# Moxi DVR is going to be bricked by Arris at end of 2013



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

www.moxi.com

What a crock, at a minimum Arris needs to release the guide server protocol so someone can emulate the server feed via Schedules Direct, and a firmware update to allow manual recording. Yes, you heard that right - the Moxi is a brick without guide data because it can't do manual records.

UPDATE: Arris removed mention of the guide data going away at end of 2013 from their website. Dave Zatz has the screenshot archived here:

http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2012-02/arris-to-cease-retail-moxi-dvr-service/

Remains to be seen what the future is for Moxi guide data, but even if they have less than 5000 Moxis in the field, they can't just brick all these units. Some folks over at AVS claim to have spent $2k on Moxis, and they were still for sale early last year (they were first sold by Digeo in Dec. 2008, so the oldest units only have 3 years on them - hardly a 'lifetime' of service).

UPDATE2: Arris has completely backtracked and now claims that it was just a simple mistake, guide data is not going away. Ummm, if I had a Moxi, I'd be looking to sell - there's no support for the box, no updates, and they clearly just want to dump the users whenever they can get away with it.

Here's the post from someone claiming to represent Arris at AVS: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=21639926#post21639926


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Still a long ways off.


----------



## mdm08033 (Apr 23, 2007)

I would hope that Moxi will extend the programming guide to the retail buyers the way Microsoft/Denon/Marants did for Replay owners. Considering how few Moxi DVRs are in the wild I would assume that the chances of that happening are slim to none.

Boy am I glad I just stuck with my FIOS DVR when I gave up my DirecTV tivo a few years ago. I would be miffed about owning a $600 brick after three years.


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

I took the liberty of updating their TiVo comparison chart...


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

This thread makes me wonder what fatlard thinks of all this. 

For reference:
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=444627


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

I am sure not going to gloat, if my TiVos end up in a similar state, it won't be funny at all.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

TiVo just got a bunch of money from some of their legal battles. Maybe they should buy up what's left of Moxi.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

unitron said:


> TiVo just got a bunch of money from some of their legal battles. Maybe they should buy up what's left of Moxi.


Anyone know if moxi has any neat exclusive features with IP that stops others from doing?


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> Anyone know if moxi has any neat exclusive features with IP that stops others from doing?


They might not have anything TiVo needs, but they might have something TiVo doesn't want going elsewhere, if not IP, then maybe the subscriber/owner base.

Although I was sort of joking.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

I see Moxi removed that end of service statement from their home page.


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

unitron said:


> TiVo just got a bunch of money from some of their legal battles. Maybe they should buy up what's left of Moxi.


This post needs a smiley at the end.


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

steve614 said:


> This thread makes me wonder what fatlard thinks of all this.
> 
> For reference:
> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=444627


He's now pimping the Ceton tuner here.

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=481459

Seems to just enjoy posting alternatives here for some reason....

KungFuCow was the other TiVo user that switched to a Moxi I believe as well.

Scott


----------



## minimeh (Jun 20, 2011)

aaronwt said:


> I see Moxi removed that end of service statement from their home page.


They moved the information to a lower profile position in the FAQ. See "Why can't I purchase a Moxi?": http://www.moxi.com/us/faq.html


----------



## minimeh (Jun 20, 2011)

To be fare to the TiVo community: I once was the proud owner of 2 ReplayTV DVRs and I own a Moxi DVR. The kiss of death may have been put on TiVo because I now own a TiVo Premiere.

You've been warned! Save yourselves!!


----------



## PotentiallyCoherent (Jul 25, 2002)

Wasn't Moxi a Tivo killer?


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

PotentiallyCoherent said:


> Wasn't Moxi a Tivo killer?


Obviously not.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

And this is why TiVo feels fine in putting out such an UNDERwhelming product as the Premiere, still laggy, super slow--even SLOWER after the vaunted software full of UI upgrades, not to mention (I will, anyway) TiVo having never done, nor appatantly willing to, do the OTT portion RIGHT with an experience more like the Roku, et al. Oh, but wait! When we buy the one box for "everything" TiVo means we have to get a Roku to compliment for an OTT experience that WORKS properly because the TiVo has the best and most reliable Netflix interface and because TiVo allows Amazon Prime customers to access and stream their vids, right? and no 100 episode limit and . . . 

No competition is a VERY bad thing. It's sad because if Moxi had really taken off and all other OTA DVR's been done well, we would all be proud owners of TiVo's with the best DVR features AND THE BEST ON-LINE OTT CONTENT PROVIDER/INTERFACE/EXPERIENCE. Oh, and Premieres would be lightning fast in response. Instead, we get a TiVo product as if it were coming from a socialist or communist nation where mediocrity is the zenith.

So, please don't gloat over Moxi leaving the retail arena because Tom Rogers is telling all his engineers and staff who pushed for a really prime TiVo product, "See, I told you we didn't have to spend the money to make the Premiere work all that well and it was fine to wait 2 years for proper enhancements because we're all the little people have for cable and OTA."


----------



## CoxInPHX (Jan 14, 2011)

unitron said:


> TiVo just got a bunch of money from some of their legal battles. Maybe they should buy up what's left of Moxi.


Moxi is currently NOT for sale or takeover. Arris still has big hopes for the Moxi, although not at retail, MSO gateways only.

The sad thing here is Arris will still continue to provide software and guide updates for the MSO products. So continuing to provide at least guide data for the current retail devices would not be much of a burden for Arris.

*Arris Expects a Rosy 2012 *
http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=217314
"Despite slower sales of the Moxi gateway in the fourth quarter, Arris still thinks it can turn the product into a $100 million business in 2012. Stanzione identified WideOpenWest Holdings LLC (WOW) , a competitive overbuilder with 1.6 million homes passed, as the latest customer for the device, joining Shaw Communications Inc. , BendBroadband and Buckeye CableSystem . He said Arris has two more Moxi deals about to pop."

*The Alpha Gateway and Player*
http://www.bendbroadband.com/residential/alpha_index.asp?adct=3&promo=1&page=TV

*Shaw Gateway*
http://www.shaw.ca/Television/Equipment/


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

CoxInPHX said:


> > Stanzione identified WideOpenWest Holdings LLC (WOW) , a competitive overbuilder with 1.6 million homes passed, as the latest customer for the device, joining Shaw Communications Inc. , BendBroadband and Buckeye CableSystem .


Blah. WOW mentioned a new multi-tuner DVR and I was hoping that they might join the Premiere Q/Preview club.


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

SO what is the difference between a Moxi and an Arris gateway?

Being in Canada, we have crappy Motorola DVRs (just recently upgraded with CableCARD! But no, no CableCARD for you - you have to buy the box and activate it and rip the CableCARD from it. No word on if it works inside TiVo after you do that). But a few months ago they offered a "gateway" product with 6 tuners. All I know about it (I've not seen the interface) is that it's made by Arris.

Anyone know the difference? Off the top of my head, the gateway does 6 tuners and can have 6 TVs connected to it (via boxes connected to it over MoCA).

But since my provider's going all digital (encrypted QAM), I'm going to have very little use for my TiVos...


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Series3Sub said:


> And this is why TiVo feels fine in putting out such an UNDERwhelming product as the Premiere, still laggy, super slow--even SLOWER after the vaunted software full of UI upgrades, not to mention (I will, anyway) TiVo having never done, nor appatantly willing to, do the OTT portion RIGHT with an experience more like the Roku, et al. Oh, but wait! When we buy the one box for "everything" TiVo means we have to get a Roku to compliment for an OTT experience that WORKS properly because the TiVo has the best and most reliable Netflix interface and because TiVo allows Amazon Prime customers to access and stream their vids, right? and no 100 episode limit and . . .
> 
> No competition is a VERY bad thing. It's sad because if Moxi had really taken off and all other OTA DVR's been done well, we would all be proud owners of TiVo's with the best DVR features AND THE BEST ON-LINE OTT CONTENT PROVIDER/INTERFACE/EXPERIENCE. Oh, and Premieres would be lightning fast in response. Instead, we get a TiVo product as if it were coming from a socialist or communist nation where mediocrity is the zenith.
> 
> So, please don't gloat over Moxi leaving the retail arena because Tom Rogers is telling all his engineers and staff who pushed for a really prime TiVo product, "See, I told you we didn't have to spend the money to make the Premiere work all that well and it was fine to wait 2 years for proper enhancements because we're all the little people have for cable and OTA."


Who was gloating in this thread about the demise of Moxi?


----------



## KungFuCow (May 6, 2004)

HerronScott said:


> He's now pimping the Ceton tuner here.
> 
> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=481459
> 
> ...


Yea, I have a Moxi and a Premiere just laying on the floor here. We switched to Dish. In the end, I just had too much trouble with TWC and Tivo to keep cable.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Series3Sub said:


> And this is why TiVo feels fine in putting out such an UNDERwhelming product as the Premiere, still laggy, super slow--even SLOWER after the vaunted software full of UI upgrades, not to mention (I will, anyway) TiVo having never done, nor appatantly willing to, do the OTT portion RIGHT with an experience more like the Roku, et al. Oh, but wait! When we buy the one box for "everything" TiVo means we have to get a Roku to compliment for an OTT experience that WORKS properly because the TiVo has the best and most reliable Netflix interface and because TiVo allows Amazon Prime customers to access and stream their vids, right? and no 100 episode limit and . . .
> 
> No competition is a VERY bad thing. It's sad because if Moxi had really taken off and all other OTA DVR's been done well, we would all be proud owners of TiVo's with the best DVR features AND THE BEST ON-LINE OTT CONTENT PROVIDER/INTERFACE/EXPERIENCE. Oh, and Premieres would be lightning fast in response. Instead, we get a TiVo product as if it were coming from a socialist or communist nation where mediocrity is the zenith.
> 
> So, please don't gloat over Moxi leaving the retail arena because Tom Rogers is telling all his engineers and staff who pushed for a really prime TiVo product, "See, I told you we didn't have to spend the money to make the Premiere work all that well and it was fine to wait 2 years for proper enhancements because we're all the little people have for cable and OTA."


Last Time I looked no one was forcing anyone to buy a TiVo, if you personally think it is such a piece of sh**, my advice is to not own one.

Some people seem to be under the assumption that building a stand alone DVR is easy, simple, cheap and profitable to do. Well the supply side of the market is telling you, you are wrong.

There is a reason that Roku, Boxee Box, Google TV, Apple TV, etc are not DVRs and it's not just because they didn't feel like making those devices DVRs.

There is also a reason that the CM 7400 OTA DVR costs $400 and another $50/year if you want real guide data.

The reason for both of the above is because it is not easy, simple, cheap, and therefor profitable to build stand alone DVRs.

Until the FCC fixes the problem with cable cards, tuning adapters, and exempting Satellite companies no one is going to be able to sell enough stand alone DVRs to build exceptional products that are stand alone only DVRs.

TiVo and perhaps Google with their purchase of Motorola have the best chance as they can increase volume and spread development costs over more units by selling to cable/satellite companies. Moxi/Arris could have done the same thing but they decided it wasn't even worth continuing to try (again that should tell everyone something).

Thanks,


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

The ability of the Moxi to map cable channels to the corresponding guide data without a cable card seems like a compelling feature to me. It makes the moxi a plug and play device for many cable customers.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

shwru980r said:


> The ability of the Moxi to map cable channels to the corresponding guide data without a cable card seems like a compelling feature to me. It makes the moxi a plug and play device for many cable customers.


How many cable subscribers are digital only with no scrambled channels?

I guess you could have added an analog cable tuner to Moxi, but it was an additional cost and only a single tuner. Still even with the analog cable tuner I don't think that is a very big subset of cable subscribers with no scrambled channels and apparently the feature didn't do much for Moxi.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

aaronwt said:


> Who was gloating in this thread about the demise of Moxi?


I don't gloat over the loss of competition. But I cannot deny a touch of schadenfreude when people get all bombastic and exaggerate or distort the state of things with TiVo, declare another choice to be vastly superior and certain to doom TiVo, and then end up hung out to dry.

Hoping Series3Sub will find a new DVR provider soon.


----------



## todd_j_derr (Jun 6, 2000)

It kind of pained me to jump ship to Moxi (having been a Tivo user since 2000), but at the time I did it (April 2010) the Premiere was getting pretty lousy reviews, it was way more expensive than Moxi for multiple rooms, and I had no idea if MRV would even work for me due to the CCI issue.

Almost two years later, things have changed a bit. I now own two Elites and there's no doubt I like them better than the Moxi, especially now that they've decided to stop rebooting several times a week. But, Tivo is still way more expensive than Moxi was, although something like a retail Preview for $299 could fix that, assuming no sub.

So, if you want to take some pleasure in my misfortune, go right ahead. I'm right at the break-even point compared to 3x Comcast HD-DVRs @$16/mo so I'm not that upset about it - although obviously if I had known I was going back to Tivo eventually I would have been better off staying with Tivo. The Moxi is alright, they did a lot of little things wrong in my opinion and obviously the fact they stopped developing the software a year and a half ago sucked - but it works pretty well overall and I think was (or could have been) some well-needed competition for Tivo.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

shwru980r said:


> The ability of the Moxi to map cable channels to the corresponding guide data without a cable card seems like a compelling feature to me. It makes the moxi a plug and play device for many cable customers.


It is not a compelling idea, and it *SHOULD* have been illegal. All digital receivers - including satellite receivers and DVRs should be required to have CableCards, and OTA reception should be subscription like any other.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

todd_j_derr said:


> It kind of pained me to jump ship to Moxi (having been a Tivo user since 2000), but at the time I did it (April 2010) the Premiere was getting pretty lousy reviews


So what? The S3 and THD were perfectly decent devices, and still are.



todd_j_derr said:


> , it was way more expensive than Moxi for multiple rooms, and I had no idea if MRV would even work for me due to the CCI issue.


Which is why I still cannot recommend the S4 platform, but then the Moxi had the same problems.



todd_j_derr said:


> Almost two years later, things have changed a bit. I now own two Elites and there's no doubt I like them better than the Moxi


You obviously either don't care about TTG or else have a provider who does not set the CCI byte. With my provider (TWC), any S4 would be little more than a brick. I'm not particularly concerned with MRV - I rarely ever use it and would not miss it if it were unavailable, but without TTG (or an equivalent), all three of my DVRs would be useless.



todd_j_derr said:


> So, if you want to take some pleasure in my misfortune, go right ahead.


Not as long as you did not make foolish, fatuous comparisons between the TiVo and the Moxi or boast about how the product would kill TiVo.



todd_j_derr said:


> The Moxi is alright, they did a lot of little things wrong in my opinion and obviously the fact they stopped developing the software a year and a half ago sucked - but it works pretty well overall and I think was (or could have been) some well-needed competition for Tivo.


In this market sector, there just is no such thing. It's too small and narrow. Ultimately, there may not even be enough room for a single company, but there is no question of there being room for two, given the nature of our economy. If our economy were properly structured, then there would be not only room for but demand for at least a dozen, but it is not the case.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> Until the FCC fixes the problem with cable cards, tuning adapters, and exempting Satellite companies no one is going to be able to sell enough stand alone DVRs to build exceptional products that are stand alone only DVRs.


That's a bit of an overstatement, as TiVo did just that. It's not likely there could be two companies that could, though.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

minimeh said:


> They moved the information to a lower profile position in the FAQ. See "Why can't I purchase a Moxi?": http://www.moxi.com/us/faq.html


Oh, cute. Item 1 says, "The Moxi Gateway is a full-featured triple play platform available only through cable service providers."

Then item 3 says, "Why a Moxi HD DVR instead of a cable-provider DVR?"


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> Still a long ways off.


Not really. Two years is hardly the blink of an eye, even in human terms. The third millennium is a long ways off. The death of our Sun is a long ways off. The complete erosion of the Rocky Mountains is a long way off. The election of an honest congressman is a long ways off. December 2013 will be here before I can catch my breath from the 2012 New Years party.

Heck, I look back, and December 1969 seems like yesterday.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

mdm08033 said:


> I would be miffed about owning a $600 brick after three years.


Yeah, but it wasn't that much of a stretch to predict that failure.

1. They entered a saturated market with a clone (not much value added) product that cost a lot more up front than their embedded competition.

2. They tried to rely on their potential customer's hating a monthly fee their competition offered as an alternative, hoping said customers did not realize the competition offered essentially the same deal and were too stupid to be able to add up the costs for a comparison.

3. Their sole business plan had them paying ad infinitum for a service on behalf of every customer without ay incoming revenue from those customers.

Wasn't the initial sale price more like $800?


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

CoxInPHX said:


> The sad thing here is Arris will still continue to provide software and guide updates for the MSO products. So continuing to provide at least guide data for the current retail devices would not be much of a burden for Arris.


Tribune charges something like $1 a month per customer. That qualifies as "much" when all those customers are not paying a single dime.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

The only thing Moxi's site says is that they aren't available for purchase. Where does it say that it will be 'bricked' next year??


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

Adam1115 said:


> The only thing Moxi's site says is that they aren't available for purchase. Where does it say that it will be 'bricked' next year??


It was removed from the front page but still appeared in the FAQ. Now it appears to be gone from the FAQ. Maybe they've reconsidered.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

At the very least, they should allow 3rd parties the opportunity to write software that can keep existing boxes functioning.
To completely brick the boxes is just wrong.


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

nrc said:


> It was removed from the front page but still appeared in the FAQ. Now it appears to be gone from the FAQ. Maybe they've reconsidered.


Hopefully that's true for those users that purchased a Moxi. At least give them some payback for the money they spent on the product in good faith. I would think at least 5 years of guide service from the date they discontinued retail sales would be fair.

Scott


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Adam1115 said:


> The only thing Moxi's site says is that they aren't available for purchase. Where does it say that it will be 'bricked' next year??


Updated OP with Dave's screenshot of the original notice that guide data would go away at end of 2013.

Also, here's the original thread I posted about Moxis going on the market in Dec. 2008 - these boxes are at most 3 years old and were still being sold last year, so 3-5 year old boxes being bricked after 2013 hardly constitutes a 'lifetime' of service. It's not like they'll be obsolete as HD DVRs anytime soon, cable tech doesn't change that quickly.

Arris has to do something to make this right, they can't just brick the units if even if they say less than 5k were sold.


----------



## todd_j_derr (Jun 6, 2000)

lrhorer said:


> Yeah, but it wasn't that much of a stretch to predict that failure.


That's easy to say in hindsight, although of course people have also been predicting Tivo's imminent death for a decade or more. Given that Tivo offers lifetime service, your arguments about no recurring revenue apply to Tivo as well - although they do have customers who opt to pay monthly.



lrhorer said:


> Tribune charges something like $1 a month per customer. That qualifies as "much" when all those customers are not paying a single dime.


In fact I paid them 9,990 dimes upfront, so that characterization is inaccurate. One would assume that Moxi took future service costs into account when setting their prices. If it turns out that it was a bad deal for them, why should the customers bear the brunt of their poor planning?


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

lrhorer said:


> It is not a compelling idea, and it *SHOULD* have been illegal. All digital receivers - including satellite receivers and DVRs should be required to have CableCards, and OTA reception should be subscription like any other.


Hogwash!

A cable card is hardware based DRM and gives the cable company a competitive advantage in the set top box marketplace, because the cable company set top boxes are effectively plug and play devices while third party devices are not.

Assembly is effectively incomplete for digital third party set top boxes when used for cable TV. The customer must lease an additional component (cable card) and install it themselves or pay a cable company technician to perform the install. The customer must then perform quality assurance testing for the cable company to insure the cable card is compatible. The customer is not compensated by the cable company for providing these services.

Furthermore, each cable company has a monopoly on the cable card supply. The customer is not even allowed to own the cable card that they must install and test themselves.

The cable and satellite companies should be required to broadcast all programming in the clear with channels mapped to the corresponding guide information. The provider can restrict the channels that a customer receives at their end totally transparent to the customer.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

atmuscarella said:


> How many cable subscribers are digital only with no scrambled channels?
> 
> I guess you could have added an analog cable tuner to Moxi, but it was an additional cost and only a single tuner. Still even with the analog cable tuner I don't think that is a very big subset of cable subscribers with no scrambled channels and apparently the feature didn't do much for Moxi.


My experience is that there are some channels that aren't scrambled that could be used, if the channel could be mapped to the correct guide data. I don't think every single channel must be unscrambled to make this a viable option.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

shwru980r said:


> The cable and satellite companies should be required to broadcast all programming in the clear with channels mapped to the corresponding guide information. The provider can restrict the channels that a customer receives at their end totally transparent to the customer.


How do you broadcast "in the clear" and restrict who can receive the channel?


----------



## DocNo (Oct 10, 2001)

ferrumpneuma said:


> Somewhere ZeoTiVo is smiling.


ha!

I'm not surprised, but disappointed. There were many things I liked about Moxie. Ugh.


----------



## minimeh (Jun 20, 2011)

Quick before they change their minds, discontinuation of service is rescinded. Check http://www.moxi.com/us/ for the latest.


----------



## fatlard (Jun 30, 2003)

What is the big fuss about?

http://www.moxi.com

A few weeks ago we incorrectly posted a notice 
regarding discontinuation of our Moxi program 
guide data. We currently have no plans to 
discontinue service. Thank you for your support.


----------



## DocNo (Oct 10, 2001)

fatlard said:


> What is the big fuss about?


The fact that you would ask that question about this subject is priceless....


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

fatlard said:


> What is the big fuss about?


Well, the size of the fuss is debatable... but it was large enough to have the desired effect for folks who invested in Moxi as ARRIS has changed course. I'm still awaiting an official comment.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

nrc said:


> How do you broadcast "in the clear" and restrict who can receive the channel?


To restrict who can receive a channel, the cable company would cease to broadcast or encrypt the specific channel on a customer by customer basis.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

davezatz said:


> Well, the size of the fuss is debatable... but it was large enough to have the desired effect for folks who invested in Moxi as ARRIS has changed course. I'm still awaiting an official comment.


What? You don't consider an Emily Litella style "Never mind" to be an official comment?


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

nrc said:


> What? You don't consider an Emily Litella style "Never mind" to be an official comment?


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

shwru980r said:


> To restrict who can receive a channel, the cable company would cease to broadcast or encrypt the specific channel on a customer by customer basis.


A standard that would span across all cable companies in all regions would be perfect. They could use a device, oh let's call it a CableCARD to do just this.

From a technical standpoint the CableCARD is the solution and not a bad one, from a practical aspect the Cable companies have done everything possible to break it.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

OP updated with latest backtrack and link to post from 'ARRIS_Moxi' at AVS - if I had one, I'd be looking to sell it before anyone else finds out about this fiasco. They are going to find some way to ditch the users.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

dianebrat said:


> A standard that would span across all cable companies in all regions would be perfect. They could use a device, oh let's call it a CableCARD to do just this.
> 
> From a technical standpoint the CableCARD is the solution and not a bad one, from a practical aspect the Cable companies have done everything possible to break it.


The cable card places an additional burden on the customer. The customer must install the cable card and then test the system without being compensated. The cable company set top box already has the cable card installed and is tested. This gives the cable company a competitive advantage, because their set top box is plug and play while third party set top boxes are not plug and play.

Furthermore, as you pointed out, many of the cable companies went out of their way to obstruct the use of cable cards. The FCC went out of their way to accommodate the concerns of the cable companies by placing an additional burden on customers with third party set top boxes, and many of the cable companies abused cusomers with excessive fees and truck rolls.

The cable companies should be required to broadcast the channels in the clear and mapped to the correct guide data. The burden should be on the cable companies to restrict access to specific channels on a customer by customer basis.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

shwru980r said:


> The cable card places an additional burden on the customer. The customer must install the cable card and then test the system without being compensated. The cable company set top box already has the cable card installed and is tested. This gives the cable company a competitive advantage, because their set top box is plug and play while third party set top boxes are not plug and play.
> 
> Furthermore, as you pointed out, many of the cable companies went out of their way to obstruct the use of cable cards. The FCC went out of their way to accommodate the concerns of the cable companies by placing an additional burden on customers with third party set top boxes, and many of the cable companies abused cusomers with excessive fees and truck rolls.
> 
> The cable companies should be required to broadcast the channels in the clear and mapped to the correct guide data. The burden should be on the cable companies to restrict access to specific channels on a customer by customer basis.


I pretty much agree with everything you said. I have no idea what infrastructure would be necessary to deliver 2 way digital cable in the clear to a persons home and still be able to only provide the channels they paid for but I am sure it is not what we have now. So the time for the FCC to have regulated how digital cable was delivered would have been before its role out. For those that do know how this works could this have been done through some back office hardware/software when the systems where being setup?

In any event at this point how digital cable is delivered it is not likely to change and I don't see any way not to have in home decryption and it likely needs to be at each drop to reduced theft of service in high density areas.

So I think the best we can hope for is something that actually works as well with 3rd party STBs as it does with the cable companies STBs.


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

slowbiscuit said:


> OP updated with latest backtrack and link to post from 'ARRIS_Moxi' at AVS - if I had one, I'd be looking to sell it before anyone else finds out about this fiasco. They are going to find some way to ditch the users.


You think this is a big deal? I would think the conclusion should be the service will continue beyond the end of 2013, maybe years beyond that date.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Maybe so, but can you trust them now? They obviously want to ditch the guide data - they never wanted to be in the retail biz to begin with, it just came with the purchase of Digeo's intellectual property.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

shwru980r said:


> *The cable card places an additional burden on the customer. The customer must install the cable card and then test the system without being compensated. *The cable company set top box already has the cable card installed and is tested. This gives the cable company a competitive advantage, because their set top box is plug and play while third party set top boxes are not plug and play.
> 
> Furthermore, as you pointed out, many of the cable companies went out of their way to obstruct the use of cable cards. The FCC went out of their way to accommodate the concerns of the cable companies by placing an additional burden on customers with third party set top boxes, and many of the cable companies abused cusomers with excessive fees and truck rolls.
> 
> The cable companies should be required to broadcast the channels in the clear and mapped to the correct guide data. *The burden should be on the cable companies to restrict access to specific channels on a customer by customer basis.*


And I'm saying that the CableCARD functionally is the correct answer and does what you want AND at the same time respects the fact that there needs to be a control on the system.

As a FiOS customer I had no burden placed on me at any time by the company when I installed my CableCARDs, on initial install the techs installed them with no issues, and in the subsequent years I have installed 2 more on my own with almost no effort on my part. I view the experiences that I had installing and deploying CableCARDs to be well within the realm of what a customer should be asked to do.

The insistence that the process be completely transparent to the end user with ZERO effort is just silly IMNSHO, putting in a CableCARD or plugging in provider supplied STB is about the same effort in MY market, YMMV but that doesn't make the CableCARD the wrong answer, it makes the politics played by some of the MSOs the issue.

However at this point we have strayed enough off-topic that it should go back to a CableCARD thread vs. this thread.


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

slowbiscuit said:


> Maybe so, but can you trust them now? They obviously want to ditch the guide data - they never wanted to be in the retail biz to begin with, it just came with the purchase of Digeo's intellectual property.


I suspect the Moxi HD DVR was a big money loser and I understand the company would like to leave it behind and quit throwing money away, no surprise there. The fact the company has decided to continue to provide for its operation is enough that I trust it will continue to operate for some time. I was afraid the business model wouldn't fly when the product was launched, there just isn't a market large enough for TiVo, much less competitors.

I see the claim made often at various sites that TiVo will have to quit providing for its existing customers, however small that market becomes and I believe TiVo will continue to see to it that my TiVoHDs continue to work. I don't see a lot of difference between the two situations, neither looks good if you are the type that worries about such things. I don't worry about things like this.


----------



## jrtroo (Feb 4, 2008)

An "accident" like this website message from Moxi does not happen by "accident". Either there was a disgruntled rogue employee or discontinuing service was/is their plan. It could have been an early leak or a change of heart, but it is clearly on the table. Their subsequent statement remains full of loopholes. 

While I don't have a Moxi, I would be worried if I did. I hope they allow for the data to be open sourced, provide for a longer period of time, or even transfer to a cost based service, as their business methods are bad for the market, and not just the users. The fact that their parent remains in the DVR business would have made this approach downright shameful.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

shwru980r said:


> ...The cable companies should be required to broadcast the channels in the clear and mapped to the correct guide data. The burden should be on the cable companies to restrict access to specific channels on a customer by customer basis.


If they did it that way the pedestal in your front yard would be the size of a Dempsey Dumpster.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

jrtroo said:


> An "accident" like this website message from Moxi does not happen by "accident". Either there was a disgruntled rogue employee or discontinuing service was/is their plan. It could have been an early leak or a change of heart, but it is clearly on the table. Their subsequent statement remains full of loopholes.
> 
> While I don't have a Moxi, I would be worried if I did. I hope they allow for the data to be open sourced, provide for a longer period of time, or even transfer to a cost based service, as their business methods are bad for the market, and not just the users. The fact that their parent remains in the DVR business would have made this approach downright shameful.


Yes. My theory is that they decided that this was a bad time to take the PR hit. The last thing they want is to give "Moxi" a bad name while they're still trying to get traction in the MSO market.

They're probably exploring other alternatives, maybe a deal for someone else to buy out the service for a lump sum and then let them take the hit for shutting it off in a couple of years. Expect the Moxi name to disappear from their MSO product in the interim.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

unitron said:


> If they did it that way the pedestal in your front yard would be the size of a Dempsey Dumpster.


They used to do it that way. You could just hook up a cable ready TV and if you didn't pay for the premium channels, then they were scrambled. I never saw any dumpster sized pedestals.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

shwru980r said:


> They used to do it that way. You could just hook up a cable ready TV and if you didn't pay for the premium channels, then they were scrambled. I never saw any dumpster sized pedestals.


There were what- 3 pay channels? And to block them they put a filter(s) inline that blocked those frequencies. Now with digital cable there are many packages many different pay channels and 3-12 channels on a given frequency.

That ship sailed.

If you want to go back to 80 sd channels then that might work again...


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

shwru980r said:


> They used to do it that way. You could just hook up a cable ready TV and if you didn't pay for the premium channels, then they were scrambled. I never saw any dumpster sized pedestals.


If you sent everything out unscrambled, you'd have to put an addressable multi-channel scrambler on every house's feed.

In the pre-cable box because of being pre-cable channels day, the premium channels (usually only one) that were placed on unused-in-that-market channels 2-13 went onto the cable scrambled and for the minority of susbscribers paying for them a special device that was a specific combination of passive components with a specific combination of inductance, capacitance, and resistance were installed at the pedestal to supress the scrambling signal.

In the later case of "cable ready" TVs, the signal was still sent down the line scrambled before it hit the multi-house splitters in the pedestal, and if you wanted those channels, you likely were forced to use a cable box.

Example, my market.

HBO was first, and they put it on channel 4 because the nearest channel 4 was about 3 hours away.

If you wanted it, they put the thing in the pedestal on the feed to your house.

(I know a guy down the street, never had cable, but after several years with satellite added the very basic service (2-13) just for local broadcast channels. Cable company re-used the old feed from when previous occupants of the house had cable. Didn't remove the doo-hickey that had been in the pedestal for years, so even though he's got, and is paying for, HBO and a bunch of other premium channels via satellite, he's also got free unasked for and un-noticed by the cable company HBO on the cheapest cable tier you can buy)

A few years later, when they'd added cable channels above 13, they added Showtime and Cinemax in there somewhere (18 and 19, I think, but that was 30-40 years ago), and if you wanted them, it didn't matter how cable ready your TV was, you had to rent a set-top box from them that did the unscrambling.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

shwru980r said:


> Hogwash!
> 
> A cable card is hardware based DRM


Hogwash, yourself. A CableCard is not any form of DRM. It is encryption, nothing more. If you are not authorized to receive the service - IOW aren't paying for it - then you cannot receive it. It is nothing like DRM.



shwru980r said:


> and gives the cable company a competitive advantage in the set top box marketplace, because the cable company set top boxes are effectively plug and play devices while third party devices are not.


A competitive advantage requires a profit advantage, and since most CATV companies make litttle or nothing on STB and DVR leases, this is nonsense on its face. More to the point, the intent of a separable security system, like the CableCard, is to allow any 3rd party device to work with any CATV system.



shwru980r said:


> Assembly is effectively incomplete for digital third party set top boxes when used for cable TV. The customer must lease an additional component (cable card) and install it themselves or pay a cable company technician to perform the install.


You have a choice: CableCards (or an equivalent) or no 3rd party devices. Take your pick.



shwru980r said:


> The customer must then perform quality assurance testing for the cable company to insure the cable card is compatible.


The law and CableLabs certification insure this. Name one CableLabs certified device that is not compatible with CableCards.



shwru980r said:


> The customer is not compensated by the cable company for providing these services.


This is just nonsense. The customer provides no service for the CATV company, CableCards or otherwise. If they provide any service, it is for themselves.



shwru980r said:


> Furthermore, each cable company has a monopoly on the cable card supply. The customer is not even allowed to own the cable card that they must install and test themselves.


1. No one but an utter idiot would want to own the CableCard. It has no functionality anywhere but in the local CATV system.
2. The customer has only recently been *ALLOWED* to install the CableCard themselves. Until the regulation enacted by the FCC last summer, most CATV companies did not allow self installation of CableCards. It was (and is) the consumers who wanted this ability and it was denied them until the FCC stepped in and forced the CATV companies to allow it as an option.



shwru980r said:


> The cable and satellite companies should be required to broadcast all programming in the clear with channels mapped to the corresponding guide information. The provider can restrict the channels that a customer receives at their end totally transparent to the customer.


You haven't the faintest clue of what you speak. First of all if the broadcast is in the clear, how is it magically to be restricted? Secondly, CableCard operations *ARE* transparent to the customer. Thirdly, such an idea would limit the number of channels to a comparative handful.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

unitron said:


> In the pre-cable box because of being pre-cable channels day, the premium channels (usually only one) that were placed on unused-in-that-market channels 2-13 went onto the cable scrambled and for the minority of susbscribers paying for them a special device that was a specific combination of passive components with a specific combination of inductance, capacitance, and resistance were installed at the pedestal to supress the scrambling signal.


Sigh. I see I have to give another CATV engineering lecture. When premium channels first appeared, there were only a small handful - often just one or two in a market. Prior to the advent of "Cable Ready" TVs, very few people owned sets capable of receiving any VHF channels other than 2-13, but the VHF band consists of 24 channels, and CATV systems of the time were capable of delivering service on 14 - 22 and perhaps 98 and 99. For a few months, many CATV systems relied on the dearth of TVs capable of tuning those channels to make the premium channels inaccessible to customers. If they wanted a premium channel, they had to get a converter from the CATV company. Some of these converters had specific channels de-activated via various means, and the customer would receive a converter concomitant with his services. This was very cumbersome, and many CATV systems only employed this method for a short time, if at all.

Up until around 1985, still relatively few systems had more than one or two premium services, so most CATV systems employed a "negative passive scrambling" system. In this scenario, channel traps would be installed in the line of any customer who did not have those services. Two different types of traps were employed. One was a single-channel trap, which simply filtered out a single channel. The other type was a band filter, which filtered out some number of channels. Here in San Antonio, for example, HBO was placed on 14 and Showtime was on 16. If a customer had only basic cable, a mid-band trap was placed on the cable drop which filtered out channels 14-21, leaving 2 - 13. Customers who had extended cable, but no HBO or Showtime, would have their mid-band trap removed and a channel 14 and channel 16 trap installed. If they also purchased one channel, then that trap would be removed. If they purchased both, then all traps were removed. This situation, in fact, continued until quite recently, allowing people with "Cable Ready" NTSC sets to receive the lower 71 channels, including the main HBO and Showtime feeds with no STB or DVR.

The problem with this system is it is not practical to deploy more than 2 or at most 3 channel traps on a drop. What's more, the company must purchase more equipment for the customer who pays the lowest monthly bill. The channel traps also often caused problems with other channels in the spectrum, and there were a number of moderately simple ways to defeat them. Finally, every change in the customer's level of service required a truck roll and a pole climb or an entry into the pedestal.

Around 1980, a number of CATV systems started using a different method, known as "positive passive scrambling". This was quite simple. The company merely placed a very narrow pulsed carrier right in the middle of premium channels. This tore up the video and audio, making the channel unwatchable. If the customer purchased a channel, then a filter, much narrower than the negative channel filters used in the previous scheme was placed in-line. Since these filters provided the channel, rather than deleting it, they could be placed in the customer's house without having to worry about theft of service by removal of tghe filter, and it was somewhat more practical to install 3 or 4 of these traps in the line. The customer could also be given the traps and allowed to install themselves. The issues here. while somewhat less than the negative scrambling, especially for multiple premium channels, still limited the number of premium channels that could practically be deployed. There was also a problem with people stealing the filters. Anyone could steal one and sell it to a basic cable subscriber allowing them to receive that channel without paying for it, and there was no practical way the CATV company would ever know about it. The use of this method also tended to produce noticeable artifacts in the picture, especially if the trap was ever-so-slightly out of tune.

In the middle 1980s, CATV providers began deploying active analog scrambling. With this method, various parts of the video signal went through processing which changed the signal in a way both unexpected by a normal video display and also variable in time. Parts of the video would be delayed or inverted and the video synch signals totally blitzed. An out of band carrier was placed in the spectrum that both notified the converter for which channels the customer was authorized and also what had been done to the signal on each channel so the converter was able to un-do the scrambling and return the signal to its original state. These were the first addressable converters.

As more and more people subscribe to premium channels, more and more of them grew unhappy with having to deal with a CATV company converter. Many were downright incensed that their "Cable Ready" TV, often falsely advertised as being able to receive all premium channels, could not in fact receive all the available channels. Consumers and the Consumer Equipment Manufacturers began demanding a system that would work with all 3rd party equipment, including "Cable Ready" TVs. Meanwhile, the CATV companies continued to demand that they each be able to use their own specific security protocols and equipment. The three groups continued to squabble for nearly 20 years over the issue. Then along had come digital video. Finally, in 1996, the FCC attempted to put their foot down and force the CATV companies to develop a set of standards for separable security which the CE Manufacturers could meet and be guaranteed compatibility, The 3rd party device would have a slot in which the CATV company could insert their own device in order to allow the 3rd party device to receive the signals to which its owner was entitled. The customer facing side of this device would conform to published standards so that the 3rd party device could properly interact with it. Meanwhile, the CATV company facing side of this device would understand the locally developed protocols of the local franchise.



unitron said:


> HBO was first, and they put it on channel 4 because the nearest channel 4 was about 3 hours away.


Most put the premium channels in the mid-band. Of course, there was no law requiring this.



unitron said:


> A few years later, when they'd added cable channels above 13, they added Showtime and Cinemax in there somewhere (18 and 19, I think, but that was 30-40 years ago), and if you wanted them, it didn't matter how cable ready your TV was, you had to rent a set-top box from them that did the unscrambling.


Actually, the first channels to be added were the mid-band channels, between the FM band ending at 104 MHz (channel 6 ends at 84 MHz) and channel 7 starting at 175 MHz. Channels 14 - 22 lie below channel 7, and channels 98 and 99 (more properly called A-2 and A-1) lie below channel 14. Channel 23 lies just above channel 13.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

steve614 said:


> At the very least, they should allow 3rd parties the opportunity to write software that can keep existing boxes functioning.
> To completely brick the boxes is just wrong.


It has nothing to do with software. Someone has to pay Tribune Media every month or they will not allow the service to be received by the box. Tribune will not send updates to the distribution servers (which contact the DVR) unless someone pays every month for the updates.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

slowbiscuit said:


> about Moxis going on the market in Dec. 2008 - these boxes are at most 3 years old and were still being sold last year, so 3-5 year old boxes being bricked after 2013 hardly constitutes a 'lifetime' of service. It's not like they'll be obsolete as HD DVRs anytime soon, cable tech doesn't change that quickly.


Actually, that is exactly what they were expecting. The purchase price was calculated based upon the notion that the average box would only last some short length of time - probably 2 or 3 years. Their business plan relied on the fact the units would not have to receive service more than a limited time. The problem for the consumer is in order for every customer to be potentially able to use the box longer than that, the company has to remain solvent and willing to pay Tribune every month irrespective of the fact the owners are not paying them for the privilege.



slowbiscuit said:


> Arris has to do something to make this right, they can't just brick the units if even if they say less than 5k were sold.


They most certainly can. One can argue they should not, but then they can argue they should, unless the owners are willing to start paying a monthly fee.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

shwru980r said:


> To restrict who can receive a channel, the cable company would cease to broadcast or encrypt the specific channel on a customer by customer basis.


And what device is going to provide that capability? Answer: CableCards (or something functionally identical). Please try thinking about what you are proposing before posting it.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

shwru980r said:


> The cable companies should be required to broadcast the channels in the clear and mapped to the correct guide data. The burden should be on the cable companies to restrict access to specific channels on a customer by customer basis.


Please quit hand waving, and use your head. If the signal is in the clear, then anyone can receive it, and there is no way to restrict anything. The signals have to be encrypted or switched in some way, or access cannot be controlled, period. The only way to allow the CATV company to provide secure decryption / switching of the signal is if they have absolute authority over the decryption device. That either means they deploy only leased STBs / DVRs and do not allow any 3rd party devices to decrypt the signal, or else they have a device of their own that plugs in to the 3rd party device. Technically, it would be possible to set a standard for non-separable security that both they and the 3rd party manufacturers had to rigidly follow, but both they and the 3rd party manufacturers refused to accept such a solution. The FCC could have demanded it, but really, it would be a poor solution. It would lock the entire system into a scenario where upgrades and modifications would be effectively impossible. With separable security, the CATV company can completely change their security setup without forcing all the customers to buy new TVs and DVRs.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> I pretty much agree with everything you said.


You shouldn't. It's utter nonsense.



atmuscarella said:


> I have no idea what infrastructure would be necessary to deliver 2 way digital cable in the clear to a persons home and still be able to only provide the channels they paid for


By definition the two things are physically mutually exclusive. If it is in the clear, then there is no way to limit the reception. If the reception is to be limited, then by definition it is not in the clear. Whether by encryption or by switching (SDV or IPTV), *SOMETHING* has to provide a gateway, and that gateway has to reside at the customer's house. It must be under control of the CATV servers. Now either it will be an external device (STB or DVR), a plug-in device (CableCard or Tuning Adapter), or else the 3rd party device has to be internally under the control of the CATV company. If the latter, then any signifcant changes to the CATV company's infrastructure will potentially cause the 3rd party device to quit working. A pluggable device (or at least pluggable software) is the best option.



atmuscarella said:


> but I am sure it is not what we have now. So the time for the FCC to have regulated how digital cable was delivered would have been before its role out. For those that do know how this works could this have been done through some back office hardware/software when the systems where being setup?


The CableCard is not the issue. What should have happened:

1. The FCC should have mandated the formation of an *INDEPENDENT* standards organization not having any ties whatsoever to the CATV companies. Allowing the CATV companies to form CableLabs was just stupid. It's allowing the fox to guard the hen house.

2. The FCC should not have caved in to the CE manufacturers on the development of a standard for UDCPs. Alternately, if they were going to allow UDCPs to exist, then there should have been a clear, simple, and effective upgrade path mandated so that anyone who purchased a UDCP would have a direct and well supported path to acquire interactive services.

3. The FCC should have required the development of a standard for two-way protocols day one.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

todd_j_derr said:


> That's easy to say in hindsight


Except that I said it when they were deployed. My point is, it was obvious their success was a long shot from the beginning.



todd_j_derr said:


> although of course people have also been predicting Tivo's imminent death for a decade or more.


Except that I have not been one of those people. TiVo's situation is not now and has not been for the last 10 years the same as Moxi's when they started. A friend of mine, a businessman, asked me for a recommendation to expand his computer business in 1998. I told him he should become an Internet Service Provider. A couple of years later he asked me about becoming an ISP. I told him he should not consider it. He said, "But two years ago you said I should become an ISP. You are telling me now I should be glad I didn't take your advice?" My response was, "No, you should have taken my advice two years ago. Now it is too late. Now you would be clobbered by the competition."



todd_j_derr said:


> Given that Tivo offers lifetime service, your arguments about no recurring revenue apply to Tivo as well - although they do have customers who opt to pay monthly.


For lifetime service customers, yes, but that was only one of the nails in the coffin. TiVo is going to have to continue to deal with that one nail. Moxi had many more. As an entrenched concern, TiVo has a huge advantage. Of course, that doesn't guarantee TiVo will survive, either.

The main point here, however, is that it was and is moronic to speak of any new DVR as a "TiVo killer". If TiVo cannot survive, then at this point any new competitor will precede TiVo's demise by a considerable length of time. If the competitor can manage to stay around four or five years, then that might change, but until their subscriber base is on a par with TiVo's, they aren't going to stand a snowball's chance of sending TiVo down the tubes while remaining afloat themselves.



todd_j_derr said:


> In fact I paid them 9,990 dimes upfront, so that characterization is inaccurate. One would assume that Moxi took future service costs into account when setting their prices.


No, one must presume they *ACCURATELY* took future service needs into account, and that in turn is predicated on the assumption that the number of old purchasers is going to remain smaller than the number of new purchasers on a sustainable basis. Clearly, now the number of new purchasers is zero, but even when they were rolling out, that was a dangerous presumption given TiVo's obvious penetration in what was clearly a nearly saturated market.



todd_j_derr said:


> If it turns out that it was a bad deal for them, why should the customers bear the brunt of their poor planning?


Are you asking for an answer from an ethical or a pragmatic viewpoint? I hate to break the news, but this is not a perfect world.

There was a fitness company here in San Antonio that had a large local ad campaign offering discounted memberships with a buy one year for $99 and get two years free offer. On Friday they sold dozens of $99 memberships. On Monday the doors were locked and they had filed for bankruptcy. Is that any different?


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

lrhorer said:


> ...............................
> 1. No one but an utter idiot would want to own the CableCard. It has no functionality anywhere but in the local CATV system.
> ................


It depends on the cost. I've been using cable cards since 2006. Although they were free when I had Comcast, since getting FiOS 4.5 years ago I've paid $3 to $4 for each cable card every month. If the break even point was only two or three years, I would have preferred to buy them myself than pay a rental fee every month. Which of course is no different than other services or devices. I would rather pay for the service or device outright than pay a monthly fee that could possibly exceed an upfront cost by several times that amount.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

shwru980r said:


> The cable companies should be required to broadcast the channels in the clear and mapped to the correct guide data. The burden should be on the cable companies to restrict access to specific channels on a customer by customer basis.


I would love to hear yo describe how exactly such infrastructure works, and is affordable for the customer and provider.

As it seems, it will require one plant per household, or secure addressable traps, will not provide the tier granularity and flexibility cable providers need, nor will provide interactive services.

The only practical way, (from at least cost) for a provider to do pay TV is to have one signal all or mosty encrypted, delivered to all or a large number of homes , and decrypt paid for channels with a conditional access system (CAS) per set or set-top device, which is told what channels it can decrypt (or more accurately, issued keys for those channels.)

To have provider agnostic consumer owned devices directly access encrypted channels, there are three ways to that. Those are a separable security unit to fit whatever CAS is used, a "soft" CAS, where different software is installed based on the CAS of the provider, or one standard CAS scheme, with all devices built for it.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

If the cableCos want to encrypt everything, which greatly benefits them but not the consumer, the FCC should say fine - but the tradeoff is that you have to make AllVid work, in addition to letting people have a couple of free HD DTAs.

Same with the satCos, and U-Verse/FIOS.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> It depends on the cost. I've been using cable cards since 2006.


Only if one assumes an indefinite longevity or an improbably low purchase price. Your point is taken though. Certainly I am not happy to have had to fork out $180 a year for more than 3 years. It is unlikely, however, that TW Cable would have sold them for less than $40 each, and if I had jumped off them to Grande - as I keep threatening to do - that $180 or more would have been just as much down the tubes. Now that they have dropped the price to $2 per CableCard, it's even less of a compelling notion.



aaronwt said:


> Although they were free when I had Comcast, since getting FiOS 4.5 years ago I've paid $3 to $4 for each cable card every month. If the break even point was only two or three years, I would have preferred to buy them myself than pay a rental fee every month. Which of course is no different than other services or devices. I would rather pay for the service or device outright than pay a monthly fee that could possibly exceed an upfront cost by several times that amount.


Again, your point is taken. Assuming the purchase cost will exceed the projected lifespan of the product multiplied by the rental rate, however, one is not financially better off, and potentially may spend a good bit of money for a paperweight.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

slowbiscuit said:


> If the cableCos want to encrypt everything, which greatly benefits them but not the consumer


That's specious. Encryption does benefit the consumer. Content costs money, and those costs have to be passed to the consumer. If the consumer is to be allowed to only purchase only the content in which he is interested, then there must be some way to deliver specific content to each household. The only alternatives are to force deliver all the content to every subscriber and make them all pay for all the content - which is neither desirable nor ethical, or else to not deliver any specialized content at all - which is definitely not desirable for most subscribers.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

lrhorer said:


> That's specious. Encryption does benefit the consumer. Content costs money, and those costs have to be passed to the consumer. If the consumer is to be allowed to only purchase only the content in which he is interested, then there must be some way to deliver specific content to each household. The only alternatives are to force deliver all the content to every subscriber and make them all pay for all the content - which is neither desirable nor ethical, or else to not deliver any specialized content at all - which is definitely not desirable for most subscribers.


Well I haven't seen where they were not going to provide the currently unencrypted content to everyone as part of the base package so all encrypting it does is force everyone who only wants the base package to pay for a cable boxes or a device that uses cable cards.

The only way I see it could possible benefits customers is if it reduces theft AND increase revenue from people who some how were stealing the basic service so much that their cable service costs are reduced.

My guess is, it is more likely that the world ends tomorrow.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Yep, and they're going to pass on the savings from reduced theft to us, right? Right???


----------



## WizarDru (Jan 18, 2005)

lrhorer said:


> Sigh. I see I have to give another CATV engineering lecture.


Fascinating. This explains a lot to me about how our cable used to work years back. Thanks for taking the time to detail this.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

slowbiscuit said:


> Yep, and they're going to pass on the savings from reduced theft to us, right? Right???


Unlike solid media reducing theft of digital media doesn't same anyone $$. You have to increase sales to those who were stealing the digital media to make any $$ difference.

I understand in some high density housing areas you can have people tapping into other peoples cable lines and actually steal cable but in my area there really isn't allot of high density housing so I would guess theft is fairly low, especially because in most areas you can get those same channels with an antenna for free.

It would be interesting to see if a cable system did encrypt everything if they saw any increase in new cable subscribers or not.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

atmuscarella said:


> Well I haven't seen where they were not going to provide the currently unencrypted content to everyone as part of the base package so all encrypting it does is force everyone who only wants the base package to pay for a cable boxes or a device that uses cable cards.
> 
> The only way I see it could possible benefits customers is if it reduces theft AND increase revenue from people who some how were stealing the basic service so much that their cable service costs are reduced.
> 
> My guess is, it is more likely that the world ends tomorrow.


It's like forcing every car to have an ignition interlock device installed, regardless if the owner has ever been convicted of drunk driving or even consumes alcohol at all. Encryption treats everyone like they are a criminal.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

shwru980r said:


> It's like forcing every car to have an ignition interlock device installed, regardless if the owner has ever been convicted of drunk driving or even consumes alcohol at all. Encryption treats everyone like they are a criminal.


A better analogy would be forcing all financed or leased cars to have remotely controlled interlocks. Late on your monthly bill - your car gets shuts down until your account is back in good standing.

The way that I understand it, encryption allows the cable company to remotely control who gets service via a STB/DVR or Tivo w/ cablecards.
If the cable companies were required to broadcast without encryption, that opens them up to theft of service. They would have to make routine checks on every access point to make sure no one has tampered with them. I think that would use up a lot of man hours and gas.

Picture a pedestal where the main cable comes in and is capable of feeding 12 apartments. 
Without encryption, all I would have to do is break in to that pedestal (it's not hard - (TWSS)) and remove the blocking coupler on the line to my apartment (Of course I would do other apartments as well so I wouldn't single myself out ).
Bam! I get cable channels I don't pay for.
With encryption, there's no point for me to go to the trouble since I don't have the necessary cable equipment.

Encryption does treat everyone like they are criminals, but it saves on resources.

Edit: Sorry for contributing to this off topic subject. I forgot what thread I was in.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

And that saving on resources makes the service overall cost less than if they had to manually control access to non-encrypted channels on a per customer basis, and ensure honest compliance.

With that, if the basic tiers were encrypted, the cost of dealing with traps and truck rolls to disconnect customers would be eliminated. What would likely happen to bills, is they would not go up as much, or even stay the same. It would be doubtful they go down. 
Truck rolls would only happen to maintain plant, repair faulty drops, and connect new homes, or homes not connected for some time.


----------



## Joe01880 (Feb 8, 2009)

Verizon has said towards the end of the year they will have a new "gateway" device coming with a central server feeding much smaller more energy effcient boxes. 
The fact they are calling it "gateway" has me wondering if it might be they are crawling into bed with Arris/Moxi for their STB and software needs. I have not read anything concrete on that, im just wondering at this point.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> Well I haven't seen where they were not going to provide the currently unencrypted content to everyone as part of the base package so all encrypting it does is force everyone who only wants the base package to pay for a cable boxes or a device that uses cable cards.


Your point escapes me.



atmuscarella said:


> The only way I see it could possible benefits customers is if it reduces theft AND increase revenue from people who some how were stealing the basic service so much that their cable service costs are reduced.


Then you need to open your eyes. Even if everyone were essentially honest, the only way to deliver the specific services one wants and nothing else is to either encrypt or switch the content. I happen to be willing to pay for all the HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, Movie Channel, MGM, and other premium channels. My neighbor may be either unwilling or unable to pay for all that. Only by encrypting or switching the channels and selling them to me and not my neighbor can the CATV company meet both our desires without either charging my neighbor more than they should or else not delivering the content I want to me.

This is not a difficult idea. None of us should have to pay for anything we do not wish to consume, yet each of us should have all the content for which we are willing to pay. The only way to accomplish this is for the channels to be either encrypted or switched (or both).


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> Unlike solid media reducing theft of digital media doesn't same anyone $$. You have to increase sales to those who were stealing the digital media to make any $$ difference.


True, and I know of no means to accurately measure the effect. It is not really relevant to this discussion, although it is true the CATV companies are truly paranoid about service theft.



atmuscarella said:


> I understand in some high density housing areas you can have people tapping into other peoples cable lines and actually steal cable but in my area there really isn't allot of high density housing so I would guess theft is fairly low


You guess wrong, and badly so. Even basic cable is stolen regularly, and it does not require "tapping into other people's cable lines". I beseech you to learn something of the technology before blathering on about what can and cannot be done, and what is or is not done on a regular basis.



atmuscarella said:


> , especially because in most areas you can get those same channels with an antenna for free.


*NOTHING* is free, and OTA services are far from being inexpensive, let alone free. The salient point, however, is basic and / or analog cable in most cities consists of on the order of 50 - 100 channels (here it is 72 channels). No city has anything like 100 OTA channels.



atmuscarella said:


> It would be interesting to see if a cable system did encrypt everything if they saw any increase in new cable subscribers or not.


I would expect not much. I could be wrong, but in any case it is not relevant to the discussion at hand, either way.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

steve614 said:


> The way that I understand it, encryption allows the cable company to remotely control who gets service via a STB/DVR or Tivo w/ cablecards.


Yes. That is to say, it is how modern digital encryption works. In the past, it required a truck roll. OTOH, it is also not the whole of what digital encryption allows. It not only allows the CATV company to remotely determine who gets what, it allows the consumer to remotely determine what he wants. It allows the consumer to press a button on his remote control to order VOD or IPPV content, and in some markets to even order or cancel specific CATV services. 'No need for a truck roll or even a phone call. Just press the button and BOOM!, you have Showtime. Press the button again, and BOOM!, you have turned off HBO. You start receiving Showtime and quit receiving HBo instantly, and next month your bill reflects the changes.



steve614 said:


> If the cable companies were required to broadcast without encryption, that opens them up to theft of service. They would have to make routine checks on every access point to make sure no one has tampered with them. I think that would use up a lot of man hours and gas.


No, it makes it impossible even to sell them as a differential service. If they are broadcast int he clear, then eveyone gets them, period, no theft involved. Of course the CATV company could rely on everyone who does not pay for a service to not watch the service, even though they receive it. Yeah, that would work. 



steve614 said:


> Picture a pedestal where the main cable comes in and is capable of feeding 12 apartments. Without encryption, all I would have to do is break in to that pedestal (it's not hard - (TWSS)) and remove the blocking coupler on the line to my apartment (Of course I would do other apartments as well so I wouldn't single myself out ).


That is still encryption. As I mentioned above this was known as "negative passive scrambling". A lot of theft did go on, and it did not necessarily require removing the channel traps. There were a number of ways the channel traps could be defeated. More to the point, however, my local CATV system offers something on the order of 500+ premium and interactive channels. The interactive channels simply cannot exist without a digital switching system, and putting something like 300 channel traps in the average subscriber drop just won't work.



steve614 said:


> Encryption does treat everyone like they are criminals, but it saves on resources.


By that silly logic, everyone who uses a key to start their car or has a lock on their from door is treating the rest of the world like a criminal. It's just a stupid notion.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

shwru980r said:


> It's like forcing every car to have an ignition interlock device installed, regardless if the owner has ever been convicted of drunk driving


First of all, no it isn't, but I certainly support such a device.



shwru980r said:


> or even consumes alcohol at all. Encryption treats everyone like they are a criminal.


Are you being deliberately obtuse, or just typing to see yourself type? I take it you leave your front door wide open when you go on vacation? That leave your tablet, smart phone, and laptop in your car unattended and in plain view with the windows rolled down and the doors unlocked whne you go to the grocery store? If not, then you obviously think you have the right to treat everyone like they are a criminal, but the CATV company does not.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

lrhorer said:


> First of all, no it isn't, but I certainly support such a device.
> 
> The device exists. You are free to have one installed at your expense.
> 
> Are you being deliberately obtuse, or just typing to see yourself type? I take it you leave your front door wide open when you go on vacation? That leave your tablet, smart phone, and laptop in your car unattended and in plain view with the windows rolled down and the doors unlocked whne you go to the grocery store? If not, then you obviously think you have the right to treat everyone like they are a criminal, but the CATV company does not.


Poor analogy.

I take responsibility for my own personal security. I don't expect the security guard at the store to stand watch over my car or personal belongings. I don't expect a policeman to guard my residence.

I expect the same from the cable company. Instead the cable company has the force of law to require the customer to complete final assembly of third party devices and perform quality assurance testing to ensure the customer isn't watching a channel they didn't pay for.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

lrhorer said:


> Your point escapes me.
> 
> Then you need to open your eyes. Even if everyone were essentially honest, the only way to deliver the specific services one wants and nothing else is to either encrypt or switch the content. I happen to be willing to pay for all the HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, Movie Channel, MGM, and other premium channels. My neighbor may be either unwilling or unable to pay for all that. Only by encrypting or switching the channels and selling them to me and not my neighbor can the CATV company meet both our desires without either charging my neighbor more than they should or else not delivering the content I want to me.
> 
> This is not a difficult idea. None of us should have to pay for anything we do not wish to consume, yet each of us should have all the content for which we are willing to pay. The only way to accomplish this is for the channels to be either encrypted or switched (or both).


You responses in this post and your next post, to my comments seem to not follow my comment.

If the conversation is about encryption as the cable companies are currently do it now versus somehow delivering a clear QAM to each home/apartment I agree with you encryption is needed. However my comments were specifically pointed at are your response to this slowbiscuit post:



slowbiscuit said:


> If the cableCos want to encrypt everything, which greatly benefits them but not the consumer, the FCC should say fine - but the tradeoff is that you have to make AllVid work, in addition to letting people have a couple of free HD DTAs.
> 
> Same with the satCos, and U-Verse/FIOS.


Which I took to be talking about the current proposal to encrypt the currently unencrypted basic level channels.

You can tell me all the tech you want about cable delivery but I stand by my belief that encrypting the basic level will provide no benefit to the consumer and will negatively impact some and yes these are pretty much the same channels that most people can receive by plugging an antenna into anything with a digital OTA receiver for no subscription costs. So yes I doubt very much that many people in my low density area are going out of their way to steal this service.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

lrhorer said:


> By that silly logic, everyone who uses a key to start their car or has a lock on their from door is treating the rest of the world like a criminal. It's just a stupid notion.


Poor analogy,

The locks for cars are integrated into the car. The individual owner controls access to the car.

The owner doesn't have to obtain a lock for their car from an independent company and have it paired with their vehicle.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

classicsat said:


> And that saving on resources makes the service overall cost less than if they had to manually control access to non-encrypted channels on a per customer basis, and ensure honest compliance.
> 
> With that, if the basic tiers were encrypted, the cost of dealing with traps and truck rolls to disconnect customers would be eliminated. What would likely happen to bills, is they would not go up as much, or even stay the same. It would be doubtful they go down.
> Truck rolls would only happen to maintain plant, repair faulty drops, and connect new homes, or homes not connected for some time.


But the cable companies were requiring truck rolls for cable cards until recently. Now the customer must roll their vehicle to the cable company to obtain the cable card. I see no resource savings here. The customer must connect and disconnect their self without compensation.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

shwru980r said:


> But the cable companies were requiring truck rolls for cable cards until recently. Now the customer must roll their vehicle to the cable company to obtain the cable card. I see no resource savings here. *The customer must connect and disconnect their self without compensation.*


In other words the customer does EXACTLY the same thing they would do if they picked up a cable company DVR or box at the office. The fact that the customer goes through the same motions for a CableCARD or a Company box shows that at THIS point in time they have reached equality.

IMO as stated before, there are no technical failures in the CableCARD flowchart that would not meet your desired result, but you're so hung up on the "CableCARD=BAD" mantra that came from the CableCARD POLITICAL failures in the system that you've been blinded to the fact that it was your answer from a TECHNICAL standpoint.

Of course this discounts the "I'll hold my breath until they remove all encryption" approach which you seem to have made a requirement for any solution.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

shwru980r said:


> But the cable companies were requiring truck rolls for cable cards until recently. Now the customer must roll their vehicle to the cable company to obtain the cable card. I see no resource savings here. The customer must connect and disconnect their self without compensation.


You are confusing Cablecards with encryption altogether.

What I am saying is that when a conditional access decryption device is installed in a customers home, then it is used to control access to programming remotely, rather than send all the programming "in the clear", and have truck rolls to change traps when somone wants to change their subscription package.


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

shwru980r said:


> Poor analogy.
> 
> I take responsibility for my own personal security. I don't expect the security guard at the store to stand watch over my car or personal belongings. I don't expect a policeman to guard my residence.
> 
> I expect the same from the cable company. Instead the cable company has the force of law to require the customer to complete final assembly of third party devices and perform quality assurance testing to ensure the customer isn't watching a channel they didn't pay for.


The cable company is taking responsibility for ITS own property and liabilities, and that is the delivery of services to those who pay for it. They are protecting their property, just as you would protect your car. They lock it up.

Anything sent "In The Clear" must be the lowest common denominator of all service. And since cable companies now offer internet / phone, the lowest common denominator of service is no longer Broadcast Basic....

Cheers!
-Doug


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

dstoffa said:


> The cable company is taking responsibility for ITS own property and liabilities, and that is the delivery of services to those who pay for it. They are protecting their property, just as you would protect your car. They lock it up.
> 
> Anything sent "In The Clear" must be the lowest common denominator of all service. And since cable companies now offer internet / phone, the lowest common denominator of service is no longer Broadcast Basic....
> 
> ...


Just because they offer something beyond basic basic, analog channels 2-13 only, basic cable doesn't mean all of their customers subscribe to it, so it seems to me that the lowest common denominator remains as low as ever.

Of course that's the easiest thing to "steal" because it doesn't require any special equipment or decoders other than an old B&W NTSC TV.


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

unitron said:


> Just because they offer something beyond basic basic, analog channels 2-13 only, basic cable doesn't mean all of their customers subscribe to it, so it seems to me that the lowest common denominator remains as low as ever.
> 
> Of course that's the easiest thing to "steal" because it doesn't require any special equipment or decoders other than an old B&W NTSC TV.


Typically if you want any video service from your cable company, you MUST subscribe to Broadcast Basic. On my cable system, even that level of service is no longer sent down the pipe as analog.... It's all Clear QAM. So, no NTSC for me without a converter box...

Since you CAN subscribe to, say, internet service only, if you were to use a TV with an ATSC tuner, you could steal Broadcast Basic, unless that level too was encrypted. Cablevision in NYC has received authority from the FCC to encrypt ALL video service, including Broadcast Basic. Their case? Reduces truck rolls, and prevents theft of service. Now all video subscribers of any level need a cable-card compatible converter box to view the channels they subscribe to.

The least common denominator is no video service.

Cheers!
-Doug


----------



## larrs (May 2, 2005)

I haven't been keeping up with this thread; can someone please tell me what the last two pages on encryption have to do with Arris putting the Moxi systems down?

Maybe just how encryption is related to this discussion?

Thanks


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

If a private company wants to encrypt the data and content they are distributing, that is fine with me. If they want to charge me a fee to unlock the data and content they are spending money to transport, that is fine with me. If I am unhappy with the arrangement or I think it costs to much, I can choose another data and content transporter.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

larrs said:


> I haven't been keeping up with this thread; can someone please tell me what the last two pages on encryption have to do with Arris putting the Moxi systems down?
> 
> Maybe just how encryption is related to this discussion?
> 
> Thanks


Try substituting Moxi for the word encryption. Not perfect, but it does give you some interesting points. And some meaningless points.


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

daveak said:


> If a private company wants to encrypt the data and content they are distributing, that is fine with me. If they want to charge me a fee to unlock the data and content they are spending money to transport, that is fine with me. If I am unhappy with the arrangement or I think it costs to much, I can choose another data and content transporter.


In many regions, cable companies operate without equivalent competition...


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

larrs said:


> I haven't been keeping up with this thread; can someone please tell me what the last two pages on encryption have to do with Arris putting the Moxi systems down?


The current status is in the OP, I have been keeping it updated - Arris first said that guide data would be shut down at end of 2013 on the Moxi website, then waffled and said it 'might be kept if enough users cared', then completely backtracked and took down the notice, saying it won't be discontinued.

You can read into that whatever you want, but if I had a Moxi I'd be looking to unload it, perhaps when the new Ceton DVR and extender comes out.

The rest of this stuff is just OT talk because the controversy died down when Arris reversed course.


----------



## diamond.g (Dec 17, 2008)

Out of curiosity, why wouldn't Video over IP be a reasonable solution? ACLS can be controlled server side?


----------

