rules for cable, DBS, and IPTV.

_ITV take note, this is a great example of how to communicate without being combative. 
I am guessing you would like to improve your written communication skills since you wrote to me "Well, every post I make gets reported by Zeo as harrasement regardless of content..."
It isn't the content, it is the tone and delivery...


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

Oh, and Tivo has a much more pressing/immediate issue with the FCC right now:
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518041663


----------



## dgh (Jul 24, 2000)

Dajad said:


> Justin Thyme and _ITV, you BOTH know that you are BOTH talking past each other in this thread ... you are never going to resolve it!
> 
> _ITV, I love you, but you know in your heart that your are combative by nature and if any "blame" is to be passed around as to who was the first to take this discussion and make it personal in a way that can cause offense (especially to people that don't know you like I do), it was you buddy! You've done it here a 100 times before and you know you'll do it again!


Very well said. I wanted to post something like this, but my wording would have caused another fight so I managed to restrain myself from pressing this submit button (for once )


----------



## MighTiVo (Oct 26, 2000)

dt_dc said:


> Oh, and Tivo has a much more pressing/immediate issue with the FCC right now:
> http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518041663


Sounds reasonable to me, they don't want the deadline placed at year end so they can manage holiday sales. So they don't want the deadline moved to Dec 2006 instead of the existing June 2007.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

dt_dc said:


> Oh, and Tivo has a much more pressing/immediate issue with the FCC right now:
> http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518041663


TiVo should stop worrying about the FCC and figure out what to do about this:


> Last year, TiVo saw approximately 25% of the total number of DVRs purchased by consumers during the holiday season returned after December 31.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

MighTiVo said:
 

> Sounds reasonable to me, they don't want the deadline placed at year end so they can manage holiday sales. So they don't want the deadline moved to Dec 2006 instead of the existing June 2007.


And there are some in that proceeding suggesting moving the deadline up to September 2006 to avoid the holiday sales issue ...


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

MighTiVo said:


> _ITV take note, this is a great example of how to communicate without being combative.
> I am guessing you would like to improve your written communication skills since you wrote to me "Well, every post I make gets reported by Zeo as harrasement regardless of content..."
> It isn't the content, it is the tone and delivery...


and since this is a public posting 
for the record *I reported only two posts* in two different threads both posts dealing with the speculated breaking of an NDA by a beta tester from the open to all beta for 7.2. both posts reffered to me directly by user name.
If the temp banning of us gets _everyone_ to get along better than it was worth it.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

MighTiVo said:


> _ITV take note, this is a great example of how to communicate without being combative.


In all fairness ... I (intentionally) completely avoided the more contentious "what is the ideal world" question as I think it is, quite frankly, significantly too complex to be adequately addressed in a setting such as this.

Classic "incent" vs. "regulate" and what is the best way to achieve a fully competitive market (in providers and equipment) ... which if you find an aswer to I've got your Nobel Prize in Economics ready and waiting ...


----------



## MighTiVo (Oct 26, 2000)

dt_dc said:


> And there are some in that proceeding suggesting moving the deadline up to September 2006 to avoid the holiday sales issue ...


There isn't any restriction on when you can start, so those guys that want it moved up should just go ahead and dump their non digital equipment now.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

MighTiVo said:


> There isn't any restriction on when you can start, so those guys that want it moved up should just go ahead and dump their non digital equipment now.


It's NAB and the broadcasters that want it moved up. NAB will _always_ argue for earlier tuner mandates ... CE companies will _always_ argue for later ones (or none) ...


----------



## interactiveTV (Jul 2, 2000)

MighTiVo said:


> _ITV take note, this is a great example of how to communicate without being combative.


My first post in this thread was met with a snide, sarcastic comment that tried to sum my post into a funny joke about New York. Combative beginning?

So do me a favor, if you want to play moderator, volunteer. Otherwise, why don't we start with a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD here before we try it with DBS.

There weren't too many voices expressing outrage at Justin's dragging a body behind a truck posts and I didn't see you jumping in when he made that initial sarcastic post about New York or when he accused me selling my opinion for a retainer.

If you want to school me on ettiquete, I guess the first rule would be such "examples" you want to teach should be done by PM.

_ITV


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

dt_dc said:


> Anyone wanting to open up commercial availability of navigation devices in DBS would be foolish to petition the FCC right now, resources would be much more wisely spent on lobyists in Congress instead of lawyers at the FCC. The FCC is not going to be looking at this issue right now.
> 
> 1) There are already a few telecom drafts circulating in Congress ... and a telecom reform bill is widely expected in the next couple sessions to adrress a whole host of issues
> ...
> ...


This is a dimension of the analysis that I don't understand. Of course, day to day observers of the FCC might have much more informed reasons for their predictions. Though it endeavors to be predictable, governmental action can be surprizing. The course that is "worth the resources" spent on it does not have to be monolithic in strategy. It is a valid way of achieving business goals and there is a cost benefit analysis. Is it technically possible to win a narrowly focused petition to allow Tivo to pick up DirecTivo customers? It certainly would be unusual, but Tivo can point to independent analysts who view DirecTv's actions as an assault on Tivo in specific, and independent navigation devices in general. DirecTv's assault is without precedent so it is difficult to predict how egregious the FCC would view it. They certainly have said that they were monitoring the health of third party provided navigation devices. Whatever the chances of success, if it were possible and would not prejudice other FCC petitions, then why not pay the costs of the petition and see what they say? Even if the likelihood of victory is doubtful, the costs seem very low in contrast to the potential payback. Unlike the judicial route, I don't see where the huge unpredictable downside would be.

As for Congress- I don't see why it would be reasonable to assume that CE vendors would not expect that a revision of the 1996 bill won't simply extend the delay for compliance another decade. How do we know that a bill is imminent- many such imminent bills required many years to hammer out due the the complexity and breadth of the issues involved. Given the list of technologies you mention, there is a huge number of very powerful parties who will want to make their voices heard and will pay their lobbyists to see that they get that input. Politicians will have to dance a very delicate dance between contentious positions on highly technical subjects that only their aides will comprehend, and only then at a level which may be woefully inadequate for the matters at hand. Such doubt will even further retard progress.

The current progress on cablecard was dealt a blow by Microsoft's naive belief that the cableco's support cablecard in any form. Naturally, MS likes the latest software oriented incarnation since it is well suited to the more powerful general purpose processors that their DVR solution favours. And sure, the argument that a software oriented solution is more powerful has merit, but in 2007, there will be yet another solution that would have much greater promise- ad infinitum. FCC action getting around to implementing a decade old law could be stalled in perpetuity if they accepted this sort of proposition that is generic for a purchase of any technology solution. There is always a nicer approach just around the corner.

The MVPDs have succeeded in stalling this nearly a decade. Congressional action could be years off. Will the FCC continue to abdicate its responsibility to carry out law currently on the books in favour of some speculative law that might be on the books at some indeterminate point in the future?

Maybe that is the way the FCC works, but it seems worth at least some effort in case that estimation is wrong. The payoff could be huge.

From the FCC March ruling, the follow on remarks give cause for some optimism that they may be open to consideration. 


FCC march 2005 said:


> We recognize, however, that DBS has become the most significant competitor to cable on a national basis and that DBS is not immune from some of the same concerns regarding constraints on independent innovation  and competition that arise in the cable context. Avoiding rule based market distortions with respect to DBS as a competitor to cable also is an important consideration. We do not regard this proceeding, however, as providing a record on which the Commission can resolve these issues.


Perhaps they declined to revise their DBS waiver because beyond the context of the proceeding to eliminate the cablecard exception rule.


----------



## smark (Nov 20, 2002)

<Jumps in at end of thread>

Cable isn't a monopoly as any other competitor can overbuild the other's network if they so choose. It's just expensive. There are very few if any exclusive franchises and I honestly can't think of any outside of a multiple dwelling unit contract. So those that say Cable is a monopoly are sorely mistaken.

</exits thread>


----------



## MighTiVo (Oct 26, 2000)

smark said:


> <Jumps in at end of thread>
> 
> Cable isn't a monopoly as any other competitor can overbuild the other's network if they so choose. It's just expensive. There are very few if any exclusive franchises and I honestly can't think of any outside of a multiple dwelling unit contract. So those that say Cable is a monopoly are sorely mistaken.
> 
> </exits thread>


Small cable companies that built the local infrastructure have been bought up. There is a large financial barrier of entry to go back and rebuild the last mile.

Telcos are required to unbundle and sell parts of the network wholesale while cable is not required to do so.

Cable certainly has a protected market.


----------



## smark (Nov 20, 2002)

No they don't. Cable built it's infrastructure via it's own investment and anyone who is willing to overbuild can. If you have the money you can do it.


----------



## MighTiVo (Oct 26, 2000)

smark said:


> No they don't. Cable built it's infrastructure via it's own investment and anyone who is willing to overbuild can. If you have the money you can do it.


The envionment just isn't the same. 
The infrastructure was built by many smaller companies that have been combined into large mega corporations. It really isn't feasable to expect a small company to come in and compete except in the most profitable areas or with some underlying cost advantage (city building its own with tax dollars and without paying franchise fees).

Beyond that it is a waste of resources to have unused cables in the last mile to provide choice of carrier.

This was recognized for phone service and incumbant telco's are required to wholesale, cable companies should as well.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

> Last year, TiVo saw approximately 25% of the total number of DVRs purchased by consumers during the holiday season returned after December 31.


Doug, this quote deserves a thread of it's own (if it already exists, please point me in a right direction) instead of being in an thread with an idiotic idea.
But staying on the topic. Assume FCC or congress are stupid enough to force cable card like device on satellite providers. There are only two satellite providers in US, but they use completely different encryption standards. If one of this standards is forced to be a common standard it will immediately put one of the providers out business (they will have to replace 10 Million+ IRDs and uplink hardware). When Dish was going to buy DTV replacing DTV receivers alone was going to cost about $2 billion. So common ground would have to be something new so both providers are forced to replace all of the equipment. Who do you think will end up paying for all that? You are right - consumers. And for what? To give somebody like TiVo an opportunity to come up with the hardware that works for both providers instead of designing two separate boxes? There is no question in my mind that if TiVo wanted to design boxes for DTV or Dish using their own money, if TiVo wanted to market this boxes and sell them below cost and if TiVo was going to provide a free support, neither of the satellite providers would object. Problem is that TiVo wants upfront money and royalties and neither provider wants to pay them. If cablecard like device was forced to be a standard that wouldn't change. So, can anybody tell me WHY should FCC or congress force common cards for satellite providers? And I don't need a dissertation - one or two paragraphs will do.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Technology is an interesting thing. Unexpected uses come up for things that we never expect. If I owned a DirecTV or Dish Network, I really wouldn't care what the rest of the industry did, I'd be making available devices that'd let my service be used in all sorts of environments. I'd find a way to make a CableCard compatible card that could tune my channels and do everything else I could cram in there. I'd make a PC card so people could use their computers and create wrapper apps around my tuning device. I'd make USB and FireWire devices to do the same thing, too. I'd move to a technology model for the satellite dish that could really minimize wiring issues, perhaps even making the "multiswitch" device map a smaller frequency block to another frequency block so that multiple tuners could share a single physical coax line without being limited in any way.

And if out of that a standard could be developed I'd make sure it was an open standard so my competitors could utilize it, and I'd make sure that standard offered ways to combine multiple such devices together as seamlessly as possible, so there'd be easy ways for a subscriber to my competitors to also subscribe to my stuff without it being a hardship on them for video switching and receiving equipment, even though I know it would give my subscribers the chance to do the same with my competitors.

The main requirement is that signal security must be maintained. I do think that's easily doable nowadays though there's certainly some issues to resolve regarding digital quality HD material.

And I wouldn't need any paper pusher at the FCC to get me to do it; I'd do it because it had the most potential to be a benefit to my company and to my subscribers in the longer term.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

samo said:


> So, can anybody tell me WHY should FCC or congress force common cards for satellite providers? And I don't need a dissertation - one or two paragraphs will do.


Because 10 years ago, Congress passed a law that satellite providers, along with cable companies had to allow third parties to manufacture converters and other boxes that could navigate their network. The law doesn't say it has to be a common card that would allow such access while safeguarding their network security. That is a solution the cable companies came up with. Dish and DirecTv might come up with a different proposal of how they could come into compliance with this law.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

Justin Thyme said:


> Because 10 years ago, Congress passed a law that satellite providers, along with cable companies had to allow third parties to manufacture converters and other boxes that could navigate their network. The law doesn't say it has to be a common card that would allow such access while safeguarding their network security. That is a solution the cable companies came up with. Dish and DirecTv might come up with a different proposal.


OK. If common card is not required - what is the problem? Both satellite providers allow third parties to manufacture and even design boxes for them. Dish uses some company in England (sorry forgot the name) to design their PVRs and they are sold under Dish label as well as JVC. There several manufactures that build DTV boxes (including TiVo). There is no law that would force satellite providers to market or pay for the design of these boxes, but anybody who wants to spend their own money on marketing, design and manufacturing to be able to sell hardware at loss can do it. Of course there are no insane companies who think that they can make a profit in this kind of venture, but if it was one, I'm sure both Dish and DTV would jump on opportunity to save some money.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

> And if out of that a standard could be developed I'd make sure it was an open standard so my competitors could utilize it, and I'd make sure that standard offered ways to combine multiple such devices together as seamlessly as possible, so there'd be easy ways for a subscriber to my competitors to also subscribe to my stuff without it being a hardship on them for video switching and receiving equipment, even though I know it would give my subscribers the chance to do the same with my competitors.


That's great idea, but you know what it did to IBM. They just recently sold all of their PC assets to China. Sure, we can get PC clones for close to nothing now days and it is great for consumers. Unfortunately, IBM gets nothing out of it. And how about the guy who invented Linux? Everybody but him made all kinds of money on it and he still has to work for the living.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

samo said:


> That's great idea, but you know what it did to IBM. They just recently sold all of their PC assets to China. Sure, we can get PC clones for close to nothing now days and it is great for consumers. Unfortunately, IBM gets nothing out of it. And how about the guy who invented Linux? Everybody but him made all kinds of money on it and he still has to work for the living.


I'm a service provider; the hardware is a means to get my service. Ideally I'd give it away if it meant subscription income. If a third party develops something to utilize my services such that others would subscribe, all the better. I'm not trying to make money selling the receivers/tuners; if anything I just want to minimize my expense with them.


----------



## MighTiVo (Oct 26, 2000)

samo said:


> But staying on the topic. Assume FCC or congress are stupid enough to force cable card like device on satellite providers. There are only two satellite providers in US, but they use completely different encryption standards.


The primary argument is that development and retail availability of DBS receivers should be open so the content providers don't have complete vertical control all the way to the STB.

But your point shows an advantage of a POD device for DBS. A common STB could be developed with a replaceable POD for each provider.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

Justin Thyme said:


> This is a dimension of the analysis that I don't understand. (...) It is a valid way of achieving business goals and there is a cost benefit analysis.


Like you said ... it's just cost/benefit. And my opinion is right now there is zero chance of any benefit.

The time to bring this before the FCC would be when commercial availability of navigation devices gets re-opened next year after cable's report to the FCC this December on the timeline / implementation details of the downloadable software security solution.

Action before then would not accomplish anything.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

Justin Thyme said:


> Because 10 years ago, Congress passed a law that satellite providers, along with cable companies had to allow third parties to manufacture converters and other boxes that could navigate their network.


If they had done that there wouldn't be an issue. But that's not what they did ...

They passed a law instructing the FCC to adopt regulations to accomplish this goal ... while not expanding their authority in any way to do so.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

samo said:


> OK. If common card is not required - what is the problem?


I am not going to say security, buit would be control and support of the user's experience, plus control of their content. 
They can best control that with a box they have total control over, rather than a 3rd party box with a "univeral" access device.



> Both satellite providers allow third parties to manufacture and even design boxes for them. Dish uses some company in England (sorry forgot the name) to design their PVRs and they are sold under Dish label as well as JVC. There several manufactures that build DTV boxes (including TiVo).
> 
> 
> > Manufacture and design, yes. But they are at the end of the day distributed and marketed by their respective provider, and software/firmware for the most part, is developed by the provider, so their offshore manufacture has little relavence.
> ...


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

samo said:


> OK. If common card is not required - what is the problem? Both satellite providers allow third parties to manufacture and even design boxes for them. Dish uses some company in England (sorry forgot the name) to design their PVRs and they are sold under Dish label as well as JVC. There several manufactures that build DTV boxes (including TiVo). There is no law that would force satellite providers to market or pay for the design of these boxes, but anybody who wants to spend their own money on marketing, design and manufacturing to be able to sell hardware at loss can do it. Of course there are no insane companies who think that they can make a profit in this kind of venture, but if it was one, I'm sure both Dish and DTV would jump on opportunity to save some money.





> Legislation:
> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000549----000-.html
> 
> (a) Commercial consumer availability of equipment used to access services provided by multichannel video programming distributors
> The Commission shall, (...) adopt regulations to assure the commercial availability, to consumers of multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems, of converter boxes, interactive communications equipment, and other equipment used by consumers to access multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems, from manufacturers, retailers, and other vendors *not affiliated with* any multichannel video programming distributor.


The problem is the "not affiliated with" part. D* and E* have outlined a strategy where they design the box. Then they hire a manufacturer to build the box. Then they put a nameplate on it. Theirs ... or perhaps they let some other third pary put their nameplate on the box. Regardless ... that's not an *unafilliated* source. The manufacturer is simply subcontracting to D* or E*. D* and E* are your manufacturers.

The way D* has worked in the past ... where they license to third parties who build boxes within the bounds of the license ... perhaps that was within the bounds of the unaffiliated clause.

But there's no way the new strategy outlined by D* can fit:



> http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6515782885
> 
> In a recent interview, News Corporation Chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch presaged a later announcement by DirecTV (now owned by News Corporation) on its hardware strategy: "our main move is to have one box, which EchoStar has. One box which we will design, albeit with the best brains we can find from all these companies. And we will put that out to tender . . . so we can get all the possible benefits of mass manufacturing."
> 
> ...


These two things seem to very much contradict:

DirecTV will "assume complete responsibility for the sale and distribution to retail of all DirecTV set-top boxes used to receive DirecTV programming and services."

"commercial availability (...) of converter boxes (...) from manufacturers, retailers, and other vendors not affiliated with any multichannel video programming distributor."


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

MighTiVo said:


> (...)the industry committed to supporting integrated digital boxes sold at retail(...)
> 
> This seems very reasonable to me. It shouldn't matter if the security process is done via a removable POD or at a lower cost onboard. As long as a consumer can purchase a retail device "with the assurance that it will be supported by their cable operator".


The problem with cable's "Integrated Security At Retail" initiative was that it didn't work. They tried it in several locations (Cox Fairfax and Cox Pheonix being two of them).

You could buy a Box at Best Buy in Fairfax that would work on Cox Fairfax. It wouldn't work on other cable plants. It wouldn't even work on other Cox plants. That's "Integrated Security At Retail". No one wanted to buy a box that would only work with one particular cable plant. They even stopped leasing HD boxes. The only way to get HD on Cox Fairfax was to buy a box ... and no one did. Best Buy didn't want to take up shelf space on something that wasn't selling. The manufacturer (Scientific Atlanta) didn't want to loose $$$ supporting a retail channel that wasn't selling (even though all they were doing was putting a different face plate on an existing box they were selling directly to cable). HD subs for D* and E* in Fairfax went up through the roof. Cox wasn't getting any new HD subs. They started leasing again ... HD subs evened out against the competitors ... Best Buy and SciAtl definately didn't want to compete against the exact same leased boxes ... and the boxes got pulled from retail.

The FCC was given a goal-based initiative and "Integrated Security At Retail" failed to meet that goal ... badly.

That being said ... I wouldn't be suprised to see "Integrated Security At Retail" come up again after cable company's complete digital simulcast as it will allow for cheaper boxes which may provide some retail incentive. Then again, the price cable can charge for leased boxes is strictly controlled ... so they don't even have the option of raising their lease prices to incent people to move towards retail so I don't know if "Integrated Security At Retail" can ever provide desired results unless cable also completely stops leasing boxes which I don't see them doing ...


----------



## parzec (Jun 21, 2002)

As long as they don't also apply FCC decency standards to satellite programming.


----------



## interactiveTV (Jul 2, 2000)

smark said:


> <Jumps in at end of thread>
> 
> Cable isn't a monopoly as any other competitor can overbuild the other's network if they so choose. It's just expensive. There are very few if any exclusive franchises and I honestly can't think of any outside of a multiple dwelling unit contract. So those that say Cable is a monopoly are sorely mistaken.
> 
> </exits thread>


 I think, perhaps, you could be referring to a *regulated* monopoly which cable once was but is no longer but whether something is a regulated monopoly or not, it may still be a monopoly.

For example, we can look at the merger tests which since Sherman have played an important part in defining one aspect of the legal view. The tests coulc include:

market: Herfindal-Hirschman index of market concentration
Narrowest market concept
supply side substitution
Brown Shoe and Columbia Steel are on point here but why bother getting too far as these are merger tests.

The supply side substition is possible most easily viewed by anyone with DBS access as proof positive. Yet my first post to this now unwieldy thread highlighted the urban markets where cable's hold is still strongest where DBS is not available. Where no other option is available. I don't have exact numbers but maybe someone would possibly know them.

Regardless, your definition of monopoly is limited. Without some sort of government protection (like a franchise, a patent, etc), it certainly is difficult these days to build a monopoly. The days of Standard Oil might be over but the Microsoft case -- agree with it and its limited ramifcations -- certainly highlights how market dominance can be achieved, leveraged, and (if you believe) abused.

Cable had the good fortune to build its expensive networks with the protection of a franchise agreement and before anyone points to the TV over IP programs, I'm curious how many states have given statewide franchises agreements? Without which, it's going to be slow going in cities and towns...

I certainly believe that DBS has put effective pricing and competitive pressures from the supply side on cable and almost all cable customers have benefited. True choice for many in urban areas does not exist. Statewide franchise agreements do not exist except in Texas (to my knowledge). Barriers need not be govermental to create monoplistic conditions.

_ITV


----------



## smark (Nov 20, 2002)

Franchise agreements generally are there for right of way and things like that. Not for "No one else can build".


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

dt_dc said:


> Like you said ... it's just cost/benefit. And my opinion is right now there is zero chance of any benefit.
> 
> The time to bring this before the FCC would be when commercial availability of navigation devices gets re-opened next year after cable's report to the FCC this December on the timeline / implementation details of the downloadable software security solution.
> 
> Action before then would not accomplish anything.


 I wonder if you could point me to any literature/ forums concerning "FCC watching" /analysis?

Then I would have at least have some more data with which to evaluate your assessment.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

Carried over from another thread:
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=3335869&&#post3335869


interactiveTV said:


> *not affiliated with any multichannel video programming distributor*
> 
> Simple question, Justin, does Tivo meet that standard?


Yes, they do. Tivo is not affiliated with DirecTV.

When DirecTV owned over 10% (3.5 million shares) of Tivo's outstanding stock ... and a DirecTV employee (Vice Chairman Eddy Hartenstein) sat on the Tivo Board of Directors ... Tivo was affiliated with DirecTV.

Now however ... no, they're not affiliated (unless there's something I'm not aware of).

Two companies doing business with each other does not make them 'affiliated'. Companies buying services or products from each other does not make them 'affilited'. Companies with contracts between them does not make them 'affiliated'. These are just companies doing business.

'Affiliated' companies exercise significant influence or control outside of standard business relationships ... shared senior management or board members ... direct or indirect common ownershipt ... etc.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/47/chapters/10/sections/section_1108.html


> In this chapter:
> (1) Affiliate
> The term ''affiliate'' -
> (A) means any person or entity that controls, or is controlled by, or is under common control with, another person or entity; and
> (B) may include any individual who is a director or senior management officer of an affiliate, a shareholder controlling more than 25 percent of the voting securities of an affiliate, or more than 25 percent of the ownership interest in an affiliate not organized in stock form.


Two companies doing mutually beneficial business with each other does not make them 'affiliated'. It's when the relationship goes beyond that ... when the possibility exists that a company may do things that are not in their own best interest ... but in the overall best interest of another party because it benefits another company ... that's when the two companies are 'affiliated'.



interactiveTV said:


> Sony and Cablevision, Pioneer and Scientific Atlanta (and its MSO customers), Samsung (Moxi) and Charter...


Digeo (Moxi) and Charter are affiliated through Paul Allen / Vulcan Ventures which has significant ownership in both companies. Would Charter have locked themselves into Digeo / Moxi otherwise? I dunno. The other companies you mentioned ... there's no affiliation there that I'm aware of.

Ok, so what about DirecTV and Humax and the R15? Are DirecTV and Humax 'affiliated'? When you buy an R15 aren't you buying from an unafiliated source?

No ... DirecTV and Humax aren't affiliated (again, not that I'm aware of).

However, no ... the R15 is not from an unafiliated source. Not the way DirecTV has defined their process:
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=3278795&&#post3278795
You don't buy the R15 from Humax. DirecTV pays Humax $X to build $Y boxes and you are buying the box from DirecTV. Humax is just a subcontractor.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

interactiveTV said:


> The law would not allow them to access the network. Please explain how Tivo is unaffiliated. Comcast has 21.5 million basic subs. Tivo has a STRONG affiliation with Comcast.


Woops ... sorry ... missed the Comcast comment.

Again, just because Comcast is paying Tivo $X to provide some services and product does not make then 'affiliated'.

It just makes Tivo a vendor for Comcast.

I would also note that this relationship (as it's been described) isn't an example of customers getting navigation devices from an unafiliated source. Comcast is licensing the software from Tivo ... the customer is still getting the product from Comcast.


----------



## interactiveTV (Jul 2, 2000)

dt_dc said:


> Carried over from another thread:
> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=3335869&&#post3335869Yes, they do. Tivo is not affiliated with DirecTV.
> 
> When DirecTV owned over 10% (3.5 million shares) of Tivo's outstanding stock ... and a DirecTV employee (Vice Chairman Eddy Hartenstein) sat on the Tivo Board of Directors ... Tivo was affiliated with DirecTV.
> ...


There's the term "affiliate" which is used in broadcast television which has a specific use but the FCC has used "affiliated" in a different sense in the annual competition report. Television affiliates have negotiated retransmission consent regardless of equity interest. The actual station may be owned by own group (say Sinclair) but the station is an "affiliate" of, for example, CBS.

The 2004 competition report, HDNet is listed as an affiliated programming service as is the NFL network. An interesting choice. HDNet is owned by Cuban and Garvin, not Time Warner or DirecTV.

I don't believe two companies "doing business" makes them affiliated. However, Comcast is "is entitled to certain most favored customer terms as compared with other multi-channel video distributors who license certain TiVo technology."

It is the nature of the contract with Comcast that leads me to believe this is more than "just doing business."

We're not talking about a bright line rule but can look to 47 U.S.C. § 548 which deals with the competition and diversity in video programming distribution. It's the same rule which results in the annual report which lists affiliated programming (like HDNet) with or without a cross or ownership stake.

While Tivo's disclosure has been incredibly vague, Comcast most likely wields considerable influence. The FCC has dealt with the concept of "attributable interest" before in a non-equity arrangement. Joint marketing agreements in the PCS spectrum fights were ruled an "attributable interest" while resale agreements were not.

Putting aside the 5.2% stake AOL owns as of SEC filing 14a filed 8/2005...

There are interesting issues but there were NO OUTCRIES to "open" the DBS market when Tivo had ongoing business with DirecTV. This doesn't seem to be a legal or fairness arguement. DirecTV not continuing to sell and market Tivo is also two companies "just doing business."

Tivo's relationship with Comcast has yet to truly come to light but this isn't Comcast "buying" Tivo services as Dell purchases a power supply from some manufacturer. It's an up to 15 year contract (7 years plus 8 year 1 extensions) with favored customer terms (yet unknown) with the largest cable company in the country as Tivo winds down its DirecTV relationship. We can discuss attributable interest in a non-equity enviroment but anyone who believes that Tivo is an independent entity from Comcast is kidding themselves.

Put it this way, if Tivo tried to lead a charge to end the exemption in order to try and get back into the DirecTV business, it could only be viewed cynically. Tivo said nothing during it's growth in the DirecTV business. It's relationship with Comcast is not completely clear but should be by the time the DirecTV contract actually expires in 2007 and the percentage of revenue that Tivo then derives from Comcast at that time will give a clear and definitive answer to all of this.

I can understand Tivo shareholders with a financial stake in this looking for any possible leg to stand on to make an arguement to open DBS, but the retail availability, numerous choices, low prices, and reach feature sets of DBS set-tops -- especially when compared to cable -- makes me believe that stock ownership, not consumer benefit (as STB costs would increase) or legality is the driving factor. Let's call it like it is. Grandstanding on some "open market" concept is nice bbut those calls only come AFTER DirecTV divorces Tivo.

_ITV

P.S. The SEC will list ownership stakes as low as 5% for affiliated channels, most notably Ovation.

Also, did AOL ever completely divest that last 5% of stock? I can't recall. I do remember seeing it in a filing this year.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Remind us again, what are the "numerous choices" from DirecTv and Dish? They both have both moved to single suppliers from companies they control.

Is that in the consumers, or in the interest of stockholders of DirecTv or Dish?


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Justin Thyme said:


> Remind us again, what are the "numerous choices" from DirecTv and Dish? They both have both moved to single suppliers from companies they control.


DirecTV always controlled their receivers, even when they were labeled under different brands.

Today, DirecTV still uses multiple electronics manufacturers (mostly the same ones they'd used before), but the receivers are now being labeled as "DirecTV" brand.

Not much really changed.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Is that true of DVRs? Murdoch owns controlling interest in DirecTv and NDS, the maker of the D* DVR. That's not the same as before.

Dish's DVR as well as all its recievers are manufactured by Echostar.

None are available from third parties as is possible with cablecard devices.

Is competition a good thing or not? I think it is.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

dswallow said:


> DirecTV always controlled their receivers, even when they were labeled under different brands.
> 
> Today, DirecTV still uses multiple electronics manufacturers (mostly the same ones they'd used before), but the receivers are now being labeled as "DirecTV" brand.
> 
> Not much really changed.


What changed is the consolidation of marketing and sales. DTV decided to do the same thing that Dish has been doing for years. The only reason they did it is to reduce cost. Both providers offer free or nearly free hardware to new subscribers, so cost of the hardware is a major factor for both of them.
All this verbal diarrhea about opening DBS companies to outside vendors is a complete nuisance. No vendor in their mind will want to design, manufacture and market hardware to compete with the free offering. TiVo can't sell almost free SA boxes, how are they going to sell combo boxes for profit? How anybody could sell anything below cost and expect to make profit? Even if TiVo can get $5 per account, how can they recapture cost of the boxes and make profit? And I'm willing to bet that if TiVo offered free or substantially cheaper hardware to either of satellite providers, they would jump on it. So I don't get what the problem is. Having equivalent of Cable Card is not going to make any difference for consumers since nobody will manufacture TVs or STBs with built-in satellite IRDs. At least Cable Card helps consumer to get read of the extra box, what benefit would be to consumer with open standard satellite?
What would be the benefit for TiVo and other potential manufacturers? Why do we need another regulation if nobody stands to benefit from it?


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

I think competition benefits consumers. And listen to what you are saying. Dumping DVRs to kill competitors at below cost is just plain anti-competitive. Instead of decrying the excesses of vertical monopolists, you blame all of the third party DVR manufacturers (and there are plenty of them) for being stupid enough to try to compete with the carriers.

Your logic represents the position of the carriers, not of consumers.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

dswallow said:


> DirecTV always controlled their receivers, even when they were labeled under different brands.
> 
> Today, DirecTV still uses multiple electronics manufacturers (mostly the same ones they'd used before), but the receivers are now being labeled as "DirecTV" brand.
> 
> Not much really changed.


Not true. In the past DirecTV licensed companies to build boxes. They had a fairly strict set of rules for features that were required, but there was enough variation in features and quality that there were real reasons to prefer one over another.

There were a half dozen or so different brands to choose from. Some had better sound or video, some had prettier or faster menus, some had serial ports that actually worked. Some of them had TiVo and some of them had UltimateTV. It was the golden age of DirecTV.

Now DirecTV is controlling every aspect of their receivers and simply subcontracting the manufacturing. Saying there's not much difference between now and then is like saying there's not much difference in the way DirecTV with TiVo and Standalone TiVo software have developed over the last three years.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

nrc said:


> Not true. In the past DirecTV licensed companies to build boxes. They had a fairly strict set of rules for features that were required, but there was enough variation in features and quality that there were real reasons to prefer one over another.
> 
> There were a half dozen or so different brands to choose from. Some had better sound or video, some had prettier or faster menus, some had serial ports that actually worked. Some of them had TiVo and some of them had UltimateTV. It was the golden age of DirecTV.


Apparently we're defining the word "control" differently. You've just described DirecTV exercising control over their receivers; they simply changed their approach to something more uniform but nonetheless still built by different major electronics manufacturers to spec.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

If Dish customers want to get their video from their DVR onto a Personal video player, they must buy a PocketDish player from Dish. 

Where does it end? Does chevrolet get to buy Gulf oil and build the engines to only run on gas from them? 

This is called vertical tying, and it is a monopolistic practice along with dumping, which the carriers are also doing to kill off DVR competition.

The Telecom law was designed to prevent carriers from locking customers into their service by forcing them to buy machines that only work with their network. After you have bought your DVR for $299 and your PVP for $350 to $650, how willing are you really to shop around if the service starts to get crappy? 

Does these practices encourage or discourage consumer choice, and allowing competition to drive better technology and better products, or is it using technology to kill competition and innovation?


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

dswallow said:


> Apparently we're defining the word "control" differently. You've just described DirecTV exercising control over their receivers; they simply changed their approach to something more uniform but nonetheless still built by different major electronics manufacturers to spec.


We disagree on whether "not much has changed". There's a world of difference between the way DirecTV excercised their control in the past and now. DirecTV is no longer allowing multiple consumer electronics companies to compete in the market. They will specify exactly what gets sold and what features are offered. That's a big change in the choices that are available to the customer.

The sad thing is that was part of the reason I switched to DirecTV in the first place. I hated being locked into using my cable company's piece of junk cable box. Besides the big improvement in picture quality DTV offered me the ability to choose what brand and model of receiver I wanted to buy. That was a big part of the reason I chose them over Dish.

When cable card takes off the situation may be exactly reversed. I'll be able to buy whatever brand of equipment I want to use with my cable company, but if I want DirecTV I'll be forced to use their specified receiver. For the first time in over a decade I'll be seriously looking at switching back to cable.

Maybe dumping TiVo won't have any significant impact on DirecTV. But ultimately by emulating the cable companies they're going to find themselves with no competitive advantage against them.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

The receiver differences in the past were miniscule; we're talking perhaps a choice of a different onscreen display menu system -- generally still with the same options organized the same way, but austhetic choices that might be much different between receivers. Rarely was there much more involved. DirecTV still provided initial firmware and still had complete control over accepting or rejecting what the manufacturer did to customize it, and nobody was changing it around -- just getting it to work with the unique quirks of their particular hardware choices.

It was an artificially competitive market if competitive at all. It's very similar to how things were during the first DirecTV w/TiVo receiver introductions... Sony had a unit, Philips had a unit. Except for the remote and the label on the front, they were identical. The Sony could also control a Sony brand VCR, the Philips couldn't control any sort of VCR for the record-to-VCR function. That was the great competitive difference between the units. THey ever were made on the same assembly line.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

There is zero competition because until recently, carrier agnostic platforms were not possible without swappable cards to gain access to the alternate networks. Further, they could not deliver significant added value beyond what the carrier supported. With at least one additional high bandwidth source (internet), that has changed the landscape.

Regardless how "similar" they were, Murdoch explicitly stated to the FCC that he wanted a single hardware platform with a single design which they control and contract out the manufacturing for. 


Murdoch testimony to FCC cited above said:


> "our main move is to have one box, which EchoStar has....


This single platform is necessary for future high end services.


Murdoch continued said:


> "[O]ur greatest worry is at the moment there are about 120 different DirecTV boxes out in the market today. And we have to work through that with churn and things, so there's as few legacy boxes as possible in three or four years time. So when we advertise a great new service, it may only be possible for that to come through one of these new boxes."


So I think you are wrong Doug. The Man himself says it is a new strategy, not business as usual for DirecTv. And he is totally up front about it to the FCC. But there is nothing wrong with DirecTv having such a box and strategy. Locking third parties out of competing with his box is the issue.

The 1996 Telecom law has no problem with Carriers selling their own boxes, and creating such a uniform platform for their operational needs. If consumers want to buy DirecTv's flakey software and hardware so that they can get high end interactive features like fantasy football, then they are free to buy the DirecTv box. But maybe some consumers would prefer Beyond TV DVR software, or an Apple DVR or a Tivo- all access the DirecTv network in the same sort of secure manner as has been worked out with the cable companies with cablecards? Is this rocket science? Is a few million potential customers from each carrier worth providing support for a crummy interface card? You bet it is.

Why should Direct and Dish be allowed to shut out such competition, and to continue to engage in vertical tying to lock in consumers with expensive hardware purchases when the cable companies are not allowed to do the same.

Let's be clear about this, this is not just for Tivo's benefit, but all third party DVR players. May the best product win. Microsoft has legitimately pushed for access to these networks, and besides other smaller DVR companies like Snapstream, Adobe (via Macromedia flash) and quite probably Apple will benefit.

The more competition the better for consumers.

What about the time limit for the FCC waivers? Isn't a decade breathing space enough for the satellite companies? Does anyone think that Murdoch and Dish need protection against competition with their DVRs?


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

dswallow said:


> It was an artificially competitive market if competitive at all. It's very similar to how things were during the first DirecTV w/TiVo receiver introductions... Sony had a unit, Philips had a unit. Except for the remote and the label on the front, they were identical.


And if you didn't like that you could buy an Ultimate TV unit instead. A miniscule difference, indeed.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

nrc said:


> And if you didn't like that you could buy an Ultimate TV unit instead. A miniscule difference, indeed.


I'm sure Microsoft just went off and built their receiver without DirecTV's involvement, right?

Sure, they were experimenting for a time. Remember Wink? Now they've got some plans requiring new receivers adhere to more specific standards.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

dswallow said:


> I'm sure Microsoft just went off and built their receiver without DirecTV's involvement, right?


Never said that. DirecTV licensed them to build it and approved the box. But Thompson and Microsoft clearly had plenty of leeway to build a box intended to compete with other DVRs rather than just something good enough to be forced on customers as the only choice.

That won't be an option from now on. NDS isn't building a box to compete with TiVo, they're building something good enough to be shipped out to anyone ignorant enough not to ask for TiVo by name.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

nrc said:


> Never said that. DirecTV licensed them to build it and approved the box. But Thompson and Microsoft clearly had plenty of leeway to build a box intended to compete with other DVRs rather than just something good enough to be forced on customers as the only choice.
> 
> That won't be an option from now on. NDS isn't building a box to compete with TiVo, they're building something good enough to be shipped out to anyone ignorant enough not to ask for TiVo by name.


Nice cogent argument until you exposed your bias by ignoring that you've no first-hand experience by which to make any sort of comparison.

When those devices were created, they practically were the only DVR's around.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

dswallow said:


> Nice cogent argument until you exposed your bias by ignoring that you've no first-hand experience by which to make any sort of comparison.


Yes, my opinion of the NDS box is based on early reports and no first hand experience. 
There is ample evidence supporting my point that we are seeing major changes in the way that DirecTV does business, including the information JT posted above. For DirecTV "Choice" will soon be little more than a word in the names of their programming packages.


----------



## MighTiVo (Oct 26, 2000)

samo said:


> What changed is the consolidation of marketing and sales. DTV decided to do the same thing that Dish has been doing for years. The only reason they did it is to reduce cost. Both providers offer free or nearly free hardware to new subscribers, so cost of the hardware is a major factor for both of them.
> All this verbal diarrhea about opening DBS companies to outside vendors is a complete nuisance. No vendor in their mind will want to design, manufacture and market hardware to compete with the free offering. TiVo can't sell almost free SA boxes, how are they going to sell combo boxes for profit? How anybody could sell anything below cost and expect to make profit? Even if TiVo can get $5 per account, how can they recapture cost of the boxes and make profit? And I'm willing to bet that if TiVo offered free or substantially cheaper hardware to either of satellite providers, they would jump on it. So I don't get what the problem is. Having equivalent of Cable Card is not going to make any difference for consumers since nobody will manufacture TVs or STBs with built-in satellite IRDs. At least Cable Card helps consumer to get read of the extra box, what benefit would be to consumer with open standard satellite?
> What would be the benefit for TiVo and other potential manufacturers? Why do we need another regulation if nobody stands to benefit from it?


Most cable companies provide the set top box, yet TiVo is going to make a cable card TiVo to compete with the "free" cable DVR...

Bottom line is I would happily pay for a good quality box over the "free" [email protected] box that the satellite provider supplies and then sticks me with an additional 2 year commitment for the privilege of getting that box.


----------

