# Is AT&T an exempt cable company?



## Lyrical1 (Oct 13, 2002)

Over the years I have learned a great deal of useful information here. As a newb, I remember getting great advice on everything from how use the finer points in programing season passes to how to use a multiswitch for DTV. Thank you to all whove helped.

One of the things I learned on the TiVo Community Forum is that cable companies are required to offer cablecards for TiVos and other devices. So, heres my newest question: Why is AT&T exempt from this regulation?

I now live in an area whose television is served by Comcast and AT&T. I have had a Comcast cablecard for years, although I get a huge amount of marketing material from AT&T who want me to switch to their U-verse service. When I call AT&T and ask about cablecards they give me evasive answers. Either they dont know what a cablecard is. Or, they may offer them in the future.

Is AT&T not a cable service? Are they not regulated by the same organization (FCC?) that regulates Comcast, Time-Warner Cable, Cox, et al?


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

AT&T is not a cable service. They deliver their TV programming via IP over their DSL network, and therefore they would be categorized as an information service.

Because they do not use any traditional "cable TV" technology, CableCards are wholly incompatible with their service.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

It's the same reason satellite TV companies are exempt, and it's why the AllVid initiative exists. They don't use cable TV technology so they are exempt. AllVid wants to require all MVPDs to adhere to a cablecard-style requirement. 

FiOS is not exempt because they use cable TV technology, the only difference is that it's fiber all the way to your house instead of fiber to your neighborhood. Once it hits your house and turns to coax, it's essentially the same as cable TV from Comcast or anyone else (with a few minor differences that are insignificant when considering CableCard rules)


----------



## Lyrical1 (Oct 13, 2002)

Thanks for the quick response. Now I understand.

It does make me wonder about the cablecard requirement rules and the intent of those rules, but I'm not a lawyer. I suppose AT&T was smart by using a lot of preexisting infrastructure to deliver TV service and to avoid this regulation.

It is frustrating. I'd like to see more competition and, possibly, lower prices, better service and faster speeds. From what I've read we're far from the top of the list of the speediest industrialized countries that have internet.

Thanks.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

I've never had U-verse myself, but from everything I have read it is a pretty substandard technology. Using the same unshielded, decades-old copper telephone lines that were never designed to carry large amounts of data to transmit broadband internet/television service is really absurd when you actually think about it. The lack of bandwidth over unshielded telephone wire creates multiple problems:

1. Your data speeds drop off drastically after about 2500 feet from the node.
2. Unless your house is less than 1000 feet from the node, I seriously doubt you will ever get internet speeds above 30mbps in practice.
3. The lack of bandwidth is why you are limited to 4 simultaneous TV streams (so you can forget about a 6-tuner DVR on ATT ever).
4. To save bandwidth, ATT compresses those TV streams more than those of the cable or satellite, thus decreasing video quality.

We have the option of ATT U-verse in my area, but I doubt I would ever give it a try despite my hatred for Time Warner. I really wish that all telephone companies had been required to go FTTH like FIOS. On principle, I just don't think I would be able to bring myself to reward ATT for choosing to go the cheap route with inferior technology in order to pad their short-term profits to the detriment of their customers. Plus my house is about 2600 feet from the node, so my data speeds would probably be crap anyways.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

Lyrical1 said:


> Thanks for the quick response. Now I understand.
> 
> It does make me wonder about the cablecard requirement rules and the intent of those rules, but I'm not a lawyer. I suppose AT&T was smart by using a lot of preexisting infrastructure to deliver TV service and to avoid this regulation.
> 
> ...


AT&T didn't go the route they did to avoid CableCard requirements. MVPDs want to gut those requirements, but they don't shape major strategic decisions. AT&T rolled out U-Verse in the way they did because it was cheap to re-use all the copper in the ground already instead of replace it with fiber or coax.

The intent of CableCard was to promote retail devices. When the rules were put into place, the world was completely different. The only exemption was the satellite companies.

Also, internet speeds have little or nothing to do with this discussion.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

JosephB said:


> Also, internet speeds have little or nothing to do with this discussion.


Disagree. From what I understand on how U-verse works, your total bandwidth is shared between TV streams and internet. So the more simultaneous TV streams you have going, the slower your internet speeds will be. I do not want to have to choose between watching (or recording) live TV and faster internet speed.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Disagree. From what I understand on how U-verse works, your total bandwidth is shared between TV streams and internet. So the more simultaneous TV streams you have going, the slower your internet speeds will be. I do not want to have to choose between watching (or recording) live TV and faster internet speed.


It doesn't have anything to do with cablecard regulation or why AT&T is exempt.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

JosephB said:


> It doesn't have anything to do with cablecard regulation or why AT&T is exempt.


If U-verse had the same bandwidth available as Fios, then AT&T probably would have used traditional cable technology to deliver video and would not have been exempt from the regulations.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

When it comes to the Satellite companies the FCC sold us out, there is no technical reason they shouldn't be using cable cards. The Satellite companies simple didn't want to switch from what they were using and paid off enough people to get themselves exempted from the rules. 

AT&T U-verse is a little different in that their type of service was not covered by the law, but again no technical reason for not using cable cards. 

The simple reality is that our Government has been bought and paid for by big money/business. Does not really matter if it is Dems or Reps big money/business pays of both sides. It is very unlikely that our Government will ever do anything that is good for the little guy unless it is also be good for big money/business. And of course big money/business expects us to just bend over and take it with a smile, which is about all we can do .


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

tarheelblue32 said:


> If U-verse had the same bandwidth available as Fios, then AT&T probably would have used traditional cable technology to deliver video and would not have been exempt from the regulations.


Not necessarily. Even if they had 100 Gigabits of capacity on twisted pair copper, they might still have decided to go with IP multicast instead of QAM broadcast.



atmuscarella said:


> When it comes to the Satellite companies the FCC sold us out, there is no technical reason they shouldn't be using cable cards. The Satellite companies simple didn't want to switch from what they were using and paid off enough people to get themselves exempted from the rules.
> 
> AT&T U-verse is a little different in that their type of service was not covered by the law, but again no technical reason for not using cable cards.
> 
> The simple reality is that our Government has been bought and paid for by big money/business. Does not really matter if it is Dems or Reps big money/business pays of both sides. It is very unlikely that our Government will ever do anything that is good for the little guy unless it is also be good for big money/business. And of course big money/business expects us to just bend over and take it with a smile, which is about all we can do .


There are technical reasons satellite and IPTV aren't covered specifically by cablecards, and that is that satellite and IPTV use completely different technology. Now, there's no technical reason that the FCC couldn't require these companies to open up their systems to retail devices, but that's a different story.


----------



## andyw715 (Jul 31, 2007)

Not U-verse related, but do cable company boxes have essentially cable cards inside of them? i.e. if you opened one up is there a CC slot?


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

andyw715 said:


> Not U-verse related, but do cable company boxes have essentially cable cards inside of them? i.e. if you opened one up is there a CC slot?


Old ones, ones in service from before the integration ban, no. New ones, yes.

I know the Cisco ones will have a slot, but then there is a plastic cover screwed over it to prevent the card from being removed.


----------



## moonscape (Jul 3, 2004)

I wish there had been a reason keeping me from getting ATT at my rental place in NC. I live in CA and have used Comcast for years, but there the choice was the small city-owned service or U-Verse. I was only there less than half the year, so wanted something as simple and thrifty as I could get. So I went with U-Verse and it was a disaster. 

At that time (1.5 yrs ago) there was a separate dept for U-Verse and the customer service was miles worse than anything I've encountered with ATT (I have a landline and my cell w/ them). Their reps must be on commission because they completely lied to me about prices, promotions, equipment, etc to get me to switch from the DSL I had had in the house previously. I must have spent 20 hours on the phone with them after getting my first bill - constant holds and then disconnects after long periods - and never got the issues resolved.

I finally got out with my life and a $500 lighter wallet after two months of -promotional- service (internet and phone.) Seriously. I came close to setting up a blog for horror stories about U-Verse but didn't want to give them any more of my life. It was the biggest consumer nightmare I've experienced. Ever.

Maybe they've gotten better. I hope so.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

JosephB said:


> FiOS is not exempt because they use cable TV technology, the only difference is that it's fiber all the way to your house instead of fiber to your neighborhood. Once it hits your house and turns to coax, it's essentially the same as cable TV from Comcast or anyone else (with a few minor differences that are insignificant when considering CableCard rules)


I'm pretty sure Verizon FiOS is not considered cable and does not fall under those regulatory rules, as I recall they follow them anyway because they expected if it were ever brought up they would be classified as such.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

In Austin AT&T just rolled out UVerse service at 300Mbps. http://www.att.com/shop/u-verse/gigapower.html

Besides even over copper, the service is much faster than what the customer gets for Internet access. The video part is not part of the subscribed service.

I've had 4HD streams and 2 SD going at once. How many TVs are you going to watch at the same time?


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

MikeAndrews said:


> In Austin AT&T just rolled out UVerse service at 300Mbps. http://www.att.com/shop/u-verse/gigapower.html
> 
> Besides even over copper, the service is much faster than what the customer gets for Internet access. The video part is not part of the subscribed service.


ATT's U-verse "Gigapower" service in Austin isn't over rotting copper telephone wire, it is a true fiber-to-the-home network. Isn't it strange that ATT only chose 1 market to do a modern network the right way and it was the same market that Google Fiber has chosen to expand into. What a strange coincidence huh?

Speaking of the Austin market, it looks like Austin will have another option for gigabit speed at only $65/month from Grande Communications. So customers in Austin could potentially have 3 choices for 1000 Mbps internet for around $70/month (or maybe even 4 choices eventually if DOCSIS 3.1 holds up to the hype). It's very refreshing to see what true competition in broadband internet looks like. It happens so rarely in this country. I may have to move to Austin.

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Grande-Offers-1-Gbps-for-65-in-Austin-127685


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

MikeAndrews said:


> I've had 4HD streams and 2 SD going at once. How many TVs are you going to watch at the same time?


With a couple of Roamio 6 tuner TiVos one could record 12 channels at once, the number of people watching different TVs is irrelevant. This is a TiVo DVR form after all.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

JosephB said:


> AT&T didn't go the route they did to avoid CableCard requirements. MVPDs want to gut those requirements, but they don't shape major strategic decisions. AT&T rolled out U-Verse in the way they did because it was cheap to re-use all the copper in the ground already instead of replace it with fiber or coax.


Exactly. They went with copper because they are cheap, and are looking only at the extremely short-term, not the longer term, where it is fiber or die. They built U-Verse as a cripple from day one, with extremely limited bandwidth.



dianebrat said:


> I'm pretty sure Verizon FiOS is not considered cable and does not fall under those regulatory rules, as I recall they follow them anyway because they expected if it were ever brought up they would be classified as such.


I think it's regulated as cable. It's delivered to the customer as a 860mhz QAM256 signal, which would get it regulated as an 860mhz QAM256 signal, which is cable.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

JosephB said:


> It's the same reason satellite TV companies are exempt,


No, that's not the same reason. The satellite companies are exempt because they got an exemption, not because they are inherently incompatible with the rules.

I know that sounds like I'm using a circular argument, but I'm not. I can't think of a better way to word it though.

The satellite companies _should_ have been covered (so we could have One Card to rule them all, and have one Tivo to record OTA, cable, or satellite) by the same ruling that made CableCards.. But satellite got an exemption, I think because they were comparatively very small when the separate security requirement started.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

JosephB said:


> There are technical reasons satellite and IPTV aren't covered specifically by cablecards, and that is that satellite and IPTV use completely different technology. Now, there's no technical reason that the FCC couldn't require these companies to open up their systems to retail devices, but that's a different story.


Satellite isn't covered because they paid off people and got an exception. There are no technical reasons cable card security can not be used with satellite. Yes satellite requires different "tuners" than cable but cable card digital security could have been developed to be used on satellite digital streams, they just didn't want to go through the cost and effort of switching from their proprietary digital security.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

JosephB said:


> There are technical reasons satellite and IPTV aren't covered specifically by cablecards, and that is that satellite and IPTV use completely different technology. Now, there's no technical reason that the FCC couldn't require these companies to open up their systems to retail devices, but that's a different story.


That's what AllVid was all about and it was DOA after cable complained about the proposal and the FCC rolled over. But I'm not convinced the FCC has any legal authority to impose anything over sat and certainly not U-Verse so it probably doesn't matter anyway.

They were pursuing a requirement that cable come up with an open access IP standard and I believe Verizon was supposed to be leading this effort to be delivered later this year. We'll see.


----------



## kettledrum (Nov 17, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> The simple reality is that our Government has been bought and paid for by big money/business. Does not really matter if it is Dems or Reps big money/business pays of both sides. It is very unlikely that our Government will ever do anything that is good for the little guy unless it is also be good for big money/business. And of course big money/business expects us to just bend over and take it with a smile, which is about all we can do .


These are my beliefs as well.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

slowbiscuit said:


> That's what AllVid was all about and it was DOA after cable complained about the proposal and the FCC rolled over. But I'm not convinced the FCC has any legal authority to impose anything over sat and certainly not U-Verse so it probably doesn't matter anyway.
> 
> They were pursuing a requirement that cable come up with an open access IP standard and I believe Verizon was supposed to be leading this effort to be delivered later this year. We'll see.


AllVid is not dead yet. After CES this year the AllVid alliance sent a letter to the FCC urging them to push forward with the standard. The head if the cable alliance responded saying that services like Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu were proof that competition could flourish even in an unregulated market. He also complained that AllVid would violate copyright, trademark and marketing agreements. 

Even if the FCC pushes forward on AllVid it's going to be a decade before we see anything. And that's before all the extensions, waivers, etc... These guys don't want us to be able to buy equipment let alone equipment that is interoperable amongst providers and would give us the freedom to switch without consequences.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

atmuscarella said:


> The simple reality is that our Government has been bought and paid for by big money/business. Does not really matter if it is Dems or Reps big money/business pays of both sides. It is very unlikely that our Government will ever do anything that is good for the little guy unless it is also be good for big money/business. And of course big money/business expects us to just bend over and take it with a smile, which is about all we can do .


This is true. Our only hope is that a competing big money/business pays off people for something more in line with what we little guys want. The CEA wants more open standards for the MPV sector because they want to be able to make and sell boxes that work with people's existing services. And companies like Google and Verizon are pushing against the established cable operators because they want to be able to sell their internet service to people stuck in a monopoly.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Dan203 said:


> This is true. Our only hope is that a competing big money/business pays off people for something more in line with what we little guys want. The CEA wants more open standards for the MPV sector because they want to be able to make and sell boxes that work with people's existing services. And companies like Google and Verizon are pushing against the established cable operators because they want to be able to sell their internet service to people stuck in a monopoly.


I'm sure that companies like Microsoft, Apple, and Samsung would love to have a universal standard. Samsung is big in Smart TV's now and they already sell a CableCard cable box replacement, and I'm sure they'd like a universal standard like AllVid to be able to sell that box to satellite and IPTV subscribers also.

Microsoft (and Sony) would love it too. Just look at Microsoft's XBox One with its HDMI In port. AllVid would make things so much easier for the XBox to hook into your video services. And I'm sure Apple would love for their Apple TV to be able to do the same thing.

So there are clearly some big money interests that will try to push for AllVid, but will it be enough? Only time will tell.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I've got my fingers crossed.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

Unfortunately the trend is towards complete solutions top to bottom. In an IP world, it doesn't make sense for you to be tied to a video provider based on your geography, and all of the cable and satellite companies are building out IP-based apps for various devices that, for better or worse (mostly worse) they will pawn off as "viable alternatives" to their own set tops because you can use them on Xboxes and iPads that you buy. They completely miss the point (on purpose) that most of the reason people buy things like a TiVo or a Windows Media Center setup is the flexibility, and the alternatives in the UI, not necessarily the retail-ability of the hardware. 

Microsoft and Sony would much rather sell you content directly than simply sell you hardware that communicates with the cable or satellite companies. They might be on board AllVid and CableCard, but only so far as that's the only route they have right now. Everyone wants to be the cable company, even the CE companies.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Yeah they're still trying to force the "live TV" model on everyone, even though consumer interest is trending toward DVRs and on demand. They think that by releasing an XBox app that allows you to "tune" all your channels that's an alternative. And the worst part is the guys in power are likely to agree.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

DirecTV and DISH are idiots for not working with TiVo to do something like this. They have lost customers because of a lack of support for user-owned equipment.

It seems to me that TiVo's hardware should be able to support U-Verse through Ethernet with a software update, and DirecTV and DISH through USB satellite tuners that could plug into a TiVo or Windows MCE computer.


----------



## andyw715 (Jul 31, 2007)

Are cable boxes (their implementation of functions such as switching, ppv, on demand) regional?

I wondered why TiVo never created specific boxes for Comcast, time warner, etc. ie Cell phones and carriers. 

Then they could sell those to the cable cos for rental


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Yes the special stuff like that has to use equipment paired to the head end equipment. There are really only two variations, Cisco and Motorola, but they are different and would require different boxes.

A few years back TiVo ported their software to run on Motorola hardware so that cable companies could deploy it on the equipment they already owned. Comcast tested it in a few markets but it never took off. TiVo also sells Premiere and Roamio units to smaller cable companies that use apps which work through the internet to support PPV/VOD stuff.* Although they still require tuning adapters as TiVos don't have the DOCSIS modem required to support SDV directly and it's not currently something that can be piped through the internet.

* In a lot of Comcast areas you can access PPV/VOD through an app as well. It works by using a special head end server that allows TiVo to communicate with it over the internet.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Most cable cos don't use SDV, so tuning adapters aren't required. However, if Comcast ever made the mistake of going to SDV, it seems to me that they should be able to use the existing VOD software and gateways in markets that have it to also do SDV. However, they would still need TAs for markets that don't have the VOD, or for MCE machines, and for the software method to work, they could have to make the VOD work reliably in the first place.

There are cable boxes out there now, like the X1, that will work on either Moto or SA systems, not sure how that compares to a straight CableCard device. Maybe all the guide data and 2-way communication is through another system that is laid on top of both Moto and SA head ends?

Comcast should sell TiVos, but they are invested in their own stupid X1 platform. It would be amazing if they had Comcast TiVos and worked with TiVo to add more features. At least they support more than is legally required for TiVo. It's a smart move to support TiVo as well as possible, as customers like me would have left for DirecTV if it weren't for TiVo and CableCard.

The Comcast Motorola thing was weird, they sent a box with a remote in it. I don't think they ever ran it on whole-home capable hardware though... It also had 4 FF speeds, not 3 for some reason.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

Bigg said:


> Most cable cos don't use SDV, so tuning adapters aren't required. However, if Comcast ever made the mistake of going to SDV, it seems to me that they should be able to use the existing VOD software and gateways in markets that have it to also do SDV. However, they would still need TAs for markets that don't have the VOD, or for MCE machines, and for the software method to work, they could have to make the VOD work reliably in the first place.
> 
> There are cable boxes out there now, like the X1, that will work on either Moto or SA systems, not sure how that compares to a straight CableCard device. Maybe all the guide data and 2-way communication is through another system that is laid on top of both Moto and SA head ends?
> 
> ...


The Comcast VOD stuff couldn't be used for SDV if they implemented it. It's just not even close to being related to SDV or suitable for adaptation, especially since there are one way devices that they'd have to implement TAs for anyway.

I suspect the X1 boxes do DSG (DOCSIS Set-top Gateway). I believe this is how TWC's new OCAP based Navigator/ODN software works since they are rolling out Samsung boxes. The Cisco/Motorola propriety primarily applies to two-way, since all of those boxes are legally required to have separable security, they can give you a Samsung box that uses DOCSIS for the return path and stick a cable card in that is appropriate to the system in use.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

JosephB said:


> The Comcast VOD stuff couldn't be used for SDV if they implemented it. It's just not even close to being related to SDV or suitable for adaptation, especially since there are one way devices that they'd have to implement TAs for anyway.
> 
> I suspect the X1 boxes do DSG (DOCSIS Set-top Gateway). I believe this is how TWC's new OCAP based Navigator/ODN software works since they are rolling out Samsung boxes. The Cisco/Motorola propriety primarily applies to two-way, since all of those boxes are legally required to have separable security, they can give you a Samsung box that uses DOCSIS for the return path and stick a cable card in that is appropriate to the system in use.


Yes, they would still need TAs for MCE, and there probably would be one stupid guy somewhere using a CableCard slot in a TV, even though it's nonsensical use for CableCard. Their VOD system has two-way communication to allocate QAM channels, so some additional code should bridge it right over to SDV. It's just a matter of getting the right systems to talk to each other, and making it work reliably.

The whole guide system is proprietary too- CableCard devices have to have their own guide, i.e. TiVo and MCE downloading it over the internet.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

Bigg said:


> Yes, they would still need TAs for MCE, and there probably would be one stupid guy somewhere using a CableCard slot in a TV, even though it's nonsensical use for CableCard. Their VOD system has two-way communication to allocate QAM channels, so some additional code should bridge it right over to SDV. It's just a matter of getting the right systems to talk to each other, and making it work reliably.
> 
> The whole guide system is proprietary too- CableCard devices have to have their own guide, i.e. TiVo and MCE downloading it over the internet.


CableCard TVs are not compatible with Tuning Adapters (or, at least the vast, vast majority of them are not).


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

That's mainly because they stopped making TVs with CableCARD slots before SDV and TAs really existed. Early on they made a buch of CableCARD TVs but they were typically $100-$200 more then an equivelent TV without CableCARD support, were a nightmare to get installed and didn't offer any support for VOD or PPV, so they were a total flop. TiVo only held on through the really rough parts because they offered a DVr that was better then most cable offerings at the time. Then they held on even longer by suing people and winning hudreds of millions of dollars. If TiVo hadn't of survived CableCARD would essentially be dead and cable companies would be pushing even harder for the FCC to let them ditch it.

The ironic thing is these days with cable systems going all digital and requiring cable boxes for every TV in the house I think small CableCARD enabled TVs would actually sell well. Provided they were cheap enough and didn't carry a hefty premium like before.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> That's mainly because they stopped making TVs with CableCARD slots before SDV and TAs really existed. Early on they made a buch of CableCARD TVs but they were typically $100-$200 more then an equivelent TV without CableCARD support, were a nightmare to get installed and didn't offer any support for VOD or PPV, so they were a total flop. TiVo only held on through the really rough parts because they offered a DVr that was better then most cable offerings at the time. Then they held on even longer by suing people and winning hudreds of millions of dollars. If TiVo hadn't of survived CableCARD would essentially be dead and cable companies would be pushing even harder for the FCC to let them ditch it.
> 
> The ironic thing is these days with cable systems going all digital and requiring cable boxes for every TV in the house I think small CableCARD enabled TVs would actually sell well. Provided they were cheap enough and didn't carry a hefty premium like before.


I have a cable card HDTV (I don't have a cable card in the TV as I am now using a TiVo for the signal) but when I did use the HDTV with the cable card you could not get any guide information so all you had was the ch. number, very hard to use, at least the non DVR cable box told you what was playing and the ch name.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Oh yeah, forgot about the guide. I never watch live TV so I forget people actually use guides. Although there are TVs going back 20 years that could pick up a free guide OTA, I wonder why they didn't use that?


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Dan203 said:


> Oh yeah, forgot about the guide. I never watch live TV so I forget people actually use guides. Although there are TVs going back 20 years that could pick up a free guide OTA, I wonder why they didn't use that?


On the 1 TV that I still have just hooked up to the analog cable on TW, I also get the local broadcast channels in HD coming through in ClearQAM, and there is data on the current show (and I think the next show) that comes through that. I assume Time Warner embeds that info into the signal, so you should in theory be able to at least have guide data for what is currently on live TV on a TV with a cablecard slot.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

JosephB said:


> CableCard TVs are not compatible with Tuning Adapters (or, at least the vast, vast majority of them are not).


Well, there you go. Are they still required to do CableCards if they got SDV working through software with TiVo and MCE, since those are the only two platforms that could use TAs anyways?



Dan203 said:


> That's mainly because they stopped making TVs with CableCARD slots before SDV and TAs really existed. Early on they made a buch of CableCARD TVs but they were typically $100-$200 more then an equivelent TV without CableCARD support, were a nightmare to get installed and didn't offer any support for VOD or PPV, so they were a total flop. TiVo only held on through the really rough parts because they offered a DVr that was better then most cable offerings at the time. Then they held on even longer by suing people and winning hudreds of millions of dollars. If TiVo hadn't of survived CableCARD would essentially be dead and cable companies would be pushing even harder for the FCC to let them ditch it.
> 
> The ironic thing is these days with cable systems going all digital and requiring cable boxes for every TV in the house I think small CableCARD enabled TVs would actually sell well. Provided they were cheap enough and didn't carry a hefty premium like before.


The whole idea of them was stupid, since you cut both VOD and the DVR out of the picture. If they could have supported 2-way communication to work with VOD and a network DVR, then they would have started to make sense.

The only reason to use CableCard is to use a TiVo or MCE machine, as otherwise, you're just getting LESS functionality.

Small TVs are even harder to put CableCards in, as they are cheaper in the first place, would drive up the costs of making them, and a lot of them are probably connected to either DTA's, which are cheaper than CableCards, or multi-room DVRs, and CableCard TVs aren't DVRs.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

CableCard TVs make even MORE sense today in the analog to digital switchover than before because the DTAs that cable companies are sending out to analog-only customers do not do SDV do not have guides and do not do any two way. They are one way, non SDV CableCard tuners. They really shot themselves in the foot on that one. If they had embraced CableCard, they could have shifted the cost of the tuner for basic cable subs onto the subs themselves.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Exactly. For cheap secondary TVs CableCARDs are just as functional as the cheap DTAs and are actually cheaper in most cases. (Usually $2-$3 instead of $5). And because the require no wiring they make a much cleaner install.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> Exactly. For cheap secondary TVs CableCARDs are just as functional as the cheap DTAs and are actually cheaper in most cases. (Usually $2-$3 instead of $5). And because the require no wiring they make a much cleaner install.


I have a cable card HDTV (that now I don't use a cable card in), it is in a guest bedroom connected to a TP without a sub that I use as a tuner (with that cable card) as you get at least the channel title like HBO etc that one never got with just the TV and cable card, also the HDTH uses 25 watts when off to keep the cable card powered. (I unplug both the TV and TP unless I have a guest coming).
To me a cable card HDTV makes no sense for many reasons including not being able to handle the SDV cable systems (that I don't have), I guess they could build a cable card HDTV with a USB port able to handle the TA but that system would still makes no sense to me.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

The problem is that CableCARD TVs never kept pace with CableCARD technology. The one you have is old from the early days of CableCARDs. I assume a newer one would have a rudimentary guide, a USB for TA if needed, H.264 support, and multi-stream support so you could use PIP if you wanted. Without a TA install would be a lot cleaner, especially if you are hanging the TV on a wall.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> Exactly. For cheap secondary TVs CableCARDs are just as functional as the cheap DTAs and are actually cheaper in most cases. (Usually $2-$3 instead of $5). And because the require no wiring they make a much cleaner install.


Except a DTA is $2/mo, whereas a CableCard is $7 or $8/mo, so the DTA makes a LOT more sense. If you're going to pay for a CableCard, you may as well get another box for that TV.



Dan203 said:


> The problem is that CableCARD TVs never kept pace with CableCARD technology. The one you have is old from the early days of CableCARDs. I assume a newer one would have a rudimentary guide, a USB for TA if needed, H.264 support, and multi-stream support so you could use PIP if you wanted. Without a TA install would be a lot cleaner, especially if you are hanging the TV on a wall.


Pretty sure they don't exist at all anymore. They were just so pointless. Much better to have either a TiVo Mini or the MSO's multi-room DVR solution plugged in.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Bigg said:


> Except a DTA is $2/mo, whereas a CableCard is $7 or $8/mo, so the DTA makes a LOT more sense. If you're going to pay for a CableCard, you may as well get another box for that TV.


Not in all places. Here, CableCARDs are $2.50. As for DTAs, they are are $1 here. (Yet another reason I dread Comcast buying TWC, if Comcast is indeed charging $7-8/mo for a CableCARD. Yikes.)

I'm fairly convinced that the only reason DTAs are relatively inexpensive is that they are under extreme political pressure to make sure they don't disenfranchise customers, primarily older customers, who are accustomed to "cable-ready" TVs that they could just plug into a wall and use without additional equipment. Left to their own devices, MSO's would probably charge as much or more for DTAs as they do for CableCARDs.


> Pretty sure they don't exist at all anymore. They were just so pointless. Much better to have either a TiVo Mini or the MSO's multi-room DVR solution plugged in.


As with the others, I disagree with the pointless comment.

Putting aside the cost aspect, for a secondary room where you don't necessarily need all that a TiVo or a MSO set-top box provides, a CableCard-integrated TV would have been a perfect option (if not for SDV, of course). Simply slide the CableCard into the TV, and you could then just plug it into the coax outlet in the wall. Very simple, and it would approximate how "cable-ready" TVs have worked for years.

I've got one TV in my house that I watch on a regular basis, and of course I have a TiVo hooked up to that. I also have another TV that I rarely watch, but it's nice to have there when I'm working in that area. That TV has a DTA hooked up to it, but if a CableCARD TV were still an option, that would be preferable to me; it would do everything the DTA does now, with less wiring mess.


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

Comcast CableCard costs vary by franchise. Our price is $1.15 per card with the first one free in a device that requires 2 and that's dropping to $1.00 per card next month.

They do charge $9.95 for additional digital outlet service but this is the same if you used their DVR as well. 

Scott


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Geez. And people are OK with Comcast? Holy hell. $10 "additional outlet service"? Ridiculous. And people give TWC crap. At least I can have unlimited outlets without getting charged extra for them. WTF.

But that's a topic for a different thread, I suppose.


----------



## ajwees41 (May 7, 2006)

HerronScott said:


> Comcast CableCard costs vary by franchise. Our price is $1.15 per card with the first one free in a device that requires 2 and that's dropping to $1.00 per card next month.
> 
> They do charge $9.95 for additional digital outlet service but this is the same if you used their DVR as well.
> 
> Scott


Cox is $1.99/card and free SDV adapters.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> Except a DTA is $2/mo, whereas a CableCard is $7 or $8/mo, so the DTA makes a LOT more sense. If you're going to pay for a CableCard, you may as well get another box for that TV.


Must be based on company. Here a CableCARD is only $2/mo and they don't offer DTAs so you have to get a real box for every room which is $5/mo.


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> Geez. And people are OK with Comcast? Holy hell. $10 "additional outlet service"? Ridiculous. And people give TWC crap. At least I can have unlimited outlets without getting charged extra for them. WTF.
> 
> But that's a topic for a different thread, I suppose.


That's an additional digital outlet where you get full service either with your own equipment or with their cable box or DVR. DTA outlets with limited basic are $1.99 which includes the DTA (up to 2 additional and then an additional $0.50 for each above that).

According to TWC's website for your city, additional outlets with cable boxes are $19.99 which seems comparable to what it would be with Comcast ($19.90 for the first with a cable box but then only $9.95 for any above that which would be cheaper than TWC).

"For every cable box you need an outlet. 1 outlet is included, each additional is $19.99."

Note that I'm not getting charged an additional digital outlet fee for my second S3 OLED with 2 CableCards but that doesn't seem to be the same for all franchises.

Scott


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

HerronScott said:


> That's an additional digital outlet where you get full service either with your own equipment or with their cable box or DVR. DTA outlets with limited basic are $1.99 which includes the DTA (up to 2 additional and then an additional $0.50 for each above that).
> 
> According to TWC's website for your city, additional outlets with cable boxes are $19.99 which seems comparable to what it would be with Comcast ($19.90 for the first with a cable box but then only $9.95 for any above that which would be cheaper than TWC).
> 
> ...


I actually have one TiVo HD with CableCARD and tuning adapter, one TiVo Roamio with CableCARD and tuning adapter, and one DTA. I've never been charged an additional outlet cost.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

HerronScott said:


> According to TWC's website for your city, additional outlets with cable boxes are $19.99 which seems comparable to what it would be with Comcast ($19.90 for the first with a cable box but then only $9.95 for any above that which would be cheaper than TWC).
> 
> "For every cable box you need an outlet. 1 outlet is included, each additional is $19.99."
> 
> ...


Please provide a link to TWC's website that says there is an additional outlet fee in some markets. I've never heard of such a thing with Time Warner.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Please provide a link to TWC's website that says there is an additional outlet fee in some markets. I've never heard of such a thing with Time Warner.


Ah-hah... found where he quoted that from... but he is misunderstanding, or (I hope) less likely, deliberately misleading.

The $19.99 cost is a one-time cost for a technician to install a brand new outlet, not a monthly additional outlet cost. You can tell because the immediate next line is "*Note: most home outlets are pre-wired for cable and don't require service tech installation."

(You can also tell because the only place that line appears is on the new service order form...)


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> Not in all places. Here, CableCARDs are $2.50. As for DTAs, they are are $1 here. (Yet another reason I dread Comcast buying TWC, if Comcast is indeed charging $7-8/mo for a CableCARD. Yikes.)


Interesting. I'm pretty happy with a total monthly cost of -$2.50. If I need more tuners, I can just get a Roamio Plus or Pro. With 6-tuner systems available for MCE and TiVo, there is little reason to have more than one.



> As with the others, I disagree with the pointless comment.
> 
> Putting aside the cost aspect, for a secondary room where you don't necessarily need all that a TiVo or a MSO set-top box provides, a CableCard-integrated TV would have been a perfect option (if not for SDV, of course). Simply slide the CableCard into the TV, and you could then just plug it into the coax outlet in the wall. Very simple, and it would approximate how "cable-ready" TVs have worked for years.


TVs are worthless without a DVR, and other than DirecTV's system with a few Samsung sets, that's going to require some sort of box. Hence why CableCard TVs are pointless.]



LoadStar said:


> Geez. And people are OK with Comcast? Holy hell. $10 "additional outlet service"? Ridiculous. And people give TWC crap. At least I can have unlimited outlets without getting charged extra for them. WTF.
> 
> But that's a topic for a different thread, I suppose.


You'd still have to have a CableCard or box. Or a TiVo Mini, which would be the same as Comcast or FIOS.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> TVs are worthless without a DVR, and other than DirecTV's system with a few Samsung sets, that's going to require some sort of box. Hence why CableCard TVs are pointless.


That may be true to you but a LOT of people still watch live TV.

The original intention of the CableCARD mandate was to replicate "cable ready" TVs in a digital world. The cable companies made it so difficult to get and install one, and then limited their functionality even further with SDV, that that intention was never met. But these days with cable companies going all digital and breaking people's "cable ready" TVs the main reason for having CableCARD TVs is coming back around.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> That may be true to you but a LOT of people still watch live TV.
> 
> The original intention of the CableCARD mandate was to replicate "cable ready" TVs in a digital world. The cable companies made it so difficult to get and install one, and then limited their functionality even further with SDV, that that intention was never met. But these days with cable companies going all digital and breaking people's "cable ready" TVs the main reason for having CableCARD TVs is coming back around.


Cable ready TV are not coming back, I have one (I don't use anymore) and you can't tell what ch your on as there is no information beyond the ch number, I guess many ch tell you in the right bottom of the screen, but not all do. The cost savings of getting a cable card for your HDTV and getting a cable box is not that much and then you do get VOD and other services like caller ID on your TV etc.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

lessd said:


> Cable ready TV are not coming back, I have one (I don't use anymore) and you can't tell what ch your on as there is no information beyond the ch number,


This is no different than the DTAs, nor any different than what people were accustomed to with the old "cable-ready" TVs.


> The cost savings of getting a cable card for your HDTV and getting a cable box is not that much and then you do get VOD and other services like caller ID on your TV etc.


Here:
CableCARD - $2.50
Basic Cable Box - $10

That's a $90 difference after just one year.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

lessd said:


> The cost savings of getting a cable card for your HDTV and getting a cable box is not that much


On TWC, a CableCard is $2.50/month and a cable box is $10.95/month, so the difference is $8.45/month which translates into $101.40/year per TV. That seems like a pretty significant savings to me.


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> I actually have one TiVo HD with CableCARD and tuning adapter, one TiVo Roamio with CableCARD and tuning adapter, and one DTA. I've never been charged an additional outlet cost.


Note that's the same for me with 2 S3's (no outlet charge). I pay for 3 CableCards at $1.15 each (first one free) and then get a $2.50 customer-owned equipment credit. I only mentioned the digital outlet fee as some Comcast franchises apparently are charging their users for additional digital outlets. Thankfully so far ours does not since that would make a significant difference in cost.

Scott


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> Ah-hah... found where he quoted that from... but he is misunderstanding, or (I hope) less likely, deliberately misleading.
> 
> The $19.99 cost is a one-time cost for a technician to install a brand new outlet, not a monthly additional outlet cost. You can tell because the immediate next line is "*Note: most home outlets are pre-wired for cable and dont require service tech installation."
> 
> (You can also tell because the only place that line appears is on the new service order form...)


Ah, sorry I did misread that as a recurring charge and not a one-time charge. Sorry about that!

Scott


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

Dan203 said:


> Must be based on company. Here a CableCARD is only $2/mo and they don't offer DTAs so you have to get a real box for every room which is $5/mo.


Is your system all digital? That's very odd if so. I think most cable companies had to agree to providing free DTAs for X number of TVs and then offer very cheap DTAs for each TV beyond that for "basic" cable customers in order to get approval to go all digital from the FCC.



lessd said:


> Cable ready TV are not coming back, I have one (I don't use anymore) and you can't tell what ch your on as there is no information beyond the ch number, I guess many ch tell you in the right bottom of the screen, but not all do. The cost savings of getting a cable card for your HDTV and getting a cable box is not that much and then you do get VOD and other services like caller ID on your TV etc.


CableCards in a TV and DTAs are meant to replicate the service level of plugging your cable directly into a TV in the analog world. No guide, no channel info, no two-way services. Just the ability to authorize and tune basic and in some cases expanded basic. Essentially any channel below 100 on most systems.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

JosephB said:


> Is your system all digital? That's very odd if so. I think most cable companies had to agree to providing free DTAs for X number of TVs and then offer very cheap DTAs for each TV beyond that for "basic" cable customers in order to get approval to go all digital from the FCC.
> 
> CableCards in a TV and DTAs are meant to replicate the service level of plugging your cable directly into a TV in the analog world. No guide, no channel info, no two-way services. Just the ability to authorize and tune basic and in some cases expanded basic. Essentially any channel below 100 on most systems.


Comcast went all digital and offered up to 2 DTAs for two years free, than without notice started to charge $2.99/month for each, with tax and other charges its cost was about $3.30/month. I returned my 2 DTAs and got back credit for the back charge, but I bet many people did not notice the extra charge and just kept the DTA(s) even if they were just using it for a guest bedroom or not using it at all, as they just assumed they were free.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> That may be true to you but a LOT of people still watch live TV.
> 
> The original intention of the CableCARD mandate was to replicate "cable ready" TVs in a digital world. The cable companies made it so difficult to get and install one, and then limited their functionality even further with SDV, that that intention was never met. But these days with cable companies going all digital and breaking people's "cable ready" TVs the main reason for having CableCARD TVs is coming back around.


Sure, for people who are stuck in the dark ages of the '90s without a DVR. Heck, back then we had VCRs and you could build a stack of them with an RF chain...

The people on this forum are the last people in the world who would want a TV without DVR capabilities...


----------

