# Tivo and U-Verse? Could it be true?



## Kc54 (Mar 17, 2013)

In typical fashion while discussing a phone issue, the AT&T rep begins his spiel about U-Verse. So I stop him at the beginning on the part where he says "other products" and inform him that I am not interested in U-Verse. He politely asked why and I proceeded to inform him that I have been a Tivo customer since the beginning and wasn't about to give up on them now regardless of how badly the people at Charter treat me (great topic for the next post). I continued to explain that when AT&T makes a product that is compatible with my Tivo I would consider it. I even volunteered that more customer service reps should take lessons from the folks at AT&T... 
...and that's when he said it. He said "we are now". I heard the words "memo last week" and "cable cards are coming soon". As he explained it, I must retain my cable card through my cable company but the U-Verse product would indeed work through my Tivo. Now this great representative of the U-Verse is either a wonderfully blossoming idiot or my hero. I do not know which just yet; hence this post.
Is there anyone out in Tivoland that could help clarify the subject matter of this thread? Has anyone heard of such a thing as Tivo working with something other than cable or is this information new and unannounced to the general public from the great and mighty AT&T? 
I allowed him to go ahead and schedule an installation despite my skepticism and they will be here next Saturday to inform me of the good or bad news. 
Thoughts and comments please.


----------



## MeInDallas (Jul 31, 2011)

I'll go ahead and inform you of the bad news now. That cable card you have is going to have to be returned to the cable company when you cancel your cable, and the newer Tivo's that require cable cards will not work with Uverse. They love to argue the point when trying to make the sale that they do indeed work, but you will have to use Uverse equipment if you have Uverse service. You need to call and cancel right away if you want to use Tivo still.


----------



## MeInDallas (Jul 31, 2011)

This is off the Tivo website.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Pure and simple, you were flat out lied to. Not only is this fraud, he also told you to commit a criminal act by retaining the CableCARDs. Of course if you make an issue of it, the salesperson will deny ever having said anything of the kind.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

Technically, the AT&T rep is correct in telling you that you can use *a Tivo* with U-verse.
What he's NOT telling you, is that you would have to use an older SD (Series 2) Tivo and use it to control a U-verse STB.


----------



## Kc54 (Mar 17, 2013)

I'm not calling to cancel, I'm going to make them come to my home and explain to me that it won't work. I told the sales guy three times the situation and if he couldn't understand in clear language that I was calling him ignorant then his supervisors maybe can explain it better to him.
I've read the specifications on the Tivo website and they do indeed state very clearly that Tivo is not compatible with U-Verse.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

steve614 said:


> Technically, the AT&T rep is correct in telling you that you can use *a Tivo* with U-verse.
> What he's NOT telling you, is that you would have to use an older SD (Series 2) Tivo and use it to control a U-verse STB.


That might be a slightly plausible explanation if it weren't for the fact that the AT&T rep told him he needed to keep the CableCARDs.


----------



## jcthorne (Jan 28, 2002)

Well, I suppose if your idea of a good time is arguing with an ATT uverse installer that will be blind sideded with a requirement he has no knowledge of or ability to handle, the by all means waste both your and ATT's time and money. You will also have great fun getting the billing straighend out after the install fails. Or worse if you let them install anything.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

jcthorne said:


> Well, I suppose if your idea of a good time is arguing with an ATT uverse installer that will be blind sideded with a requirement he has no knowledge of or ability to handle,


It's certainly not the OP's fault. The AT&T sales rep shouldn't have mis-represented what U-verse is capable of. They deserve to have their time and money wasted.

_________________________________________________________________

When the installer arrives, play dumb. When he tells you that what you want to do is not possible, get all mad at him and start arguing that the sales rep told you it WAS possible. If you remember the sales rep's name, make sure you mention it. Have the installer make a note on the service ticket -- "<name of sales rep> purposely mis-informed the customer in the attempt to make a sale".
Set up a video camera and make a big production. Then post it to YouTube for everyone here to enjoy. 

Maybe if more people did this, AT&T would get their sh** straight.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

steve614 said:


> It's certainly not the OP's fault. The AT&T sales rep shouldn't have mis-represented what U-verse is capable of. They deserve to have their time and money wasted.
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> 
> ...


A lot (most?) of the "AT&T" sales reps don't work for AT&T. It's possible that the installers don't either and thus AT&T isn't out any money at all. Arguing with the installer is a complete waste of your time.

To the OP: If you have any way of recording a phone conversation, call them back, tell them you are recording, and ask them to explain exactly how you can connect a TiVo that uses a CableCARD to U-verse. You might also consider contacting your cable provider and tell them what is going on.

I hope you didn't have to give them a credit card number. If you did, good luck preventing them from charging you for the install and possibly even service.


----------



## Kc54 (Mar 17, 2013)

It's not a waste of my time or $$, I'm going to be home anyway and I simply won't allow them in my home to do an install if it is not possible to work. What I do hope to do through all of this is prove a point to AT&T that if they want to employ such aggressive sales tactics they should be prepared to back it up. It is in their training for all of their reps to push the u-verse product. 
In the end I would love to see the tv industry embrace TiVo and choose to want to work with them and we can all get along in a kozy peaceful world just like Rodney King imagined it would be. 
The cable companies treat us like **** because they can. When the day does come that AT&T does embrace TiVo I believe the cable providers will scramble to win back all the TiVo users from the exodus.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

I take it then that you enjoy arguing with someone to no purpose and that you have absolutely no other way to utilize the time. Arguing with an installer is functionally equivalent to arguing with a brick wall. I also hope that the installer doesn't make any changes outside before even ringing your doorbell.

The only reason that your cable company even supports TiVo at all is that they are _*required*_ to by FCC regulations. Since U-verse is not considered to be cable TV, it is not subject to those regulations.

Unless enforceable IPTV standards are developed and Tivo chooses to make the h/w and s/w mods to support those standards, TiVos will _*never*_ work with U-verse.


----------



## Kc54 (Mar 17, 2013)

Ipwcomp,
Who said I wanted to argue with an installer?
Not sure how you reached your logic on that one. 
Btw, what exactly does the signature under your name represent?


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Kc54 said:


> Ipwcomp,
> Who said I wanted to argue with an installer?
> Not sure how you reached your logic on that one.


What makes you think that if you do this:


Kc54 said:


> I'm not calling to cancel, I'm going to make them come to my home and explain to me that it won't work.


... you won't end up arguing with the installer?



Kc54 said:


> Btw, what exactly does the signature under your name represent?


I take it you don't watch "Burn Notice".

In your case, I think a quote from "The Princess Bride" is more apropos:

"Have fun storming the castle."


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

lpwcomp said:


> A lot (most?) of the "AT&T" sales reps don't work for AT&T. It's possible that the installers don't either.


Fair point.

Edit: I just think it would be funny if Kc54 DEMANDED that AT&T make good on what they claimed. 
Then, when they can't do what they claimed was possible, file complaints with the BBB and any other outlet available.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

What comical about all this is that TiVo is making money due to the court settlement with AT&T and the money TiVo receive go up when the number of subs for [email protected] increases. Why not just officer the customer a TiVo U box if your already paying TiVo money.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

What did the installer do to deserve getting caught in the middle of this?


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

unitron said:


> What did the installer do to deserve getting caught in the middle of this?


Nothing. You'll just run down an innocent party.

For the record I just registered to support that my UVerse has been giving me intermittent pixelation and drop-outs on HD content for a week or so. They have a self-help built in that offers to have a rep call you. I got a call in 3 minutes.

Self test looks good. Reboot. Trouble shooting., We don't see anything wrong but we'll send a tech.

Tech called in 30 minutes. Came out within a an hour. THIS IS SUNDAY. ST. PATRICK'S DAY.

He sees that I know my stuff and have the place wired right with twisted pair. Did a thorough test of my signal inside and out. GAVE ME A NEW, current, smaller, RG just because it might be better.

Try THAT with Comcast, where I was out for 5 days after a truck crew decided that my connection didn't look right and set fire to it - and they wouldn't take an outage report from me and then - "SIR! IT'S THE WEEKEND!"

Again, my goal in the first place was to have them note that we may be having bandwidth issues to the VRAD.

I'm happy with UVerse and I AM using my SD TiVos an an Elgato HD box with it.


----------



## Davisadm (Jan 19, 2008)

I live in an area where cable and Uverse are available (no FIOS). While doing the initial setup with the TiVo box, after entering my Zip Code, it asked if I am using Time Warner or AT&T Uverse! I remember thinking that was strange, since I knew Uverse was not compatible. Maybe something is going to change in the near future.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Davisadm said:


> I live in an area where cable and Uverse are available (no FIOS). While doing the initial setup with the TiVo box, after entering my Zip Code, it asked if I am using Time Warner or AT&T Uverse! I remember thinking that was strange, since I knew Uverse was not compatible. Maybe something is going to change in the near future.


What model TiVo?


----------



## Davisadm (Jan 19, 2008)

lpwcomp said:


> What model TiVo?


Premiere 45 & XL4


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

I always find it amusing all the complaints we have about services we really would not want to live without. While I certainly believe companies in the service business (which cable companies are) should focus on actually providing the service well that they are offering just remember you could live where I live and be in a: 

FIOS free zone
AT&T Uverse free zone
Cable TV free area
Public water and sewer free zone
All carrier 4G free zone

I get electricity, telephone with DSL, and spotty 3G (Verizon is the only 3G option) cell service, if you go 1 mile up my road you will also be in a DSL free zone.

I would really like to be able to complain about my bad cable service


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

atmuscarella said:


> I always find it amusing all the complaints we have about services we really would not want to live without. While I certainly believe companies in the service business (which cable companies are) should focus on actually providing the service well that they are offering just remember you could live where I live and be in a:
> 
> FIOS free zone
> AT&T Uverse free zone
> ...


How's the OTA?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

unitron said:


> How's the OTA?


Pretty good reception most of the time. I have ABC, CBS, CW, ION, NBC, Fox, & PBS in HD plus a bunch of SD sub stations. Before I went HD I had Dishnetwork and DirectTV is also an option, so getting Pay TV isn't really an issue - high speed Internet is the issue. Right now I have Frontier DSL it works fine for basic Internet surfing and streaming SD content, HD content is ify and it certainly couldn't handle multiple streams at once. Upload speeds are so slow (.5 mg/sec +/-) that it is impossible to use cloud storage or access my local content from other locations through the Internet.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

atmuscarella said:


> Pretty good reception most of the time. I have ABC, CBS, CW, ION, NBC, Fox, & PBS in HD plus a bunch of SD sub stations. Before I went HD I had Dishnetwork and DirectTV is also an option, so getting Pay TV isn't really an issue - high speed Internet is the issue. Right now I have Frontier DSL it works fine for basic Internet surfing and streaming SD content, HD content is ify and it certainly couldn't handle multiple streams at once. Upload speeds are so slow (.5 mg/sec +/-) that it is impossible to use cloud storage or access my local content from other locations through the Internet.


Well, if you want cable TV and cable internet, you could always start your own company to do it your area and whoever's got the nearest franchise will probably try to move in on your area.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

unitron said:


> Well, if you want cable TV and cable internet, you could always start your own company to do it your area and whoever's got the nearest franchise will probably try to move in on your area.




It is funny how thinks have changed. When I was growing up we had 4 channels and a black and white TV, I remember when Fox started up we were all so excited to have another channel and they played re-runs of Star Trek so I loved it. When I decided to build my house (we were Dairy farmers and I built on a nice lot on my parents farm) cable had just come to my town the year before so I really wasn't paying any attention to it plus if you really wanted "cable" TV at the time your could buy a large dish system and it was free, several of my neighbors had them.

If I was building now I would build where there is access to cable high speed Internet (my Grandfathers farm was in the cable zone so I could have built there just liked the view better where I did build). Maybe wireless will improve and solve the availability of high speed Internet issue in Rural areas but right now my friends that have to use Verizon 3G pay allot and are limited to 5GBs per month and satellite Internet is worse.


----------



## MitchW (Jun 5, 2002)

I have my old TiVo sitting in my crawl space. I've been using ATT Uverse for years. I was hoping TiVo finally linked to UVerse. Evidently, its not so.

For me nothing beats UVerse.

TiVo would have to build a special unit just for UVerse. Maybe they will sometime in the future.


----------



## justen (May 1, 2002)

Davisadm said:


> I live in an area where cable and Uverse are available (no FIOS). While doing the initial setup with the TiVo box, after entering my Zip Code, it asked if I am using Time Warner or AT&T Uverse! I remember thinking that was strange, since I knew Uverse was not compatible. Maybe something is going to change in the near future.


TiVo gets its guide data, including provider and channel lineups, from Tribune Media Services. You'd probably see any provider designated as a "cable" provider. That would include U-verse, FiOS, and sometimes condos or hotels nearby that have custom channel lineups.


----------



## nmiller855 (Sep 26, 2000)

I had an old Philips Series 1 TiVo hooked up to Uverse. I had to set up recordings every 4 hours to keep Uverse from going to sleep. They replaced the gateway a few times & after many service calls we finally went back to DirecTv. I'm much happier using my DitecTiVos.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Kc54 said:


> What I do hope to do through all of this is prove a point to AT&T that if they want to employ such aggressive sales tactics they should be prepared to back it up. It is in their training for all of their reps to push the u-verse product.


AT&T is a corporation; an entity that only exists on a piece of paper. I assure you that you will not teach anything to a piece of paper. I'm not being pedantic just for the sake of being pedantic. The only thing to which something can be proved is a human being, in this case someone who works at AT&T. Presumably this would be someone who can actually effect wide spread changes in the organization. If you think the CEO of a company that regularly hauls in up to $60,000,000,000 every three months is gong to hear about the failure of a $100 install, you are totally nuts.



Kc54 said:


> In the end I would love to see the tv industry embrace TiVo


Why would the TV industry do that? For that matter, what does the TV industry have to do with it?



Kc54 said:


> When the day does come that AT&T does embrace TiVo I believe the cable providers will scramble to win back all the TiVo users from the exodus.


It is not that simple. Could a U-Verse compatible TiVo be built? Yes, but it would be a very different one than the one you have.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

steve614 said:


> Fair point.
> 
> Edit: I just think it would be funny if Kc54 DEMANDED that AT&T make good on what they claimed.


He can demand all he wants. It's just not going to make much difference.



steve614 said:


> Then, when they can't do what they claimed was possible, file complaints with the BBB and any other outlet available.


It would not surprise me if the BBB gets over 100,000 complaints about AT&T a month. Exactly what is the BBB going to do?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

steve614 said:


> Fair point.
> 
> Edit: I just think it would be funny if Kc54 DEMANDED that AT&T make good on what they claimed.
> Then, when they can't do what they claimed was possible, file complaints with the BBB and any other outlet available.


LOVE IT. That would be awesome. AT&T is a wretched POS on the landline side, and would deserve every bit of it.



MitchW said:


> I have my old TiVo sitting in my crawl space. I've been using ATT Uverse for years. I was hoping TiVo finally linked to UVerse. Evidently, its not so.
> 
> For me nothing beats UVerse.
> 
> TiVo would have to build a special unit just for UVerse. Maybe they will sometime in the future.


How do you put up with the horrible video quality? Substandard equipment? Slow internet speeds? U-Verse is a horrendous POS. Comcast is decent, but I'm jealous of Verizon FIOS.



MitchW said:


> I have my old TiVo sitting in my crawl space. I've been using ATT Uverse for years. I was hoping TiVo finally linked to UVerse. Evidently, its not so.
> 
> For me nothing beats UVerse.
> 
> TiVo would have to build a special unit just for UVerse. Maybe they will sometime in the future.


WRONG. A TiVo Premiere can decode MPEG-4, and a software update on TiVo's end and on AT&T's end would make it work on their system through Ethernet. However, I highly doubt THAT will happen.



lrhorer said:


> It is not that simple. Could a U-Verse compatible TiVo be built? Yes, but it would be a very different one than the one you have.


It's called a Premiere. It just needs a software update, and it would work with U-Verse through Ethernet, but it would require AT&T's cooperation, as U-Verse is not an open system like cable.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Bigg said:


> WRONG. A TiVo Premiere can decode MPEG-4


So can a Series III. That is not the issue.



Bigg said:


> a software update on TiVo's end and on AT&T's end would make it work on their system through Ethernet. However, I highly doubt THAT will happen.


It's more than just a software update.



Bigg said:


> It's called a Premiere. It just needs a software update, and it would work with U-Verse through Ethernet, but it would require AT&T's cooperation, as U-Verse is not an open system like cable.


There may or may not be some hardware limitations here ( I think not), but the issues are far more wide ranging than just writing a little extra code. It's more like nearly an entire re-write of the whole platform, and that is the easy part. The legal issues are monumental, and they involve more than just AT&T and TiVo.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> So can a Series III. That is not the issue.
> 
> It's more than just a software update.
> 
> There may or may not be some hardware limitations here ( I think not), but the issues are far more wide ranging than just writing a little extra code. It's more like nearly an entire re-write of the whole platform, and that is the easy part. The legal issues are monumental, and they involve more than just AT&T and TiVo.


Yes, there would be significant contract issues between AT&T and TiVo, as there is no open platform like CableCard to just plug into. Technically speaking, however, it's not hard. AT&T would just have to give TiVo access to their system.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

Bigg said:


> Yes, there would be significant contract issues between AT&T and TiVo, as there is no open platform like CableCard to just plug into. Technically speaking, however, it's not hard. AT&T would just have to give TiVo access to their system.


I really have to wonder how AT&T and satellite are immune from having to use cable card or some method to allow access to their systems. I guess the FCC does not require it yet. Hopefully they will.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

magnus said:


> I really have to wonder how AT&T and satellite are immune from having to use cable card or some method to allow access to their systems. I guess the FCC does not require it yet. Hopefully they will.


There's no way to put CableCard on a satellite system and certainly not on an IPTV system. They could mandate a gateway or something, but I think the logic is that because cable is the incumbent monopoly, they have to support third party hardware. FIOS ended up under the CableCard mandate, since it was legally written based on technology, not incumbency, and Verizon used a QAM256 cable system.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

Bigg said:


> There's no way to put CableCard on a satellite system and certainly not on an IPTV system. They could mandate a gateway or something, but I think the logic is that because cable is the incumbent monopoly, they have to support third party hardware. FIOS ended up under the CableCard mandate, since it was legally written based on technology, not incumbency, and Verizon used a QAM256 cable system.


The problem here is that the FCC fail big time. What should have happen is that the FCC should have banned ALL the cable, satellite, and telephone companies from selling or leasing ANY set top box. WE should have been allow to buy a set top box from anyone be it TiVo, Apple, Roke, Cissco, or Microsoft. The box should be useable on ANY system. Would we end it paying more for the set top box, maybe who knows. We would be paying less for the video service due to competition.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Johncv said:


> The problem here is that the FCC fail big time. What should have happen is that the FCC should have banned ALL the cable, satellite, and telephone companies from selling or leasing ANY set top box. WE should have been allow to buy a set top box from anyone be it TiVo, Apple, Roke, Cissco, or Microsoft. The box should be useable on ANY system. Would we end it paying more for the set top box, maybe who knows. We would be paying less for the video service due to competition.


Doesn't Canada do something like that with their cable systems ?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Johncv said:


> The problem here is that the FCC fail big time. What should have happen is that the FCC should have banned ALL the cable, satellite, and telephone companies from selling or leasing ANY set top box. WE should have been allow to buy a set top box from anyone be it TiVo, Apple, Roke, Cissco, or Microsoft. The box should be useable on ANY system. Would we end it paying more for the set top box, maybe who knows. We would be paying less for the video service due to competition.


That a technologically tough sell. And a support nightmare for Comcast or Verizon or anyone with their average idiot customers.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Johncv said:


> The problem here is that the FCC fail big time. What should have happen is that the FCC should have banned ALL the cable, satellite, and telephone companies from selling or leasing ANY set top box. WE should have been allow to buy a set top box from anyone be it TiVo, Apple, Roke, Cissco, or Microsoft. The box should be useable on ANY system. Would we end it paying more for the set top box, maybe who knows. We would be paying less for the video service due to competition.


A different way to word *almost* the same idea: Satellite (and any other TV provider, e.g. U-Verse) shouldn't have a waiver from the Cable Card mandate. If *everyone* had to abide by the same Cable Card (or call it some other term) technology, then companies could build "one device to rule them all", even if it had to have multiple "tuners" (not necessarily tuners, but e.g. equipment to deal with IPTV too).

It's not QUITE the same idea, since I don't think the providers should be prohibited from selling/leasing their equipment.. It should just be POSSIBLE to always get the equipment otherwise.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

mattack said:


> A different way to word *almost* the same idea: Satellite (and any other TV provider, e.g. U-Verse) shouldn't have a waiver from the Cable Card mandate.


They do not have a "waiver". They don't need one.



mattack said:


> If *everyone* had to abide by the same Cable Card (or call it some other term) technology, then companies could build "one device to rule them all", even if it had to have multiple "tuners" (not necessarily tuners, but e.g. equipment to deal with IPTV too).


And what pray-tell would be the legal basis for this? The FCC does not have unlimited power. Maybe when U-verse was first starting out they could have ruled that it was functionally equivalent to cable TV and thus subject to the same sort of regulations but there is no way they would get away with changing their initial ruling at this point. Satellite companies are in no way subject to FCC control for these purposes.


----------



## MeInDallas (Jul 31, 2011)

When Time Warner goes to IPTV how will this affect their subscribers? Will they be able to force their equipment on to us, like how AT&T does? Does everything change once they go to IPTV as far as cable cards go?


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

At one point the idea of IPTV intrigued me. But more I think about it now the less I like it. It will mean that content providers could well be able to dictate exactly how customers have to watch commercials (like Hulu Plus for example). Also means they can completely prevent archiving of shows (if you want to watch somewhere not internet connected). Also means charging per show is possible or ISPs switching to charging per GB similar to cell phone data plans. A lot of room for mischief...


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

It would be a technical nightmare to use CableCard with IPTV or satellite. That's why the whole gateway idea came around, but no one has gotten around to really implementing it. The MSOs like the box fees, but I think the bigger thing is that it's a support nightmare for a tiny proportion of customers. And then TiVo is the only off the shelf option for CableCard, with MCE being the only other one at all. If U-Verse and DirectTV just got TiVo, then no one would care (THR22 doesn't count, as it's so badly crippled).


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

lpwcomp said:


> They do not have a "waiver". They don't need one.


Yes, they have a waiver from the cablecard mandate, to provide security separate from tuning ability.

The FCC has power over satellite providers JUST like it has power over cable companies. I never said they had unlimited power.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

mattack said:


> Yes, they have a waiver from the cablecard mandate, to provide security separate from tuning ability.
> 
> The FCC has power over satellite providers JUST like it has power over cable companies. I never said they had unlimited power.


What legislation gave them the authority to regulate IPTV and satellite providers? And from what part of the _*Cable*_CARD regulations did a non-cable provider need a wiaver?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

lpwcomp said:


> What legislation gave them the authority to regulate IPTV and satellite providers? And from what part of the _*Cable*_CARD regulations did a non-cable provider need a wiaver?


The original regulation did included Satellite providers. The regulation didn't require "cable cards" it required a universal access solution, "cable cards" were the solution the industry came up with. The satellite companies were successful in paying off - sorry lobbying the correct Gov. Officials and got themselves exempted from the regulation.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Yes, thanks, I knew someone would try to pick on the term 'cable' in cablecards.

I presume whatever legislation gives authority over ANY wireless broadcasts is what gives them authority over satellite.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

mattack said:


> Yes, thanks, I knew someone would try to pick on the term 'cable' in cablecards.
> 
> I presume whatever legislation gives authority over ANY wireless broadcasts is what gives them authority over satellite.


It is stil the case that they did not receive a "waiver". In particular, AT&T did not receive one _*since they never asked for one.*_ They simply are not covered by the CableCARD regulations. Nor are the satellite companies.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

lpwcomp said:


> It is stil the case that they did not receive a "waiver". In particular, AT&T did not receive one _*since they never asked for one.*_ They simply are not covered by the CableCARD regulations. Nor are the satellite companies.


No idea about AT&T but the Satellite companies are covered and did receive an exception.

From Wikipedia:

The portion of the 1996 Telecom law which resulted in the creation of CableCARDs is known as Section 629, instructing the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to:

"...assure the commercial availability to consumers of multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems, of converter boxes, interactive communications equipment, and other equipment used by consumers to access multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems, from manufacturers, retailers, and other vendors not affiliated with any multichannel video programming distributor."

*Multichannel video programming refers to cable or satellite television. *​


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> No idea about AT&T but the Satellite companies are covered and did receive an exception.
> 
> From Wikipedia:
> 
> ...


That's section (a). What matttack specifically referred to - separable security - comes under section (b), which AT&T claimed didn't apply to them since they don't send every channel to every location.

In any case, waivers under either section are supposed to only be granted "for a limited time". Either the FCC is using the government definition  of "limited time" or there is something else at work, at least in the case of AT&T. Possibly they contend U-verse is not a "multichannel video programming system" as far as the law is concerned. Has this ever been adjudicated? Part of the problem is that the courts have more or less ruled that consumers lack standing to sue to force government agencies to do their job unless they can show a specific tort.

There's also this:

"(f) COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY- Nothing in this section shall be
construed as expanding or limiting any authority that the
Commission may have under law in effect before the date of
enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996."

I have no idea what the heck that means when it comes to IPTV or satellite.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

lpwcomp said:


> That's section (a). What matttack specifically referred to - separable security - comes under section (b), which AT&T claimed didn't apply to them since they don't send every channel to every location.
> 
> In any case, waivers under either section are supposed to only be granted "for a limited time". Either the FCC is using the government definition  of "limited time" or there is something else at work, at least in the case of AT&T. Possibly they contend U-verse is not a "multichannel video programming system" as far as the law is concerned. Has this ever been adjudicated? Part of the problem is that the courts have more or less ruled that consumers lack standing to sue to force government agencies to do their job unless they can show a specific tort.
> 
> ...


from the link you provided it sure sounds like AT&T believes that their IPTV system does not meet the legal definition of "Multichannel video programming". Given that the FCC has not seemed to push the issue I am guessing they agree.

I have no idea why the Satellite companies have been successful in maintaining their exemption from using cable cards. When I had dishnetwork they actual had a access card that went into their STB just like a cable card that was needed to have their STBs unscramble the signal. I do not know if there is some technical reason they couldn't have used the same encryption that the cable companies use, but I am guessing they just didn't want to and got the FCC to go along.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Well, DirecTV can say that the availability of DirecTiVos meets the requirements of section (a). Dish - totally inexplicable.

Then there's this from January.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> from the link you provided it sure sounds like AT&T believes that their IPTV system does not meet the legal definition of "Multichannel video programming". Given that the FCC has not seemed to push the issue I am guessing they agree.
> 
> I have no idea why the Satellite companies have been successful in maintaining their exemption from using cable cards. When I had dishnetwork they actual had a access card that went into their STB just like a cable card that was needed to have their STBs unscramble the signal. I do not know if there is some technical reason they couldn't have used the same encryption that the cable companies use, but I am guessing they just didn't want to and got the FCC to go along.


Interfacing the tuners with a satellite system to a third party box would be a nightmare, and would require tuners for each provider that it is compatible with.

I think the FCC just doesn't care enough, or is too weak to fight them. They also aren't cable or satellite. Since FIOS is cable, they had to do it.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

What would make more sense is to require that regular (non-DVR) boxes use either Firewire or Ethernet with a standardized encryption scheme to be able to feed other devices, and that there is a model with X number of tuners (maybe 3 or 4) available just to act as a tuning device, and then pass the digital stream on to another device. You used to be able to do this for some channels with a few Firewire boxes, but that was a tiny niche in the very early days when D-VHS was around.

With that system, if it was on Ethernet, it would just like have an HDHomeRun for satellite or IPTV. Then TiVo or Microsoft or anyone else could tap into it and make their own DVR platform.

Oh wait, I just described the whole "gateway" thing that hasn't gone anywhere.

The real problem is consumer demand. DirecTV, AT&T, DISH, etc, would make a gateway if they saw consumer demand and an active third-party DVR market, but it just isn't there. People want "free" hardware (those are some series air quotes when you look at TCO), and like cell phones, are too stupid to calculate TCO or look at the UX.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

lpwcomp said:


> That's section (a). What matttack specifically referred to - separable security - comes under section (b), which AT&T claimed didn't apply to them since they don't send every channel to every location.


You're right, sorry, I did not mean to exactly claim that U-Verse is _already_ covered in the same way.

But I personally think it *should* be covered in the same way.

That is also separate from my claim (that I still believe) that DISH/DirecTV _could_ have been covered by what ended up as CableCard, but have a waiver.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

mattack said:


> That is also separate from my claim (that I still believe) that DISH/DirecTV _could_ have been covered by what ended up as CableCard, but have a waiver.


Based on that recent court decision, perhaps not. I know it wasn't *exactly* the same issue, but it is close, particularly when you consider the final paragraph of the article (emphasis mine):

"In its objection, Dish argued that the FCC lacked authority to impose the standards on _*satellite providers*_. The court agreed."


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Bigg said:


> Interfacing the tuners with a satellite system to a third party box would be a nightmare, and would require tuners for each provider that it is compatible with.


While Dish and Direct use different tuners it certainly would not be a nightmare to build boxes with those tuners in them in fact you can buy one know with the same tuners that Dishnetwork uses now - it is called a FTA satellite STB it just can not unscramble Dish programing as Dish does not allow it and there still is a DirectTV TiVo so it certainly isn't difficult or that costly.

If the FCC grew a pair and required a universal software solution TiVo could offer the tuners for both satellite providers as an external add on with little difficulty.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Bigg said:


> There's no way to put CableCard on a satellite system and certainly not on an IPTV system.


There is no way to do so in any existing system, but systems could certainly be designed that supported them. It's not going to happen without intervention by the FCC.



Bigg said:


> They could mandate a gateway or something, but I think the logic is that because cable is the incumbent monopoly, they have to support third party hardware.


Frankly, the logic - if there ever was any - escapes me.



Bigg said:


> FIOS ended up under the CableCard mandate, since it was legally written based on technology, not incumbency, and Verizon used a QAM256 cable system.


Actually, not. Verizon's participation is voluntary. They decided it was in their best interest, at least for their QAM delivery system.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Bigg said:


> Yes, there would be significant contract issues between AT&T and TiVo, as there is no open platform like CableCard to just plug into. Technically speaking, however, it's not hard. AT&T would just have to give TiVo access to their system.


The point is the engineering issues are only a small part of it, and AT&T and TiVo are not the only ones with their finger in the pie.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

I have an ideal, can someone write a petition explaining what we all would like or should be done and (after we all review it ) put it up on the White House petition website. then we ask everyone on this forum and all video forums we can find to sign it. Maybe we can get enough people to sign it and then the President would have to address the issue. Anyone up to it?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> While Dish and Direct use different tuners it certainly would not be a nightmare to build boxes with those tuners in them in fact you can buy one know with the same tuners that Dishnetwork uses now - it is called a FTA satellite STB it just can not unscramble Dish programing as Dish does not allow it and there still is a DirectTV TiVo so it certainly isn't difficult or that costly.
> 
> If the FCC grew a pair and required a universal software solution TiVo could offer the tuners for both satellite providers as an external add on with little difficulty.


You have to deal with various multiswitch systems and other complications. Also, there is no DirecTV TiVo. The THR22 is a DirecTV DVR with TiVo software loaded on top of it.



lrhorer said:


> There is no way to do so in any existing system, but systems could certainly be designed that supported them. It's not going to happen without intervention by the FCC.
> 
> Frankly, the logic - if there ever was any - escapes me.
> 
> Actually, not. Verizon's participation is voluntary. They decided it was in their best interest, at least for their QAM delivery system.


The logic makes sense. Almost no one is forced to use DirecTV. Some people are forced to use cable because whatever MDU they live in only has cable. In my case, I could have chosen a south-facing apartment, and they don't care if you put a dish outside the porch, and I have two cable companies, but that's not always the case. If there's one incumbent, and you're stuck with them, this gives you choice. If you don't like DirecTV, you can almost always switch to another provider.

Verizon fell under the CableCard law, since they are regulated as cable.



Johncv said:


> I have an ideal, can someone write a petition explaining what we all would like or should be done and (after we all review it ) put it up on the White House petition website. then we ask everyone on this forum and all video forums we can find to sign it. Maybe we can get enough people to sign it and then the President would have to address the issue. Anyone up to it?


Let's focus on getting more and better CableCard gear out there first. The market has shown that there is barely any demand for CableCard on the cable side, so it's going to be a hard sell for satellite when the number of people who would use it would be so tiny.


----------



## h0mi (Dec 29, 2007)

How is it that the premiere works with verizon Fios but not Uverse? I was under the impression the 2 services were identical but apparently not? Some clarification please?


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

h0mi said:


> How is it that the premiere works with verizon Fios but not Uverse? I was under the impression the 2 services were identical but apparently not? Some clarification please?


They are actually quite different. U-Verse is IPTV, Verizon FIOS uses QAM, just like other cable providers.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

FiOS does use IP delivery for their VOD.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> FiOS does use IP delivery for their VOD.


I fail to see the relevance of that.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

lpwcomp said:


> I fail to see the relevance of that.


Most cable providers use QAM for VOD delivery and TV channels. FiOS only uses QAM for the TV channels and IPTV for VOD delivery. While Uverse uses IPTV for delivery of both.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> Most cable providers use QAM for VOD delivery and TV channels. FiOS only uses QAM for the TV channels and IPTV for VOD delivery. While Uverse uses IPTV for delivery of both.


Still not relevant to the discussion at hand.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lpwcomp said:


> Still not relevant to the discussion at hand.


Yes it is. It explains why TiVo works with linear channels on FIOS and not on U-Verse.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Bigg said:


> Yes it is. It explains why TiVo works with linear channels on FIOS and not on U-Verse.


How FIOS does VOD is most certainly _*NOT*_ relevant and "explains" nothing.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

lpwcomp said:


> They are actually quite different. U-Verse is IPTV, Verizon FIOS uses QAM, just like other cable providers.


Additionally, for most areas, U-Verse is only fiber to the node, with DSL the rest of the way. FIOS is fiber to the premises.

(There are a very select few areas where U-Verse does fiber to the premises. These are very rare exceptions. AT&T more or less abandoned fiber to the premises rollout back when it was still SBC.)

Still not directly relevant to how a TiVo *might* work with the service, but it does help to partially explain why there are differences in the services.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lpwcomp said:


> How FIOS does VOD is most certainly _*NOT*_ relevant and "explains" nothing.


It absolutely does.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Bigg said:


> It absolutely does.


What does it explain?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lpwcomp said:


> What does it explain?


Why FIOS works the way it does and why it's VOD doesn't work with TiVo.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Bigg said:


> Why FIOS works the way it does and why it's VOD doesn't work with TiVo.


Nonsense. Except for a few Comcast and Cox(?) areas, a TiVo doesn't work with _*any*_ providers VOD. It's only been available in any Comcast area for a little over a year and only on Premieres.

Finally, the post that led to this particular discussion was a question about why a TiVo will work on Verizon FIOS but not on U-verse. How FIOS does VOD is most certainly _*not*_ relevant to that.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lpwcomp said:


> Nonsense. Except for a few Comcast and Cox(?) areas, a TiVo doesn't work with _*any*_ providers VOD. It's only been available in any Comcast area for a little over a year and only on Premieres.
> 
> Finally, the post that led to this particular discussion was a question about why a TiVo will work on Verizon FIOS but not on U-verse. How FIOS does VOD is most certainly _*not*_ relevant to that.


I've lost track of what this discussion was, other then people trolling my post claiming it was irrelevant. How FIOS does VOD is rather relevant, as it explains how the whole FIOS system works. If you're just looking at linear video, then you can't understand the whole FIOS system.

Cable VOD is QAM, so it is easier to implement. I guess Verizon could allow TiVo onto their VOD system if they wanted, it would just take a little more effort, like U-Verse. Several small MSOs have it working on their rented Premieres.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Bigg said:


> I've lost track of what this discussion was, other then people trolling my post claiming it was irrelevant. How FIOS does VOD is rather relevant, as it explains how the whole FIOS system works. If you're just looking at linear video, then you can't understand the whole FIOS system.
> 
> Cable VOD is QAM, so it is easier to implement. I guess Verizon could allow TiVo onto their VOD system if they wanted, it would just take a little more effort, like U-Verse. Several small MSOs have it working on their rented Premieres.


*Sigh* Since VOD requires two way communication, how does the fact that Cable VOD is QAM make it any easier to implement? The fact is that while Comcast On-demand data streams are delivered via QAM using a standard coax cable connection, they are authorized and controlled via back-channel IP.

Since TiVos already have the capability to stream video via a network connection, I would think that in some ways it would be _*easier*_ to implement VOD on a system that uses IP as its delivery mechanism.

And again, VOD simply is not relevant to any discussion in this thread except the one we are having which you engendered with your comment about FIOS using IP for VOD. The only thing that is relevant is that they use QAM delivered via coax for linear channels, which is why a TiVo will work, Even if they delivered VOD the same way, it still wouldn't work on a TiVo.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

13 posts (14 including mine) about how a post is not relevant.

Are the 14 posts better or worse than ignoring the supposedly non-relevant post?

Or is having the argument more fun for you guys?

This whole thread should have been two posts long:
"Can you use an HD-capable TiVo with U-Verse?"
"No."
The end.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Arcady said:


> 13 posts (14 including mine) about how a post is not relevant.
> 
> Are the 14 posts better or worse than ignoring the supposedly non-relevant post?
> 
> ...


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lpwcomp said:


> *Sigh* Since VOD requires two way communication, how does the fact that Cable VOD is QAM make it any easier to implement? The fact is that while Comcast On-demand data streams are delivered via QAM using a standard coax cable connection, they are authorized and controlled via back-channel IP.
> 
> Since TiVos already have the capability to stream video via a network connection, I would think that in some ways it would be _*easier*_ to implement VOD on a system that uses IP as its delivery mechanism.
> 
> And again, VOD simply is not relevant to any discussion in this thread except the one we are having which you engendered with your comment about FIOS using IP for VOD. The only thing that is relevant is that they use QAM delivered via coax for linear channels, which is why a TiVo will work, Even if they delivered VOD the same way, it still wouldn't work on a TiVo.


Maybe your first two points are right, I don't know. It boils down to what software is how hard to write.

However, your third is dead wrong, but since you don't have the intellect to ask questions and figure out why things work the way you do, and to look at the big picture, you're not going to have the intellect to figure out why I mentioned that in this thread. You have your little horsey blinders on, and I guess you're going to keep making the same ignorant and intellectually imbecile point no matter what I say, even though in the context of the thread, the point that I was defending (which wasn't even mine) clearly and obviously added value to the discussion of why FIOS works with TiVo and U-Verse does not.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Arcady said:


> 13 posts (14 including mine) about how a post is not relevant.
> 
> Are the 14 posts better or worse than ignoring the supposedly non-relevant post?
> 
> ...


If you want to understand what your are dealing with read this full post

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=502641


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Bigg said:


> However, your third is dead wrong, but since you don't have the intellect to ask questions and figure out why things work the way you do, and to look at the big picture, you're not going to have the intellect to figure out why I mentioned that in this thread. You have your little horsey blinders on, and I guess you're going to keep making the same ignorant and intellectually imbecile point no matter what I say, even though in the context of the thread, the point that I was defending (which wasn't even mine) clearly and obviously added value to the discussion of why FIOS works with TiVo and U-Verse does not.


Nice ad hominem.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lpwcomp said:


> Nice ad hominem.


Yes, it was ad hominem. It was well deserved since I long ago proved the point (like 10 times over).


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Bigg said:


> Yes, it was ad hominem. It was well deserved since I long ago proved the point (like 10 times over).


I might make a formal complaint if I put any store in your opinion or I thought anyone did.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

Not worth it.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Agreed.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lpwcomp said:


> I might make a formal complaint if I put any store in your opinion or I thought anyone did.


Whatever. Have fun b*tching and moaning about what people post.


----------



## Jim5506 (Oct 3, 2004)

ATT Uverse is totally different from cable TV in that the ATT Uverse "tuner" does not receive all the stations and select the one you want to watch, it tells the head-end which IP channel to send and that ONE channel is sent to the box.

The ATT Uverse DVR is capable of receiving 4 of said IP channels (not really channels just IP streams).

It is NOT a multi-channel gobbledygook whatever that makes it a cable company by definition, because it can only receive 4 IP streams simultaneously, it is more like a ROKU with 4 Ethernet ports, 4 outputs and a hard drive to record the streams passing through if requested.

IF ATT Uverse was forced to fall under cable universal usage rulings, they your PC with an Ethernet port and/or wireless would probably fall under it by the same reasoning - NO WAY!!

NO cablecard is going to work with ATT Uverse because cable cards are made for decoding QAM and the ATT Uverse stream(s) is(are) nowhere anything like QAM they are IP packets very similar to Netflix.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Jim5506 said:


> ATT Uverse is totally different from cable TV in that the ATT Uverse "tuner" does not receive all the stations and select the one you want to watch, it tells the head-end which IP channel to send and that ONE channel is sent to the box.
> 
> The ATT Uverse DVR is capable of receiving 4 of said IP channels (not really channels just IP streams).
> 
> ...


Sort of. U-Verse is still an MVPD, and uses a private IP network, not the public internet. So yes, it's like the internet in the sense of being IP-based, but it's still on a private network... The CableCard replacement will include IPTV and satellite.


----------



## warrenn (Jun 24, 2004)

I was redoing my cable lineup, and when the screen came to select my provider, ATT Uverse was one of the choices. I don't have Uverse to try it out, but does anyone know what that choice does?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

warrenn said:


> I was redoing my cable lineup, and when the screen came to select my provider, ATT Uverse was one of the choices. I don't have Uverse to try it out, but does anyone know what that choice does?


You can still use Series 2 TiVos with ATT Uverse, Dish, & Direct STBs. That is my "guess" on why the option is there.


----------



## warrenn (Jun 24, 2004)

atmuscarella said:


> You can still use Series 2 TiVos with ATT Uverse, Dish, & Direct STBs. That is my "guess" on why the option is there.


I have the TiVo HD. Would Tivo show the Uverse option even if it wasn't valid for my system?


----------



## jrtroo (Feb 4, 2008)

They simply did not change the code base to cover it. Extra work to remove and treat differently for something that should never be used.


----------

