# CableCARD article on CNET



## ScratchFury (Feb 12, 2005)

http://news.com.com/2100-1033_3-6194323.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-5&subj=news

The Digeo Moxi has been discussed previously if you're like me and missed it:

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=353966&highlight=moxi


----------



## drcos (Jul 20, 2001)

> But as of March, only 259,000 CableCards have been installed, according to the National Cable & Telecommunications Association.
> The cable industry argues that this is an indication that there is little demand for CableCard-enabled devices.


A mandated service that is not advertised by any cable company is going to have 'little demand.'
Even for those of us who know what they are and ask for them, the companies try to talk us out of them.



> "Consumers don't seem to want the competition in the set-top market,"


There really isn't any competition right now, except for TiVo.
Several television set manufacturers are removing the slots in their new model year sets (Mitsubishi for one), a step backwards.
And as I said above, even when you want a card, the company will try to talk you out of it, and two out of three installers have called the cards a PITA and would just as soon they go away - however they did change that opinion when they saw them working (and the PQ) in the S3.



> The other major issue is that the current version of CableCard technology does not allow for two-way communication between the device and the cable network.


This has been discussed in other posts and articles on the net. This statement is simply not true. Especially in the case of the S3, it is the host device which is not communicating back to the headend through the card.

Don't worry, just like with the electric cars, you don't own them, so when the industry wants them to go away, they'll take them back.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

drcos said:


> There really isn't any competition right now, except for TiVo.


There was more competition, but the profit wasn't there. I still don't think it is there. Just look at all the complaints, here on TCF, about TiVo's pricing. Complaints about the pricing offered by a company that is barely making any money! No wonder no other manufacturers want to get involved.



drcos said:


> Several television set manufacturers are removing the slots in their new model year sets (Mitsubishi for one), a step backwards.


Reflecting the fact that it really isn't what the Average Joe wants.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

For "cable cards" to really have worked well the FCC would have had to force everyone (including satellite) to use them and they would also have to stop satellite and cable companies from including the cost of STBs and DVR/STBs in the cost of programing. Satellite is using DVR/STBs as nothing more than loss leaders and the cable companies aren't much better. How many people will really buy another STB or DVR/STB when the satellite/cable company gives you one for free (or for a fee below cost) and changes the same for programing even if you have your own STB or DVR/STB? It's pretty hard for competition to work in this environment. 

If the cablesatellite companies had been forced to cover the whole cost of their DVR/STBs from their rental few and the satellite providers had been forced to support cable card I think TiVo Series 3 sales would have been substantially different and we might have already seen other players in the market. 

Thanks,


----------



## vstone (May 11, 2002)

To reallly work, the FCC should have required all TV's to have cablecard slots, just as they are required to have ATSC tuners. The argument that most people won't use cablecards may or may not be true, but most new TV's will never use their FCC required ATSC tuner, either.

To really work, the FCC needed to have considered the software interface as well as the piece of hardware. Have said that, I don't know what the software interface looked like in 1996 since I was dumb & happy with my analog "cable-ready" TV.

I agree about satellite STB's.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

bicker said:


> Reflecting the fact that it really isn't what the Average Joe wants.


The Average Joe doesn't even know about it. That's why he doesn't "want" it, not because of the technology.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> For "cable cards" to really have worked well the FCC would have had to force everyone (including satellite) to use them and they would also have to stop satellite and cable companies from including the cost of STBs and DVR/STBs in the cost of programing.


Yep. The cable TV service bill happens to go up $10, but wait, you get a DVR for free!


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

vstone said:


> To reallly work, the FCC should have required all TV's to have cablecard slots, just as they are required to have ATSC tuners. The argument that most people won't use cablecards may or may not be true, but most new TV's will never use their FCC required ATSC tuner, either.


Well, be careful. The ATSC tuner isn't required either. It's only required if there is an NTSC tuner. And that really raises a question in my mind, given how television makers have moved away from CableCard: Why aren't they producing a lot of models without any tuners at all?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MickeS said:


> The Average Joe doesn't even know about it. That's why he doesn't "want" it, not because of the technology.


There's no effective difference. Furthermore, I see no evidence indicating that if Average Joe knew about the technology that it would make the slightest bit of difference.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

> There's no effective difference. Furthermore, I see no evidence indicating that if Average Joe knew about the technology that it would make the slightest bit of difference.


Right and the average Joe didn't know he wanted a cell phone that can do what the current ones can when cell phones came out either. Until there is true competition in the STB market place we have no idea what can be developed and we have no idea what people will want until it becomes available and the market finds out if people want it. Given the cable/satellite industries attempt to prevent an open STB market I am guessing they think someone might want an STB that isn't one of theirs  .

Thanks,


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

bicker said:


> There's no effective difference. Furthermore, I see no evidence indicating that if Average Joe knew about the technology that it would make the slightest bit of difference.


Wow. You have never heard people be slightly irritated with having to use cable boxes for the digital channels? Having to rent multiple cable boxes if they want to be able to record one digital channel and watch another? Having to use two remotes or program a cable box remote for each TV in order to control volume and channel changing from one remote? Having to pay a box fee for each box?

What if the CableCARD standards had been worked out quickly and CableCARDs and the TVs now had bi-directional, multi-tuner functionality, that let the users have the TV remote for each TV, a built-in EPG in all their TVs, no external cable boxes by each TV, AND at a lower cost than renting the cable box?

Yeah, clearly, that would not make the slightest bit of difference. Everyone would still be scrambling to have cable boxes for each TV, multiple remotes and pay more. Obviously, the cable companies know this and thus are doing what's best for the consumers. How silly of me to think otherwise.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

But there is no reason to believe that Average Joe won't want to pay for it up-front. Wishful thinking, on your part.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> There's no effective difference. Furthermore, I see no evidence indicating that if Average Joe knew about the technology that it would make the slightest bit of difference.


it will when the average Joe can not just connect his cable to the back of the TV and use the TV remote to surf channels on live TV.

since this "average Joe" is really defined by analog cable right now and can hook up VCRs and TVs very simply they indeed do not know the coming storm of digital cable.

and we all know that cable companies have *actively* opposed introduction of cable card not because of cost or technical problems but for the simple reason they loose control of digital requirement for needing a STB from the cable company and thus PPV and VOD. you can trot out your arguments about market forces and capital costs and yada yada but I have seen nothing to convince me that it was naught but the cable companies that are killing this open access standard, since the sat companies got their easy dodge of having to provide a standard open access to the digital l stream of media from a provider.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> ... I have seen nothing to convince me that it was naught but the cable companies that are killing this open access standard, since the sat companies got their easy dodge...


In other words, satellite is no different. No one wants to run a sub-optimal enterprise.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

bicker said:


> Well, be careful. The ATSC tuner isn't required either. It's only required if there is an NTSC tuner. And that really raises a question in my mind, given how television makers have moved away from CableCard: Why aren't they producing a lot of models without any tuners at all?


My 42" lcd has no tuner at all.. they call in an HD Monitor...

No need to pay more for stuff I don't need..


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

And so I still wonder why that's not more prevalent. It just seems, given that video connections aren't likely to change over time, while the peculiarities associated with tuners (including things like CableCard and SDV) are likely to, that manufacturers reflect this by componentizing more.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> In other words, satellite is no different. No one wants to run a sub-optimal enterprise.


you can try and dodge the issue all you want, but the average joe is unaware he is about to be shafted for more STBs and more fees when analog cable goes dark. Of course that is alright since it is just the cable company out to make more money which is how it should be


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

> Originally Posted by *bicker*
> And so I still wonder why that's not more prevalent. It just seems, given that video connections aren't likely to change over time, while the peculiarities associated with tuners (including things like CableCard and SDV) are likely to, that manufacturers reflect this by componentizing more.


I am guessing that integrated digital tuners have become fairly cheap as volume has ramped up. But the idea of monitor only sets seems like it would appeal to high end user that will have some type of media center device driving the monitor instead of individual video sources. On the other side of the coin its hard to beat the cost and quality of OTA HD so selling a set that requires an external STB could be a problem for the mass market.

Thanks,


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

> Originally Posted by *ZeoTiVo*
> you can try and dodge the issue all you want, but the average joe is unaware he is about to be shafted for more STBs and more fees when analog cable goes dark. Of course that is alright since it is just the cable company out to make more money which is how it should be


To be fair the FCC is pushing this and the OTA analog to digital conversion is what is forcing the tech to change. There isn't any reason basic digital shouldn't (at some point) work like basic analog once a person has a digital cable ready TV device. The problem is in the conversion period - at the begining of this digital OTA/cable tuners cost allot and programing was limited so manufactures didn't add the tuners in. Instead people using analog OTA or Cable on a legacy device are going to get stuck using a STB for digital. I agree that cable isn't being forced to go digital but I think between the FCC and market forces they really don't have much choice.

I personally think the sooner everything is 100% digital the sooner we can get on with normalization - running dual (analog/digital) systems only cost money and delays getting to the future. I pretty much watch/record analog OTA and I could live with it being shout down sooner than planned to move this conversion forward to the normalization stage.

Thanks


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

atmuscarella said:


> To be fair the FCC is pushing this and the OTA analog to digital conversion is what is forcing the tech to change. Thanks


a digital tuner in the TV is not enough from a consumer electronics point of view since the first premium channel negates it. Why add the expense when a significant majority of TV owners can not make use of it for premium content? Without a widely deployed and working cable card system TV makers and the like are facing the birthing pains and irate customers. TiVo is in the unenviable position of having to step up now and deal with cable cards right along side the cable industry. The ban on integrated security should have happened two years ago.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Of course that is alright since it is just the cable company out to make more money which is how it should be


Just like the satellite services have been able to do. Fairness restored.


----------



## drcos (Jul 20, 2001)

> Reflecting the fact that it really isn't what the Average Joe wants.


The problem is that the Average Joe doesn't even know what the hell cablecards are, due to an aforementioned and understandable lack of desire on the part of the cable companies to publicize this.

"Hey! Don't pay us any fee for a box, just make sure the TV you buy has a cablecard slot and you can get the same channels without a box!"

"No, thanks, sounds terrible. I'd rather keep renting this crappy box."

And folks are p&m over at CNet about how people are 'misinformed' and the assumption that the biggest reason cablecards are not more widespread is the cable companies, well that's just hogwash. It's the silly consumers!


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Well most folks also don't know what a Hz is, or why they want dem things to be the same in their electical devices.



bicker said:


> Just like the satellite services have been able to do. Fairness restored.


Hey- How about this.

Some cities use 30HZ electricity at 180 volts, and others use 120 Volts DC. Still others use tri phase 150 VAC at 133 1/3 HZ.

If light bulbs in the cities with 180Volts AC cost a lot because there are so few manufacturers of them, well by golly they can always move or set up their own power plant.

Free country.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Justin Thyme said:


> Well most folks also don't know what a Hz is, or why they want dem things to be the same in their electical devices.
> 
> Hey- How about this.
> 
> ...


I think bicker would support that.  What supporters of the "capitalism should have no reins" ilk want would effectively turn the US into a third world country.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

drcos said:


> The problem is that the Average Joe doesn't even know what the hell cablecards are, due to an aforementioned and understandable lack of desire on the part of the cable companies to publicize this.


Indeed, and the cable companies had no such obligation. The *CEA* should have taken responsibility for marketing CableCard, not the MSOs. After all, it was *their* idea in the first place, and they actually had something to gain.



drcos said:


> "Hey! Don't pay us any fee for a box, just make sure the TV you buy has a cablecard slot and you can get the same channels without a box!"


It sure would have been *incredibly idiotic* for cable companies to have done that.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Justin Thyme said:


> Hey- How about this. <snip>


That's pretty much how that industry started out, and remarkably, the market worked that out just fine.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

bicker said:


> That's pretty much how that industry started out, and remarkably, the market worked that out just fine.


I'm pretty sure it was the government that set the rules for that too.



EEI said:


> In 1898, in an address before the National Electric Light Association (the forerunner of Edison Electric Institute), Samuel Insull proposed that electric companies be regulated by state agencies which would establish rates and set service standards. The idea became increasingly appealing to investor-owned companies in the face of public enthusiasm for the growth of municipal electric systems. Privately-owned companies surmised that the public might be more supportive if their companies were regulated so that customer interest would be protected. By 1916, 33 states had regulatory agencies. Early regulation of the industry proved beneficial to both the electric companies and their customers, who got reliable, reasonably priced service without the uncertainties caused by duplicate services and inefficient operations.


http://www.eei.org/industry_issues/industry_overview_and_statistics/history/index.htm#monopoly

Sounds like they just took that model to the cable companies, pretty much. Except that the cable companies refuse to cooperate when it comes to equipment - essentially arguing that only THEIR light bulbs should be used on their system.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

bicker said:


> That's pretty much how that industry started out, and remarkably, the market worked that out just fine.


Oh? You agree that the wise governmental regulation of the electical industry has worked so well that it is where we should be moving to with video delivery?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

> Originally Posted by Justin Thyme
> The ban on integrated security should have happened two years ago.


I agree 100% and would go further to say it should included satellite along with cable.

Thanks,


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MickeS said:


> I'm pretty sure it was the government that set the rules for that too.


Not until later, actually. The original battle, between Westinghouse and Edison, was waged without much government interference, just like VHS and Betamax.



MickeS said:


> Sounds like they just took that model to the cable companies, pretty much. Except that the cable companies refuse to cooperate when it comes to equipment - essentially arguing that only THEIR light bulbs should be used on their system.


And there is no reason not to allow the marketplace determine the winner, instead of government. When and if it becomes a win-win for government to get involved (rather than a win-lose), then that would be the appropriate time for government to step in.

(Of course, we're not talking about lifeline cable... that's a different story these days.)


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Justin Thyme said:


> Oh? You agree that the wise governmental regulation of the electical industry has worked so well that it is where we should be moving to with video delivery?


Actually, it is the *de*regulation of the electrical industry that has worked out so well, recently.


----------



## drcos (Jul 20, 2001)

bicker said:


> Actually, it is the *de*regulation of the electrical industry that has worked out so well, recently.


Just ask any *P*acific *G*reed & *E*xtortion customer, I'm sure they will agree. Unless you are referring to the shareholders, like the majority of the folks who had stock in Enron. OOps, again 

"Hey, that's the U.S. of A. you're talking about, pal." - Lamont Cranston


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Yeah, none of that has anything to do with deregulation of the industry. Enron was selling to traditional regulated parts of the industry as well.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

If the consumer would be better off with regulated monopolies or not is somewhat of an outdated conversation. For better or worse we have been moving towards deregulation in the electric, cable, and telephone industries for years (decades). 

Up until this point it appears that deregulating the electric industry has not benefited consumers and I think the jury is still out on the cable (video content delivery) and telephone industries. 

I do not see how the cable (video content delivery) and telephone industries get to the point where I would say there is enough competition to protect consumers from these industries natural monopolistic tendencies. This fight over having standardized encryption/security standards is a good example of this. Of course having a monopoly or near monopoly is a great business model if you can keep the government out of it, as is getting consumers to use anything that is proprietary. 

While I think having a universal STB that could allow consumers to easily use or switch between the services of multiple video content providers would be great, I think we all could agree that it is not in the cable or satellite companies best interests. 

Thanks,


----------



## pkscout (Jan 11, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> I agree 100% and would go further to say it should included satellite along with cable.


+1

When I can buy a device and then move at will between cable, satellite, and FIOS/FTTN, then there will be real competition. Until then the device is just another way to lock me into their service.


----------



## acvthree (Jan 17, 2004)

bicker said:


> Actually, it is the *de*regulation of the electrical industry that has worked out so well, recently.


You don't live in Texas. Prices have done nothing but go up since deregulation. Oh, you mean "worked out so well for TXU"! Sorry, I was looking at that statement from the consumers perspective.

Al


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

You're right. I don't live in Texas.


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

drcos said:


> Just ask any *P*acific *G*reed & *E*xtortion customer, I'm sure they will agree. Unless you are referring to the shareholders, like the majority of the folks who had stock in Enron. OOps, again


Ohhh, you mean the $0.36 per kWh delivered marginal rate I paid for the final 180kWh on my last electric bill?

Power is NOT cheap in SoCal thanks to the deregulation nightmare and Enron's exploitation of it.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> Indeed, and the cable companies had no such obligation. The *CEA* should have taken responsibility for marketing CableCard, not the MSOs. After all, it was *their* idea in the first place, and they actually had something to gain.
> 
> It sure would have been *incredibly idiotic* for cable companies to have done that.


most of us are not saying the cable companies should unilaterally do something to promote cable cards. we are saying the FCC should do something to put some teeth into enforcing an open standard it is charged with making happen.

I have had a cable company representative lie to me directly and say "they were phasing out cable cards" in order to get me to do something different which is use thier proprietary box. Subsequent remarks by him proved he knew all about the integrated security ban.

The cable companies will not on their own do something that benefits consumers and have shown a remarkable willingness to shaft customers and gouge for profit. Sorry but saying cable companies, or sat companies, should have free reign is like saying you should just lay your wallet on the market stall and let the vendor take what they want.


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> Yeah, none of that has anything to do with deregulation of the industry. Enron was selling to traditional regulated parts of the industry as well.


Not true. Enron played arbitrage type games between those segments. Something that would not have been possible or legal in a stable regulated environment. It was because of the deregulation that they were able to do so. To say otherwise is simply an outright lie.


----------



## angel35 (Nov 5, 2004)

What can you do with a STB with a cable Card slot???


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> most of us are not saying the cable companies should unilaterally do something to promote cable cards. we are saying the FCC should do something to put some teeth into enforcing an open standard it is charged with making happen.


So going back to my suggestion: Why not have the FCC impose a manufacturing and import regulation? If you're going to have regulation, why not use the more efficient, less prone to bias, form of regulation. Have it apply to all equipment for use in the subscription television sector, sold or leased, satellite or cable, big company or small.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

CuriousMark said:


> Not true.


Yes true.  You even admitted it was true in your next sentence. Please try arguing against what I actually say, instead of what is easier to argue against.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

bicker said:


> And there is no reason not to allow the marketplace determine the winner, instead of government.


There are tons of reasons to have the government do it, but you just don't like them.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

The power delivery and the entertainment delivery industries are not the same. You cannot compare the two.

The power company has a monopoly in most areas, maybe a partial oligopoly in a few areas. It's not like there are 80 pairs of power cables just outside your house. So everyone pays the same deliverer every month, and maybe they have a choice as to where the power comes from.

Also, the electric company is a utility, and goverments can regulate utilities as necessary to prevent needless loss of life. The government could also regulate a technology that had such obvious implications for vastly improving the quality of life. Both of these have applied to electricity since it was first "invented". 

The entertainment delivery industry is now a pure oligopoly. It wasn't when the Telecommunications Act was passed back in 1996. There are different delivery methods in place, and different content providers as well, and they all use different devices. Also, it is not a utility. You can honestly live without TV. You really can. 

Governments don't like to regulate oligopolies, as there are too many companies to keep track of. And lately, they also don't like regulating markets that are not essential to life or would immediately result in vast improvements in quality of life. So the government is stuck enforcing an old law that isn't really needed or wanted anymore. So everybody involved is dragging their heels until the law gets overhauled or repealed. 

I won't even get into the fact that hardly anyone wants to make and sell set-top boxes and DVRs because they aren't profitable ....


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

bicker said:


> Not until later, actually. )


Government authorities were involved from the start since wires needed to be strung from poles were on public rights of ways carrying lethal current. Someone has been smoking something if they think gubmint hasn't been heavily involved with electrification from the start.

The issue of standarization came up from the start. Tesla wanted Westinghouse to go with 240VAC because it was optimal. Authorities ruled him out siding with Edison's mark at 120V. It was an interaction, to be sure- and sets a good model for regulation. The reason it is 120V at first was practical- anything more would burn out Edison's filaments. Anything less than 60HZ led to Light flicker. The higher oscillations like 133 1/3 were too high for efficient motors to use.


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> Yes true.  You even admitted it was true in your next sentence. Please try arguing against what I actually say, instead of what is easier to argue against.


I did. Arbitraging between regulated and deregulated segments does depend on one of the segments being unregulated. That is an argument against what you said. Please support your arguments with true statements or qualify them so that they aren't needlessly inflammatory.

[Edit]Sorry for continuing an off topic concept. I will drop it now since it isn't contributing to this really good discussion of what level of regulation should or shouldn't be applied to the last mile of information and entertainment delivery.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

BobCamp1 said:


> Governments don't like to regulate oligopolies..


Well Bob, regulatory theory is not on your side. It is possible to vertically integrate and achieve great efficiencies, but the government does not allow it. Sure, if Ford owned Mobil and all Ford cars required "special" patented fuel from Mobil, such a company would get much higher profits than if separate.

Such a corp would not be a monopoly in the strict sense. Doesn't mean it isn't illegal for the reason of the tremendous market power of such a corp.

Big Time illegal.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MickeS said:


> There are tons of reasons to have the government do it, but you just don't like them.


Actually, sounds to me more like you don't like the way things actually happen in reality.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

BobCamp1 said:


> The power delivery and the entertainment delivery industries are not the same. You cannot compare the two.


Unfortunately, that leads to the following conclusion: Nothing is the same, except things that are identical, therefore nothing can be compared to anything else. 



BobCamp1 said:


> Governments don't like to regulate oligopolies, as there are too many companies to keep track of. And lately, they also don't like regulating markets that are not essential to life or would immediately result in vast improvements in quality of life. So the government is stuck enforcing an old law that isn't really needed or wanted anymore. So everybody involved is dragging their heels until the law gets overhauled or repealed. I won't even get into the fact that hardly anyone wants to make and sell set-top boxes and DVRs because they aren't profitable ....


All good points, Bob.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

> Originally Posted by *BobCamp1*
> I won't even get into the fact that hardly anyone wants to make and sell set-top boxes and DVRs because they aren't profitable ....


It wasn't profitable to make telephones for consumers either when the telephone companies won't allow the consumer to connect anything but a leased telephone company phone to their network. When the government forced the telephone companies to open up their networks to devises that met a universal standard guess what happen?

The STB market is no different, up until this point the cable and satellite companies have had a strangle hold on the market. Until it is actually opened up we have no idea what will be developed or where it will go.

What we do know is that the cable and satellite companies want to prevent an open STB market, you have to ask yourself why does a company like dishnetwork think it is better to give you a high end STB/DVR like the VIP622 for $6/mo instead of letting you use a universal STB/DVR that cost them nothing? Simple they want to control where you purchase content from; an open STB would allow you to purchase content from several sources (like Unbox) a closed STB only gives you the option to purchase content from them.

Thanks,


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

BobCamp1 said:


> I won't even get into the fact that hardly anyone wants to make and sell set-top boxes and DVRs because they aren't profitable ....


this is chicken and egg though. Currently you can only sell DVrs to the companies providing media to the house or go the TiVo route of dealing with various models. TiVo has proved out it is very hard to make a profit in usch an environment, so your point is valid in currnt reality, however current reality has not produced any great results in innovation at all. Still a lot of analog out there and still slow movemnet on the HD front, still a lot of companies telling customers to get bent.

but

what if in 1997 the cable and sat and FIOS delivery companies had moved into an open standard for secure access to the digital stream? What if they had gone even futher and actually had a 2 way standard in 1999? We would all be talking about the S4 or S5 right now; how large CE companies were ripping off or licensing or improving the TiVo design to put on retail shelves.

Just like regulation of 120V does not include rules on how you generate the power, a simple requlation around the secure access would not effect how much HD or what format or how many channels are clear vs encrypted, nore even how they charge for it. Also it woul not mean that sat providers had to change their delivery method. TiVo would still have to account for differneces and might even find that two models made the most sense but it would have allowed TiVo to still be in the Sat market vs a rocky relationship with one and suing another.

Still it is never too late


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> When the government forced the telephone companies to open up their networks to devises that met a universal standard guess what happen?


The market was flooded with telephones of remarkably poor quality. Regardless, it's 2007. The networks have been open for three years. Where are the devices?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> The market was flooded with telephones of remarkably poor quality. Regardless, it's 2007. The networks have been open for three years. Where are the devices?


wow, that is the most biased response I have seen yet. Of course at first only the people that made phones for AT&T knew how to make them well. I can recall campaigns about getting an AT&T branded phone. Seems like that is not the case these days and answering machines are now ubiquitous and other innovations like using phones as in house paging or wireless base stations etc.. are on every retail shelf.

if you want to call horrible, horrible support of cable cards coupled with outright lies and denials by cable companies to the consumer as 3 years of open networks then that statement bears no more credence to the big picture than your first statement


----------



## ScratchFury (Feb 12, 2005)

Cable company: We have them, but it just seems customers don't want CableCARDs.
Customer: But if I wanted one, I could still get one right?
Cable company: Sure.
Customer: Okay, well, I'll take one.
Cable company: You do realise that a kitten dies everytime someone gets a CableCARD, and God stops loving them? You still want the card?
Customer: Um... maybe not.
Cable company: Good choice.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

> Originally Posted by *bicker*
> The market was flooded with telephones of remarkably poor quality.


No the market came up with new devices - like fax machines, answering machines, modems, wireless phones, that the telephone companies would have either never developed or made so costly that most people would not have used them. I have actually seen speculation that the internet itself could not have developed as it has if the telephone companies were still able to control what was allowed on their networks as they did in the past. And by the way I have several of those "remarkably poor quality" telephones that are almost 20 years old and work just fine. 


> Originally Posted by *bicker*
> The networks have been open for three years.


Partially open maybe actually workable absolutely not. Until 100% of all satellite and cable systems function well with cable card devices its all smoke and mirrors.

Thanks,


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> wow, that is the most biased response I have seen yet.


Wow, that was lame. Did you run out of put-downs? Really scraping the bottom of the barrel there. 

I was there at the time. I know what happened. Regulation is, at best, 50% effective at accomplishing its aims, and of course, only 50% of the people agree with the aims of most regulation, so best-case you have a 25% chance of getting things right when you resort to regulation. And the closer you get to the Wild West that *is* the consumer market, the less effective regulation is.



ZeoTiVo said:


> if you want to call horrible, horrible support of cable cards coupled with outright lies and denials by cable companies to the consumer as 3 years of open networks then that statement bears no more credence to the big picture than your first statement


Wow, that is the most biased response I have seen yet.

At least it *fit* where I used the line.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> No the market came up with new devices - like fax machines, answering machines, modems, wireless phones, that the telephone companies would have either never developed or made so costly that most people would not have use them.


Which is funny, because when I worked at Bell Labs, before deregulation, we actually were using fax machines, answering machines, and modems. And one of my first projects was working quality assurance on the development of software for cell sites.  We must have lived in completely different realities.



atmuscarella said:


> I have actually seen speculation that the internet itself could not have developed has it has if the telephone companies were still able to control what was allowed on their networks as they did in the past.


Not only did we already have the Internet, but we were basically supporting a good bit of its backbone (ihnp4), gratis. 

I'm not adverse to what happened; after leaving Bell Labs I had a great career working with and for some of the up-starts. However, don't think for a minute that regulation is always a good idea or always well executed. Very often, the restrictions placed on regulations by over-arching laws, and by the political process, results in misdirection, unfairness, and sub-optimization. My biggest concern is the unfairness: When a cavalier, blindly pro-consumerist regulator runs rough-shod over legitimate business interests. The owners of the companies unfairly penalized deserve consideration -- far more than I see some folks here willing to grant them.

Small government is best. When in doubt, don't regulate. Instead, find a way to provide incentive for the marketplace to settle issues itself, naturally.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Bicker;

I will not repost your post #58 (too long) but will make some comments that pretain to it.

You are right I don't know what the telephone companies would have actually come up with (mine was Rochester Telephone which was never an AT&T/Bell company). But I did see how much they charged for connection and rental fees. I just don't think we would be where we are if you could have only used fax machines, answering machines, and computers installed by and rent from the telephone company like telephones were.

I do agree with you on the general concept of less government however I only support this if I believe the industry has adequate competition. I do not believe our current video delivery industry has adequate competition yet. *I see open/universal STBs as a way to get to adequate competition. *

As far as government regulation is concerned it is only needed to prevent and/or correct perceived abuse. How one defines abuse will determine how much regulation one believes is needed. In the video delivery Industry I see limited competition as abusive, so I support regulation that is designed to ultimately increase competition. My guess is you disagree with this point of view and see the government forcing more competition (at the existing companies expense) as fundamentally unfair to the existing companies.

Your point that government messes up allot (or maybe is even fundamentally corrupt) also needs to be in the discussion.

Thanks,


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> I see open/universal STBs as a way to get to adequate competition.


And this is the source of my most enthusiastic objection. I see the current regulations regarding STBs as one of the least appropriate ways of addressing your specific concern, i.e., the "video delivery industry". First, it totally bypasses the whole satellite side of the video delivery industry. Therefore, right out of the gate, it is patently unfair. Second, the requirement has resulted in overly-complicated technology which serves no constructive purpose other than to obstruct business' ability to deliver service in an optimal manner.

If the objective was to support competition in the "video delivery industry" as you suggest, then the correct ways to address that would be pass laws prohibiting obstructions to competitors getting into the industry. (The laws that prohibit restrictions on satellite dishes is one such law that did manage to get passed. Beyond that....) Municipalities should have to prove that a competitor's plans to introduce service into their area would have a significant negative impact on the municipality. They should be compelled to work with all potential competitors, rather than picking the few they feel that can exact the best deals for themselves from. States should certify companies, thereby making it more difficult for municipalities to obstruct expansion of competition.

However, CableCard isn't really about supporting competition in the "video delivery industry". CableCard is about supporting competition in the consumer electronics sector. CableCard does nothing to support alternatives to Comcast, Time Warner, etc. It strictly is focused on the STBs. As such, it was an incredibly inane and sadistically punitive method to accomplish that aim. As I mentioned before, if they really wanted to support competition in the STB space, they would have made the requirement apply to all subscription video delivery services, including satellite, and they could have more efficiently accomplished that regulation at the point of manufacture/import. No, instead, the regulation was antagonistic, with antagonism directed against specific companies. The FCC sub-optimized the accomplishment of their charter, as far as I can tell, out of nothing more than spite.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

bicker said:


> it's 2007. The networks have been open for three years. Where are the devices?


Open for three years? Hardly.

1) Where is the two way support? 
2) Where is the MCard support? Why do I have to have multiple cards if I want to what cable boxes do- record one channel while watching another?
3) When are the sat networks going to be open?
4) When is FIOS going to be open?

Bicker- your idea of open is ludicrous.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

bicker said:


> CableCard isn't really about supporting competition in the "video delivery industry".


Cablecard isn't, but the 1996 Telecom law is. When all networks can be access by third party devices, it becomes possible for an Unbox to compete with a cablebox over a PPV sale. When sat companies and FIOS is brought into compliance with the 1996 law, a customer could theoretically have sat and FIOS also competing over the PPV sale.

Nifty huh. Competition. That's the vision.

But corporate thugs don't like that regulatory vision. They like their current positions as single supplier verticial monopolies. And libertarian "deregulation is perfection" apologists are all to happy to fill up bulletin boards with their naive imaginings about how the real world works.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Justin Thyme said:


> Bicker- your idea of open is ludicrous.


And yours is unreasonable.

Incidentally, I have no objection to your criticisms with regard to satellite services and FIOS. I think you're on-target there, and I've said so previously.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Justin Thyme said:


> Cablecard isn't, but the 1996 Telecom law is.


Yet that isn't what atmuscarella was talking about, when posting a whole message about "open/universal STBs". I typically try to keep my replies at least somewhat relevant to what I'm replying _to_.



Justin Thyme said:


> But corporate thugs don't like that regulatory vision.


That's not their job. And it isn't their responsibility either. It surely isn't Comcast's or Time Warner's responsibility to get DirecTV or Dish Network or FIOS to agree to provide a secure way of connecting consumer-owned devices into their networks.



Justin Thyme said:


> And libertarian "deregulation is perfection" apologists are all to happy to fill up bulletin boards with their naive imaginings about how the real world works.


Grow up. Should I call you an apologist for the FCC? Get a grip.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

> Originally Posted by *bicker*
> First, it totally bypasses the whole satellite side of the video delivery industry.


I agree 100% and have consistently said the FCC needs to enforce the law and include satellite companies in the cable card requirement. Unfortunately I have to also agree that most of what you wrote is current reality.

I think were we differ is in what we each believe a truly universal STB can do to increase competition. I think a universal STB that can handle video content delivery from all sources significantly increases the completive pressure on each of those sources. Basically the easier it is for me to switch from one video provider to another (or to use multiple sources at one time) the more competitive each of them has to be.

Thanks,


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

It wouldn't exactly be Cablecards, would it. FIOS and SatCos use a different formats and security schemes from CableCos.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Justin Thyme said:


> Open for three years? Hardly.
> 
> 1) Where is the two way support?
> 2) Where is the MCard support? Why do I have to have multiple cards if I want to what cable boxes do- record one channel while watching another?
> ...





bicker said:


> And yours is unreasonable.


Which of the 4 is unreasonable? You seem to agree with 3 and 4. Is two way support unreasonable? Is MCard support unreasonable?


----------



## CharlesH (Aug 29, 2002)

bicker said:


> Actually, it is the *de*regulation of the electrical industry that has worked out so well, recently.


Try to explain that to us in California. When electrical generation was separated from electrical transmission, and customers were supposedly given their choice of whose power they wanted to buy, we were, umm... "abused" by companies like Enron who gamed the system to jack up the rates we paid. The court record has transcripts of workers joking about how they were taking California rate payers to the cleaners as they routed the power in an out of the state to get much higher charges. And then they conveniently go bankrupt so we only collect a few pennies on the dollar awarded by the court. Deregulation is not always a panacea.


----------



## drcos (Jul 20, 2001)

ScratchFury said:


> Cable company: We have them, but it just seems customers don't want CableCARDs.
> Customer: But if I wanted one, I could still get one right?
> Cable company: Sure.
> Customer: Okay, well, I'll take one.
> ...


OMG, it's Domo-Kun!!!
Please, think of the kittens


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Justin Thyme said:


> Which of the 4 is unreasonable?


My comment was directed at the general tenor of your comments regarding CableCard support, in general, as it current stands.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

CharlesH said:


> Try to explain that to us in California.


No, I'll stick to Massachusetts. If you cannot get your act together in California, that's a local problem, AFAIC. The fact that it can be done successfully here, means it can be done successfully, given enough talent and effort. You let yourselves be taken advantage of, and now you want to blame the system, instead of your state's anecdotal lack of oversight.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

bicker said:


> My comment was directed at the general tenor of your comments regarding CableCard support, in general, as it current stands.


My comment was specific. It was directed to your false assertion that the networks have been open for 3 years. It was a false statement, which is not at all unusual in your case.

The networks of the video distributors haven't been open for 3 years. Not a single network is open today.

Nor is there any clear date when they will be open to third party boxes.

There is no justification for this dereliction of duty, especially considering the 10 years that the FCC has had to enforce the law.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

You are deliberately presenting erroneous information. Many cable system networks have been open for about three years. You're just trying to rationalize your baseless mud-slinging against them.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

*Bicker - Justin Thyme - ZeoTiVo* and the many others I have had fun debating with  :

:up: *Happy Forth of July!!* :up:


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Celebrate American capitalism! Go out and buy something!


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

bicker said:


> You are deliberately presenting erroneous information. Many cable system networks have been open for about three years. You're just trying to rationalize your baseless mud-slinging against them.


I am sure you would be delighted to post Cable Company propaganda here about how their closed proprietary systems are sufficiently open for the commercial availability of third party boxes that can navigate cable networks that the 1996 Telecom law requires.

Hey- left is right, up is down. Closed is Open.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

You choose to see it that way, because it isn't the way you want it to be. Pretty sad. Even sadder that you choose to beat on cable which actually does provide an open network, while you don't spend 1/100th the energy beating on satellite that doesn't provide an open network.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Name one open cable system.


----------



## LCD1080 (Dec 13, 2006)

ScratchFury said:


> Cable company: You do realise that a kitten dies everytime someone gets a CableCARD, and God stops loving them?


I'll be happy when cable companies mail the cable cards to their customers on request while at the same time providing the customer with a phone service to automatically pair the cards to third party DVRs. Is that really asking too much?


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

No. Inserting PMCIA cards is highly technical. Heck- doesn't everyone have Compusa technicians come out to insert them into their laptops?

You must pay $50 like I did to watch 4 "technicians" come to the house over the space of 6 hours to figure out that the Coax cable plugs into the connection that says "Cable" and not the one that says "Antenna".


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

The cable system here in Burlington.

Now you'll come up with some lame and self-centered objection to that because it doesn't serve your personal vision of how you think things should be.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

bicker said:


> Celebrate American capitalism! Go out and buy something!


I bought Mickey Mouse shaped hamburgers to grill later. It doesn't get more American than that!


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

bicker said:


> The cable system here in Burlington.


Sorry. They don't use an open FCC approved spec for doing VOD, PPV and Switched video.

When is open not open? When it's closed to competition.

Try again.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

How friggen predictable you are, Justin, as per my earlier prognostication. 

It is open. You're wrong. Get over it. And move on.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Our latest installment of fantasy land from Bicker.

Bicker- get a clue about the Consumer Electronics.

You think the FCC is irrelevant? Try selling something sometime without FCC approval.

Besides, even if Burlington's proprietary protocol for doing PPV and VOD was approved by the FCC, it certainly hasn't been in place for 3 years.

We have another word for that which is obscenely unfactual, and this nonsense is typical of the drivel that comes from the cable companies.

Next.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

LCD1080 said:


> I'll be happy when cable companies mail the cable cards to their customers on request while at the same time providing the customer with a phone service to automatically pair the cards to third party DVRs.


And preferably the alternative of a web site form, so we don't have to deal with fat-fingering CSRs. Those long strings of numbers are a PITA; at least if we enter them ourselves, we can visually verify them against what we see on the TV. I had to call back to get one of mine redone because either the installer or the CSR had got the number wrong.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Our latest installment of self-centered cavalier distortion of reality from Justin:


Justin Thyme said:


> You think the FCC is irrelevant?


Again, please try to keep your self-centered, cavalier distortions of reality, in response to my messages, at least marginally related to something I've said rather than something easier to argue against.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

Justin Thyme said:


> You must pay $50 like I did to watch 4 "technicians" come to the house over the space of 6 hours to figure out that the Coax cable plugs into the connection that says "Cable" and not the one that says "Antenna".


You allowed the "technicians" to connect something without pointing your finger at the appropriate location and uttering the words "it goes right here" followed by checking everything personally?


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

HDTiVo said:


> You allowed the "technicians" to connect something without pointing your finger at the appropriate location and uttering the words "it goes right here" followed by checking everything personally?


It was an experiment to see if the complaints about incompetence were exagerated.

They weren't.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

You devil.

What's the hat in your little picture hiding?


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

bicker said:


> Our latest installment of self-centered cavalier distortion of reality from Justin:
> Again, please try to keep your self-centered, cavalier distortions of reality, in response to my messages, at least marginally related to something I've said rather than something easier to argue against.


An official agency of the US government in charge of communications does not believe that cable systems are open. The cable companies and their supporters do.

Even if you felt that the specification for doing two way communication is an open spec (which it isn't- it is controlled by a cable company consortium known as CableLabs), support for that specification has not been around for 3 years.

You stated that cable systems have been open for 3 years. It was baloney. Plain and simple. If you want to explain what you really meant by citing sources feel free.

But really Bicker- I am in your debt and bear you no ill will. I could not have asked for a better straight man for illuminating the nonsense of the cable companies.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

LCD1080 said:


> I'll be happy when cable companies mail the cable cards to their customers on request while at the same time providing the customer with a phone service to automatically pair the cards to third party DVRs. Is that really asking too much?


some places do that now, other places can not even support the cable card boxs they are now required to use. It all depends on how well maintained the cable infrastructure is and how well it was designed to provide adequate siganl at the house.

basically a common OCAP box (without cable card) and cable modem or VOIP can run fine at much lower siganl levels like -12db. a cable card, for reasons I do not know, needs a much higher signal such as -5db to work correctly. So some places can mail out cards with a reasonable expectation they will owrk and some places have to do a truck roll to make things work.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

HDTiVo said:


> You devil.
> 
> What's the hat in your little picture hiding?


No, not even close. My real name is J.R. "Bob" Dobbs. Actually I am very religious.

Some quotes attributed to me:



> "They may be Pink, but their money's still green!"
> 
> "If you act like a dumbs*t, they'll treat you like an equal."


And no, I don't have any pointy cranial structures you suggested, as you can see from the photo in the article.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Justin Thyme said:


> Sorry.  They don't use an open FCC approved spec for doing VOD, PPV and Switched video.
> 
> When is open not open? When it's closed to competition.
> 
> Try again.


Wait a minute.

How does the S3 work again? Is it just my imagination or are people actually using it to record encrypted content? And Tivo didn't sign an NDA and isn't paying a percentage of its sales to cable companies? I must have had a few too many beers on the 4th -- such a device couldn't POSSIBLY exist unless there were open standards in place. You might not LIKE the standards that are in place, but that's not what the discussion was about.

I thought there IS another open standard being worked on for SDV, PPV, and VOD, but it is taking way too long to develop. Meanwhile, customers are demanding more HD channels and faster Internet access NOW, and competitors are either increasing their bandwidth or deploying systems with tons of bandwidth. So what are cable companies supposed to do?

In the past, when an industry couldn't wait it simply jumped the gun and implemented its own standard before the standard was officially approved (see fax class 2 vs. class 2.0). I believe this is happening again, as the cable companies' version of CableCard 2.0 is being implemented right now. With three other CE companies.

Wait a minute. CE boxes will be available? Using CableCards? And the standard is open? Great, all of the problems with the cable industry are solved! They are meeting all the federal regulations placed on them. But does it solve the original problem? This is why governments shouldn't demand that specific technologies be used. They evolve way too fast for the government to keep up.

Even if the vertical integration were dismantled, it would not solve the much bigger problem the Telecom Act of 1996 tried (and failed) to address. FOr example, Congress actually thought that TWC, Comcast, and Cox would compete in each other's markets! Anyone who has taken an economics class knows that that would never happen.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Justin Thyme said:


> An official agency of the US government in charge of communications does not believe that cable systems are open.


In your imagination. Please provide a link to the press release from that agency that use those exact words, referring to the current situation with regard to Comcast. In other words, don't do what you typically do: avoid accountability for your self-centered distortions of reality by saying something outrageously wrong and then defending it with something that doesn't say the same thing.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

I always thought the drill bit industry was operated fairly and squarely since a drill bit would fit on just about any drill made by anyone.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I can imagine how enjoyable an evening of watching a drill bit would be.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> In your imagination. Please provide a link to the press release from that agency that use those exact words, referring to the current situation with regard to Comcast. In other words, don't do what you typically do: avoid accountability for your self-centered distortions of reality by saying something outrageously wrong and then defending it with something that doesn't say the same thing.


so why then the need for the 1996 telecom law to force more competition and open standards?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

BobCamp1 said:


> I believe this is happening again, as the cable companies' version of CableCard 2.0 is being implemented right now. With three other CE companies.
> 
> Wait a minute. CE boxes will be available? Using CableCards? And the standard is open? Great, all of the problems with the cable industry are solved! They are meeting all the federal regulations placed on them. But does it solve the original problem? This is why governments shouldn't demand that specific technologies be used. They evolve way too fast for the government to keep up.
> 
> Even if the vertical integration were dismantled, it would not solve the much bigger problem the Telecom Act of 1996 tried (and failed) to address. FOr example, Congress actually thought that TWC, Comcast, and Cox would compete in each other's markets! Anyone who has taken an economics class knows that that would never happen.


the bill was completely foiled by the cable companies and the Sat companies. The cable companies seem to think it is better to divide up the territory and thus avoid heavy fighting that only weakens them. hmm.. where else have I seen this type of territory division? was it gangs or maybe organized crime...

anyway - does the list of CE devices using cable card 2 include anyone NOT making a set top box for the cable company? Any TV's on there?

the OCAP/java that is part of cable card 2 spec requires that any updates to the device be approved by cable labs. We have already seen th galcier response for MRV/TTG for S3 - do you really want TiVo to have to run ALL OS updates by cable labs


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> so why then the need for the 1996 telecom law to force more competition and open standards?


Checking calendar. Nope! Not 1996 anymore. Justin is asserting that there aren't any open cable systems. He's wrong.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> Checking calendar. Nope! Not 1996 anymore. Justin is asserting that there aren't any open cable systems. He's wrong.


Oh? So I can hook my S3 upto direcTV or switch over to comcast ? Great news. yup no need to deal with one cable company or add a bunch of junk in my media cabinet for Sat for me now. Thanks for the update.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

bicker said:


> I can imagine how enjoyable an evening of watching a drill bit would be.


About as enjoyable as watching cable PPV content ordered from a TiVo Series 3.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

Justin Thyme said:


> No, not even close. My real name is J.R. "Bob" Dobbs. Actually I am very religious.
> 
> Some quotes attributed to me:
> 
> And no, I don't have any pointy cranial structures you suggested, as you can see from the photo in the article.





> He was assassinated in San Francisco in 1984, though the Church states that he has come back from the dead several times since then.


So, did you consult on that asteroid smashing the earth movie - the good one Disney made with Bruce Wills, not the sucky one Speilberg's crew did?



> the cable companies' version of CableCard 2.0 is being implemented right now. With three other CE companies.


Which cableCARD based boxes are shipping by the end of this year to be sold at retail that feature cable two-way communications services?


----------



## vstone (May 11, 2002)

CharlesH said:


> Try to explain that to us in California. When electrical generation was separated from electrical transmission, and customers were supposedly given their choice of whose power they wanted to buy, we were, umm... "abused" by companies like Enron who gamed the system to jack up the rates we paid. The court record has transcripts of workers joking about how they were taking California rate payers to the cleaners as they routed the power in an out of the state to get much higher charges. And then they conveniently go bankrupt so we only collect a few pennies on the dollar awarded by the court. Deregulation is not always a panacea.


I heard once that there were only two power lines connecting SOCAL with NOCAL and so (at one time) the surplus in SOCAL had to be routed to NOCAL via AZ, NV, and OR. Is that really true?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Oh? So I can hook my S3 upto direcTV


DirecTV isn't provided by cable. It is a satellite service. I thought you'd have known that.



ZeoTiVo said:


> or switch over to comcast ?


Yes, you can hook your S3 up to Comcast.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

HDTiVo said:


> Which cableCARD based boxes are shipping by the end of this year to be sold at retail that feature cable two-way communications services?


Never mind, you can dop the words _cableCARD based_ and _cable_ from the question.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

bicker said:


> Checking calendar. Nope! Not 1996 anymore. Justin is asserting that there aren't any open cable systems. He's wrong.


You have a seriously seriously messed up view of what "open" means.

You should try developing in Linux for a while, and then come back here and tell me that the cable networks are "open."

Better yet, write an OLEDB interface. Then come back here and tell me how cable networks are "open."

Or, for another round of fun, develop a device that communicates across ethernet. Then come back here and tell me that cable networks are "open."

I guess in your mind information about the war in Iraq is "open" because we have a press secretary who releases statements to the media?


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> the bill was completely foiled by the cable companies and the Sat companies. The cable companies seem to think it is better to divide up the territory and thus avoid heavy fighting that only weakens them. hmm.. where else have I seen this type of territory division? was it gangs or maybe organized crime...
> 
> anyway - does the list of CE devices using cable card 2 include anyone NOT making a set top box for the cable company? Any TV's on there?
> 
> the OCAP/java that is part of cable card 2 spec requires that any updates to the device be approved by cable labs. We have already seen th galcier response for MRV/TTG for S3 - do you really want TiVo to have to run ALL OS updates by cable labs


1. It IS better to divide like that if you are part of an oligopoly. Of course they want to avoid fighting with each other. There's plenty of money available for everyone. Even if they tried to "compete" with each other, market forces would dictate that their prices and services be almost exactly the same.

2. Nope, since there is no market for such devices. Making cable boxes is not profitable, buying cable boxes isn't smart for customers right now during the HD transition, and most people who have a big screen TV also have a DVR or other cable box (no separate CableCard slot needed). It appears to be a catch-22, but not really. When new features and enhancements are released every three years, people find it is much easier on their wallets to simply turn in their old leased box for a new one than it is to buy another $2000 TV. Or another $800 DVR.

3. CableLabs should not exist as the only certification body. Let CE companies self-certify and let CableLabs review the results. The current situation shows that the government wasn't really serious about eliminating vertical integration or didn't know what it was doing.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Grakthis said:


> You have a seriously seriously messed up view of what "open" means.
> 
> You should try developing in Linux for a while, and then come back here and tell me that the cable networks are "open."


Windows is open as well. Programmers using it seem to do just fine. But I forgot that you can't have open standards in a monopoly. I must be imagining that I'm using Opera and a Windows OS to reply to this post.

Incidentally, didn't the government go after Microsoft for bundling IE with Windows? Didn't they say it would hinder competition? What was the result of that? Let's see ... IE is still bundled, and yet there are still other third-party browsers available.  Some are even reported to be (gasp) BETTER than IE! There's even a browser that sits on top of IE that provides IE with additional features!

The government has shown again and again that no matter how hard they try, they can't stop vertical integration in the technology sector.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

BobCamp1 said:


> Wait a minute.
> 
> How does the S3 work again? Is it just my imagination or are people actually using it to record encrypted content?


Bob- Are you saying that allowing only one way communication makes the Cable companies networks open?

Does that mean that Ma Bell's system would have been open to competition if it allowed third party telephones that allowed you to listen but not speak?

I seem to recall that the government has been successful in other cases of vertical integration. Do you use a phone supplied by your local phone company? Why not?

Really, it is a matter of leadership and its attitudes towards communications policy. Just because progress at the FCC came to a screaching halt in 2000 does not mean that the FCC's civil servants don't know how to deal with this situation.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

I thought he was saying the S3 does this and:



BobCamp1 said:


> the cable companies' version of CableCard 2.0 is being implemented right now. With three other CE companies.
> 
> Wait a minute. CE boxes will be available? Using CableCards? And the standard is open? Great, all of the problems with the cable industry are solved!


In response to your comment that:


> They don't use an open FCC approved spec for doing VOD, PPV and Switched video.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

BobCamp1 said:


> I must have had a few too many beers on the 4th -- such a device couldn't POSSIBLY exist unless there were open standards in place. You might not LIKE the standards that are in place, but that's not what the discussion was about.


That's a straw man. The discussion is not about whether we like the standard or whether it is open. The discussion is about the openness of the networks. Please recall how it first came up:


atmuscarella said:


> Given the cable/satellite industries attempt to prevent an *open STB market* I am guessing they think someone might want an STB that isn't one of theirs  .


If a standard is not mandated by the FCC, CE companies have no way of knowing how seriously it will be supported in the future, and who they turn to for correction of violations. Further, OCAP in Cablecard 2.0 turns CE machines into commodities. Without control of their UI and feature set, there is little reason to enter such a market. It doesn't matter whether we like the standard or not.

What matters is what Cablecard 2.0 does, and if it became standard, it would serve to continue to block third party competitors from building devices to attach to the cable networks. For these very good reasons, Cablecard 2.0 has not been approved by the FCC. The only ones building boxes to that specification have been paid by the cable companies to build them.

Cable companies want to shove OCAP down the CE companies' throats. And they are attempting to bypass the FCC. For all their bluster, if they continue on this path it is they who will have a standard for two way communication imposed on them. They have about 2 years before the membership of the commission takes a decidedly alternate philosophical position on regulatory policy.

Their choice. My bet is that something from CEA/Intel/MS gets shoved down Cablelab's throat.

In any case, these networks have not supported third party boxes that can do two way communication, so even if the discussion was whether their is some standard that can be used to build third party boxes. It is still a false statement.

Not open to competition, not an open spec, not a standard standard, not fcc approved, not conformant to the 1996 Telecom law, hasn't been supported for 3 years.

Clear enough?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Grakthis said:


> You have a seriously seriously messed up view of what "open" means.


Subscribe to Dish Network, and *then* talk to me about "open" and "closed". If you can purchase a box at Circuit City, get Comcast to stick CableCards in it, and it works, then the network is open. It may not be everything you want it to be, but that's life. We don't always get what we want.



Grakthis said:


> I guess in your mind information about the war in Iraq is "open" because we have a press secretary who releases statements to the media?


Political discussions aren't permitted here.


----------



## drcos (Jul 20, 2001)

bicker said:


> If you can purchase a box at Circuit City, get Comcast to stick CableCards in it, and it works, then the network is open.


At first I was going to dispute this comment, as its validity would depend on your definition of 'it works.' More on that later...
Once the cards have been properly configured (a process which is arguably made more complex than it ever had to be by the anal practices of most cable companies), it 'works' to a point.
In a Comcast-leased box, it works 100% (I can get VOD and PPV while submitting myself to their **stellar** interface and control structure).
In my S3, it works ???% (depends on how important VOD and PPV are to you), but certainly less than 100%. Since VOD is 'included' in digital service, and I am unable to get it, should I be compensated by the CP?
Of course, this could be rectified it TiVo gives the CP control over their (my) box, but this is not an option I think I would be fond of. I believe that the majority of folks here would agree, as the TiVo interface is a big part of why we bought the S3...
So let's just say that, yes, it 'works' (to a point as described above).

But back to 'open networks'...


> open network architecture (ONA): In the context of the FCC's Computer Inquiry III, the overall design of a communication carrier's basic network facilities and services to permit all users of the basic network to interconnect to specific basic network functions and interfaces on an unbundled, equal-access basis.


So, is cable an 'open' network? I guess here again, it would depend on which facet you are referring to, although I suppose there are those who will continue to argue.
Certainly the *basic* network functions are available to all (paying) users.
I can still buy a cable modem from Circuit City and hook it up to my cable, and get it to work with their head-end. This process, while a bit involved, is several degrees of magnitude simpler than the cable card install/authorization/re-authorization process. Why is that? Obviously a topic for a whole 'nother thread.
Basic cable is available equally to all (paying) users.
If you don't count the digital tiers and scrambled channels as 'basic' functions, then *yes* cable companies have 'open' networks. Once you get into the 'premium' services, the 'open' definition gets a little grey.

And in what way do D* and E* enter into the discussion?? We're talking cable networks, not satellite. Please stop even mentioning these as an option. There are those who cannot go that route (or who will not as price and quality enter into the equation...dare I say "HD Lite").

So...back to the discussion "CableCARD article on CNET"


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

drcos said:


> Since VOD is 'included' in digital service, and I am unable to get it, should I be compensated by the CP?


Aren't you compensated by paying less for the cableCARDs than the STB? 



> I can still buy a cable modem from Circuit City and hook it up to my cable, and get it to work with their head-end. This process, while a bit involved, is several degrees of magnitude simpler than the cable card install/authorization/re-authorization process. Why is that? Obviously a topic for a whole 'nother thread.


A topic for this thread because it would illuminate the issues by comparison.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

bicker said:


> Subscribe to Dish Network, and *then* talk to me about "open" and "closed". If you can purchase a box at Circuit City, get Comcast to stick CableCards in it, and it works, then the network is open. It may not be everything you want it to be, but that's life. We don't always get what we want.


Again, you have a seriouslly confused definition of the word "open" if you call the cable networks "open."

I have a question for you... if the current networks are "open" then what would you call it if OCAP was replaced by an open communciations standard, along the lines of an UPnP AV model? Where, the TiVo could "discover" available method calls on the head end, such as querying a list of available shows and movies and then requesting a stream back to the box?

Would that still just be "open?" Or would you invent a new word for that? Like "super-duper open?" "Uber-open." "The openenist."

Just because satellite is locked up tight, doesn't mean everything else is "open" by comparison.



bicker said:


> Political discussions aren't permitted here.


First of all, what is cablelabs and FCC regulation if not political?

And second of all, the point wasn't a political discussion... the point was that when the "network" controls the points of access, and gives you only what they choose to give you out of the kindness of their hearts, it is not "open."

It will be "open" the day that TiVo can write their own front end that can do everything the cable-co rented box does without sacrificing the users experience.

Does YouTub force you to go to their site to view videos? Or did they let, no, ENCOURAGE, users to embed YouTube videos into their sites? They know the user should choose the interface that he or she wants.

This is what we call "smart business."


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

Grakthis said:


> Would that still just be "open?" Or would you invent a new word for that? Like "super-duper open?" "Uber-open." "The openenist."


The case under consideration seems open and shut to me.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Grakthis said:


> Just because satellite is locked up tight, doesn't mean everything else is "open" by comparison.


"Open standards" are simply publicly available specifications that help achieve a specific goal. CableCard 1.0 and 2.0 meet this definition. Typically, a closed standard is defined as one that is completely  closed to the public.

But we are just nit picking here. Let's just say that the current  state of the cable networks is mostly open because while the majority of functionality is governed by open standards, there are some parts which are governed by closed and proprietary specifications.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Justin Thyme said:


> What matters is what Cablecard 2.0 does, and if it became standard, it would serve to continue to block third party competitors from building devices to attach to the cable networks. For these very good reasons, Cablecard 2.0 has not been approved by the FCC. The only ones building boxes to that specification have been paid by the cable companies to build them.


I actually agree with you here...what CE company in their right mind would agree to that spec.? But it is open. It may not be ideal, but it's there.



Justin Thyme said:


> Cable companies want to shove OCAP down the CE companies' throats. And they are attempting to bypass the FCC. For all their bluster, if they continue on this path it is they who will have a standard for two way communication imposed on them. They have about 2 years before the membership of the commission takes a decidedly alternate philosophical position on regulatory policy.


Hmmm....forcing the cable companies to implement something they don't like. I wonder how good of a job they'll do? I'm having deja vu....

Nothing will change in two years. There are forces more powerful that the government at work here. Unless a lot of people get really angry about the situation, the government will only be able to slightly bend the direction the industry is heading towards. History tends to repeat itself.



Justin Thyme said:


> Not open to competition, not an open spec, not a standard standard, not fcc approved, not conformant to the 1996 Telecom law, hasn't been supported for 3 years.
> Clear enough?


No, I'm confused. What's a standard standard? Is that like a known known? Or is it a typo typo? 

It IS open (for now) (see my previous post). As I said, the fact that nothing has happened in 10 years just strengthens the view that there are forces more powerful that the government at work here. Unless a lot of people get really angry about the situation, the government will only be able to slightly bend the direction the industry is heading towards. History tends to repeat itself.

And so do we.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

BobCamp1 said:


> "Open standards" are simply publicly available specifications that help achieve a specific goal. CableCard 1.0 and 2.0 meet this definition. Typically, a closed standard is defined as one that is completely  closed to the public.
> 
> But we are just nit picking here. Let's just say that the current  state of the cable networks is mostly open because while the majority of functionality is governed by open standards, there are some parts which are governed by closed and proprietary specifications.


Oh, I totally agree there is an "open standard." No doubt.

But having an "open standard" does not make it an "open network."

Bicker went so far as to attack Justin on the grounds that the cable network was "open." Which is clearly an issue with someone's expectations for "open" networks.

As someone who works in technology, I have real issues with calling the cable networks "open."

They are not fully "closed" either. Clearly, we've been given a sandbox to play in. But regretably, in technology, things are not just "open" or "closed." There is a lot of gray area in between.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

HDTiVo said:


> > Originally Posted by HDTiVo
> > Which cableCARD based boxes are shipping by the end of this year to be sold at retail that feature cable two-way communications services?
> 
> 
> Never mind, you can dop the words _cableCARD based_ and _cable_ from the question.


This question got ditched, but interestingly it ends up being a trick question.

TiVo
AppleTV
Xbox
Moxi
Others

Now, how long will cable foreclose VOD purchases and subscriptions to special SDV channels when people are buying boxes that can replace some of this content/service from places like Unbox, Live!, YouTube and iTMS? CE companies, content owners and (non-traditional) distributors/retailers can break the stalemate.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

HDTiVo said:


> This question got ditched, but interestingly it ends up being a trick question.
> 
> TiVo
> AppleTV
> ...


I was thinking the same thing. If these other channels can successfully expand their offerings and the quality thereof, they will not even care about cable standards anymore.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Grakthis said:


> But regretably, in technology, things are not just "open" or "closed." There is a lot of gray area in between.


The standard for full access to the cable network is Cablecard 2.0.

To my knowlege, there is not a single network that claims to be fully compliant with Cablecard 2.0.

You can one way video services, but that cuts out video on demand, and pay per view. Also any box built now will be obsolete when switched video gets rolled out because people won't be able to access them. Whose idea of competition is this anyway? So would a phone network be open if you could just listen to what people were saying but not speak?

Sorry, I don't see much grey there. The cableco's either allow third parties to build boxes that can compete with the capabilities of their boxes, or they don't. Right now they don't.

With proprietary cable boxes you can do PPV, VOD, and switched video. They have a so called open standard for doing this but none of the cable companies support it. But wait- the cableco's say promise they really for real this time will support it in 2008. No kidding.


> Last year was supposed to be the year OCAP took off: At the Consumer Electronics Show in January 2006, cable companies announced a commitment to roll out OCAP middleware in headends serving millions of subscribers by the end of the year.
> 
> But for now, OCAP is still largely in the testing phase. Comcast, for example, is initiating market trials with OCAP this year. Similarly, Samsung and Cox said in January that they would accelerate their OCAP development work for HDTV sets in the operators Gainesville, Fla., division. [source]


So- even if you were to believe the nonsense that this "standard" is some kind of key to busting open the cable networks to third party navigational devices, the fact of the matter is:

Cable networks do not support it now.

QED- they are not open today. They have not been open for 3 years. Even using their definition of "open".


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

MickeS said:


> I was thinking the same thing. If these other channels can successfully expand their offerings and the quality thereof, they will not even care about cable standards anymore.


The choke point is bandwidth in the last mile. Theoretically, Cable companies could take the savings in bandwidth provided by Docsis and pass it along to the consumer. I believe HDTivo takes that view. Personally, I don't see why they will provide any more than they do now unless they have a FIOS like competitor in the local market. For those of you with 5mbps in major cities- understand that that is not where most of the country is.

So until then, these sources can only augment the major distributors, that is, unless the consumers have the expectation that video is something that is collected in the background and displayed to you later.

Few others besides TivoFolks seem to be in that mode at this stage of the game.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

Grakthis said:


> It will be "open" the day that TiVo can write their own front end that can do everything the cable-co rented box does without sacrificing the users experience.
> 
> Does YouTub force you to go to their site to view videos? Or did they let, no, ENCOURAGE, users to embed YouTube videos into their sites? They know the user should choose the interface that he or she wants.


Umm ... actually ...
http://www.youtube.com/t/terms

No, YouTube certainly does not encourage embedding YouTube _videos_ into third party sites. In fact ... they pretty actively discourage it (and direct links to flv files, and writing your own player, and download scripts, and a host of other no-nos) ... and, Google is even smart enough to know how to do so without Cease and Desist orders being plastered all over the web.

What YouTube _encourages_ is embedding their handy-dandy YouTube Embeddable Player in your site ... and turning a piece of the interface ... over ... to ... them. Recently added: "related" videos. Coming soon: "related sponsored" videos. Etc.

Seriously ... put together a video aggregation site that pulls YouTube videos directly (without links to their site or their embeddable player). If it starts getting a few hits ... expect a nice, friendly, call from the (rather personable) Google legal team with a few friendly suggestions ...


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

Justin Thyme said:


> I believe HDTivo takes that view.


Yes, I do, because they get paid. The 6mbps cable service costs $15 more than the 768kbps DSL service which is $10 more than the dial up service.

How do you get paid more (raise ARPU and all that good business stuff?) Charge $10 more for the 25mbps DOCSIS 3.0 than the 6mbps service. How do you avoid price (ARPU) declines as any given speed becomes more commoditized? More speed. How do you get more folks to pay bigger bucks for video streams/downloads? More speed, because supply creates its own demand.*

How does this get to Justin? Charge me $2 every month for some fund that never gets spent for the purpose. 

* Sell an enabling technology and people will buy it and use it for the things it enables, which other people will create because they are so enabled.


----------



## drcos (Jul 20, 2001)

HDTiVo said:


> (Cable modem authorization) A topic for this thread because it would illuminate the issues by comparison.


OK with me.
Authorizing a cable modem which you can buy at most CE stores or online is a seemingly involved process, but by no means as difficult as the CPs are making Cable Card setup.
To authorize a modem (at least w/Comcast), you attach the modem to the cable, and wait for the modem to initialise (provided your headend does in fact do internet). Then you connect a PC directly to the modem and attempt to access any site. You are at that point in what is termed the 'walled garden.' You will typically be taken to a Comcast site to enter your account number and other account information for authorization to continue. If all is well, the headend will download the appropriate information to your modem (speeds, channels, and such) and then restart your modem. Once the modem has restarted, you should have internet.

So why are we not able to do the same thing with Cable Cards (at least those of us with internet and the desire to do it ourselves)? We should be able to enter the four numbers for each cable card, along with our account information and the system authorizes the card(s). If this is not an option, why? Are the providers concerned that I might be using the Cable Cards in an unauthorized device? Is this even possible that I could use some bogus device to generate the proper pairing info to unscramble programming and (gasp) record it on an open device  ?? Or is there some other reason, perhaps to keep Cable Card users under the thumb of cable provider oppression by requiring the dreaded 'truck roll' every time the headend hiccups and jostles the numbers around in everyone's account?

Again, funny these problems didn't seem to occur with the leased boxes.

But again, I have forgotten that the cable providers are full of the milk of human kindness, and the FCC is evil for requiring such dastardly things as Cable Cards 

On a related note, it's good that 25Mbits is spreading, as we will need all those extra bits for copy protection on our HD video downloads. Thank goodness for DRM!!


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

drcos said:


> (provided your headend does in fact do internet).
> 
> Are the providers concerned that I might be using the Cable Cards in an unauthorized device?
> 
> On a related note, it's good that 25Mbits is spreading, as we will need all those extra bits for copy protection on our HD video downloads. Thank goodness for DRM!!


He he.

Are they worried you'd use an unauthorized modem? One of the big separations is the difference between being a content provider and just being a conduit.

Maybe I talk too fast. Maybe they'll give you 10mbps, then 12, then 15, then 18.1, then 20, then 24.95, then ... 35.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

drcos said:


> *yes* cable companies have 'open' networks.


Thanks. At least one person can overcome their great enmity towards the cable companies to acknowledge the truth.



drcos said:


> And in what way do D* and E* enter into the discussion?? We're talking cable networks, not satellite.


That's an error. The market is subscription television. *There is NO relevance to a discussion of this market without discussions including and comparisons including satellite services.* None.



drcos said:


> Please stop even mentioning these as an option.


No, I won't. And please don't ask me to.



drcos said:


> There are those who cannot go that route


That is their personal problem, not a matter for evaluation of the marketplace



drcos said:


> (or who will not as price and quality enter into the equation...dare I say "HD Lite").


That is their choice, not a matter for evaluation of the marketplace.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Grakthis said:


> Again, you have a seriouslly confused definition of the word "open" if you call the cable networks "open."


No, not confused. I simply refuse to fall into the cliquish "bash the company" silliness that pervades online communities. I actually look at things objectively, and focus on reality, not the fantasy about how I wish things would be. Open is defined by the regulations. Live with it.



Grakthis said:


> And second of all, the point wasn't a political discussion... the point was that when the "network" controls the points of access, and gives you only what they choose to give you out of the kindness of their hearts, it is not "open."


Every business in a capitalist society should determine, unequivocally, what services they will offer, and at what pricing. That is a fundamental element of capitalism.


----------



## DeathRider (Dec 30, 2006)

bicker said:


> There's no effective difference. Furthermore, I see no evidence indicating that if Average Joe knew about the technology that it would make the slightest bit of difference.


Sure it would. No gainly set top box using up more electricity and you only need your TV remote.

And my cableco charges $1.50 for the cablecard, cheapest box (motorola DT700) is at least $3.



Adam1115 said:


> My 42" lcd has no tuner at all.. they call in an HD Monitor...
> 
> No need to pay more for stuff I don't need..


Every once in awhile, my TiVo is recording 2 shows and I want to watch live TV on a 3rd. Not too often, but it does happen 



bicker said:


> Not until later, actually. The original battle, between Westinghouse and Edison, was waged without much government interference, just like VHS and Betamax.
> 
> And there is no reason not to allow the marketplace determine the winner, instead of government. When and if it becomes a win-win for government to get involved (rather than a win-lose), then that would be the appropriate time for government to step in.
> 
> (Of course, we're not talking about lifeline cable... that's a different story these days.)


Thing is, VHS/Betamax, even Westinghouse/Edison had a more level playing field than CC/STB...

Now, if you were required to _purchase_ a STB from the cableco [or provide your own], even if you did decide on the cableco DVR, most likely it would work better, have a larger capacity, ect, since they would actually have to compete.

Years ago, when my friend didn't know better, he went to buy a car. He went to the local Toyota stealership. I say this, because they basically pointed him to a car and said, "This is what your buying." He didn't even get to pick the options/color.

And that's how people feel about the cableco supplied STBs. They feel they have no choice in the matter and are not aware of the options.

Granted, he could have walked out and went to a different stealership to be bullied into a vehicle...

Gee, can we get Apple to allow a different music device to interface with iTunes? Guess the govt would need to get involved if there weren't options like Rhapsody.

I myself purchased a Sandisk Sansa e280 instead of going the iPod route...

Granted, MS, who came up with the PlayforSure DRM is using something different in the Zune...meaning w/o regulation, what would stop cablecos from changing their required DRM technology, making present DRM (cableCARD) null and void?

But with the e280, I can get a $20 ($15 street) user replaceable battery for it :up:



angel35 said:


> What can you do with a STB with a cable Card slot???


Nothing really, except force cablecos to to support them 



bicker said:


> If the objective was to support competition in the "video delivery industry" as you suggest, then the correct ways to address that would be pass laws prohibiting obstructions to competitors getting into the industry.


No, but ending encryption altogether would 



bicker said:


> However, CableCard isn't really about supporting competition in the "video delivery industry".


No, it's about monopolizing it... 



Justin Thyme said:


> I am sure you would be delighted to post Cable Company propaganda here about how their closed proprietary systems are sufficiently open for the commercial availability of third party boxes that can navigate cable networks that the 1996 Telecom law requires.
> 
> Hey- left is right, up is down. Closed is Open.


I don't know about open networks, but where I am, I can get Comcast, RCN, FIOS, DTV, or Dish. SO I guess that's competition.

But of course, in at least 3 of the cases, I would be stuck POS supplied DVR if I wasn't able to use the S3 (not saying the D* or Dish ones are any better)



BobCamp1 said:


> Windows is open as well. Programmers using it seem to do just fine. But I forgot that you can't have open standards in a monopoly. I must be imagining that I'm using Opera and a Windows OS to reply to this post.


No, not really. It's still a "black box" that allows you to write programs using their SDK. It's not like you can make your own SDK and use it.



> Incidentally, didn't the government go after Microsoft for bundling IE with Windows? Didn't they say it would hinder competition? What was the result of that? Let's see ... IE is still bundled, and yet there are still other third-party browsers available.   Some are even reported to be (gasp) BETTER than IE! There's even a browser that sits on top of IE that provides IE with additional features!
> 
> The government has shown again and again that no matter how hard they try, they can't stop vertical integration in the technology sector.


Thing is, most people still use IE over other browsers because it is already there. Only reason some of my friends (non tech geeks) are using Firefox/Mozilla is because I installed it on their computers and told them to use it.



HDTiVo said:


> Aren't you compensated by paying less for the cableCARDs than the STB?
> 
> A topic for this thread because it would illuminate the issues by comparison.


Apparently not if you live in Hawaii


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

bicker said:


> Thanks. At least one person can overcome their great enmity towards the cable companies to acknowledge the truth.


I don't dislike them. You just can't name one cable company that supports any standard that a third party company could use to build a box that could do what a Cable company box does.

It's a simple factual matter. You pointed to your local Burlington Comcast company. Well check again. Their network isn't certified for Cablecard 2.0 either. Yeah yeah sure the cable companies have been paying LG and Samsung to build boxes. Yeah yeah they have been trying to get networks working with ANY OCAP boxes in a network.

Guess why they are still in trials and have failed to support Cablecard 2.0? It's because of exactly what the CE companies told them- It's bloody expensive, unreliable, nobody wants the Java features. So now they are trying to figure out how to build OCAPless boxes. Ironically- it is precisely because Cablecompanies are not subject normal forces of competition that they are making such serious misteps.

So there aren't any networks that support Cablecard 2.0 that a third party vendor could build to.

There is a word for that, and it is called closed.

You said they have been open for 3 years. We have a word for that sort of nonfactual repetitious assertion too.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

DeathRider said:


> I don't know about open networks, but where I am, I can get Comcast, RCN, FIOS, DTV, or Dish. SO I guess that's competition.


Really? The competition being spoken of is whether third party suppliers of boxes get to compete with the FIOS's box or DTV's box, or Dish's box, or Comcast boxes. Any competition there? Nope.

All of these companies do not want to compete with third party boxes and have been successful in using the market power from their vertical monopolies to maintain their walled gardens. Same game as with cell phones. Same game as Ma Bell had with providing everyone's telephone.

Now we have thriving competition with third party manufactured telephones, and the choices are stunning- demonstrating a victory for the benefits of wise application of regulatory intervention to unleash competition.

Similarly, the FCC is forcing cell companies to allow unlocked phones- Cell companies in the past have been able to dictate what features are enabled, what the software can do and what they can't. Get why none of the providers want to step in a piece of OCAP? Anyway- The FCC needs to do the same for video networks. They have congressional authority to do it, they just have had other priorities for the past several years.

That will change.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

DeathRider said:


> Sure it would. No gainly set top box using up more electricity and you only need your TV remote.


What I said was I see no evidence indicating that if Average Joe knew about the technology that it would make the slightest bit of difference. What evidence do you have to provide us that shows that those things will make a difference?



DeathRider said:


> And my cableco charges $1.50 for the cablecard, cheapest box (motorola DT700) is at least $3.


What is the point here?



DeathRider said:


> Thing is, VHS/Betamax, even Westinghouse/Edison had a more level playing field than CC/STB...


Which suppliers are you talking about? Motorola, Scientific Atlanta, Panasonic, TiVo, etc? Why do you say that they don't have a level playing field?



DeathRider said:


> And that's how people feel about the cableco supplied STBs. They feel they have no choice in the matter and are not aware of the options.


Or rather they choose convenience over research. I do that for a lot of things. That's my fault. Not anyone else's. And that's a critical point. A lot of people are trying to make excuses for people who are simply choosing not the spent the time, money or effort to make a different decision, instead of accepting that those people know what is best for themselves in terms of prioritizing their own resources toward the things that make the most difference in their own lives.



DeathRider said:


> No, but ending encryption altogether would


I'm glad you're joking about that. The problem is that some other people wouldn't be.



DeathRider said:


> I don't know about open networks, but where I am, I can get Comcast, RCN, FIOS, DTV, or Dish. SO I guess that's competition.


I'd say! :up:



DeathRider said:


> But of course, in at least 3 of the cases, I would be stuck POS supplied DVR if I wasn't able to use the S3 (not saying the D* or Dish ones are any better)


What is tough doodies. I'm stuck using iTunes software for my iPod.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Justin Thyme said:


> I don't dislike them. You just can't name one cable company that supports any standard that a third party company could use to build a box that could do what a Cable company box does.


The key is that Justin doesn't get to determine what qualifies a network as open... the federal government does. You're just not that important, Justin. Sorry about that.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Not at all. The key is to look at the factual assertions. Bicker cannot point to a single system to illustrate his notion of an "open" system (whatever it is). 

Precisely which network currently supports precisely which standard?

Bicker refuses to get specific because the open network he describes does not exist.


----------



## DeathRider (Dec 30, 2006)

Justin Thyme said:


> Really? The competition being spoken of is whether third party suppliers of boxes get to compete with the FIOS's box or DTV's box, or Dish's box, or Comcast boxes. Any competition there? Nope.
> 
> All of these companies do not want to compete with third party boxes and have been successful in using the market power from their vertical monopolies to maintain their walled gardens. Same game as with cell phones. Same game as Ma Bell had with providing everyone's telephone.
> 
> ...


Sorry, that response wasn't totally without merit. I can take my S3 and presently use it with either Comcast, RCN, or FIOS. The only "shared/open part mybe the cable that goes from the pole to the house.

I didn't mean it to imply it was the topic of discussion. I was suggesting maybe this is what bicker was referring to open, as in competition among providers. They still all use their own networks. So, there is a cable each for RCN, Comcast, and one for FIOS

I wish I could get an unlocked cell for VerizonWireless. I'm not a fan of the VZW UI.

As far as my grandma's phone, it weight about 5 - 8 lbs and you could kill someone, then make a call following...


----------



## CharlesH (Aug 29, 2002)

Justin Thyme said:


> Similarly, the FCC is forcing cell companies to allow unlocked phones- Cell companies in the past have been able to dictate what features are enabled, what the software can do and what they can't.


A nit here. The ruling by the Registrar of Copyrights was only that unlocking a cell phone is not copyright infringement of the firmware under the DMCA, and thus cell phone companies cannot use this legal attack on someone who unlocks their phone or provides this as a service for others' phones. It did not require that the cell phone companies unlock their phones or provide the unlock codes. And it did not require cell phone companies to activate arbitrary models of otherwise compatible phones. So you can unlock a phone with impunity, but you cannot force a provider to actually provide service on it. Still a *long* way from open.


----------



## DeathRider (Dec 30, 2006)

bicker said:


> > Originally Posted by DeathRider
> > Sure it would. No gainly set top box using up more electricity and you only need your TV remote.
> 
> 
> ...


One more remote and component to add to the mess, more cabling, higher energy consumption. Maybe not Mr. Joe Public, but Mrs. Joe Public wouldn't mind less of it.



> > Originally Posted by DeathRider
> > Thing is, VHS/Betamax, even Westinghouse/Edison had a more level playing field than CC/STB...
> 
> 
> Which suppliers are you talking about? Motorola, Scientific Atlanta, Panasonic, TiVo, etc? Why do you say that they don't have a level playing field?


For energy, maybe not so much, except everything was pretty much DC at the outlet

Except maybe Sony (like the iPod in proprietary), VHS recorders, didn't matter the manufacturer, end result you could record a tape/play a tape. IE, record a show/play a show, just replacing the magnetic tape with an internal magnetic spinning disc. Thing is, if you leave and go to another provider, you lose those recording (can't take them with you). With a S3, the recordings remain with you, not the provider.



> > Originally Posted by DeathRider
> > And that's how people feel about the cableco supplied STBs. They feel they have no choice in the matter and are not aware of the options.
> 
> 
> Or rather they choose convenience over research. I do that for a lot of things. That's my fault. Not anyone else's. And that's a critical point. A lot of people are trying to make excuses for people who are simply choosing not the spent the time, money or effort to make a different decision, instead of accepting that those people know what is best for themselves in terms of prioritizing their own resources toward the things that make the most difference in their own lives.


I severely dislike the moto DVR. My brother puts up with it. But he'll put the research in for a PDA, cellphone, laptop, ect.



> > Originally Posted by DeathRider
> > No, but ending encryption altogether would
> 
> 
> I'm glad you're joking about that. The problem is that some other people wouldn't be.


I may be joking about it...but serious about the fact it's impeding innovation. As well as that Sonny Bono Mickey Mouse Protection Act hurting things like documentaries and other audovisual type art...


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

DeathRider said:


> Sorry, that response wasn't totally without merit. I can take my S3 and presently use it with either Comcast, RCN, or FIOS. The only "shared/open part mybe the cable that goes from the pole to the house.


Yeah- they are "open" to letting you connect an analog TV to cable too. Similarly, you can connect an S3 to FIOS or Comcast but can't get the features you can get on the cableco boxes- a point that every single cable provider is almost shrill in emphasizing to consumers who inquire about cablecards.

No network allows you to connect a box that provides the features that the cableco provided box can support. The S3 can't do switched video for one, threatening to make the unit not just unable to do VOD or PPV, but non functional because it will be prevented from accessing channels that are then only accessible to cableco boxes.

Doesn't sound like they are very open to competition to me.

Sure, someday cablecos may open their networks to any Cablecard 2.0 certified box. On that day we can debate whether the non FCC approved standards makes the system open. For now, it's not even supported, so it's a moot point.

Bicker can speak for himself what he means. He thinks his local system is open, but I pointed out it isn't CC2.0 compliant either, so no third party box could provide the same feature set as Cableco Boxes because they don't support 2 way communications for non Cableco boxes. Yet he thinks its open.

Go figure. Maybe he has been reading the cablelabs site to long. They put "Open" in front of everything. Perhaps he has had it imprinted on his brain. Whatever. Repeating falsehoods over and over doesn't make them true. It's just typical marketing double talk.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

Justin Thyme said:


> They put "Open" in front of everything.


Except the ethernet port on the Series 3.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Justin Thyme said:


> Not at all. The key is to look at the factual assertions. Bicker cannot point to a single system to illustrate his notion of an "open" system (whatever it is).


Except objective reality.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Objective reality is based on facts. I point to them. You run from them and hide behind Cablelabs slogans.

Let's examine this falsehood that you currently have redletterd in your signature:
"Connected to Comcast's open cable network "​Examine the standard that Comcast says that third party boxes must use to compete with their boxes. Next, investigate where Comcast actually has it implemented on their networks. Sure they have trials. Sure it kind of works but only on the boxes they had manufactured for them. Sure maybe someday their networks might be able to support third party boxes using it.

But not today.

QED- Comcast remains a closed network.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

Justin:

Why do you marry OCAP and CC2.0? Couldn't a CC2.0 device be made that's fully functional without OCAP?

Also, why does OCAP have to include the UI functions? Couldn't OCAP - or something else - just provide an interface to cable services via openly documented system calls?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

HDTiVo said:


> Justin:
> 
> Why do you marry OCAP and CC2.0? Couldn't a CC2.0 device be made that's fully functional without OCAP?
> 
> Also, why does OCAP have to include the UI functions? Couldn't OCAP - or something else - just provide an interface to cable services via openly documented system calls?


well, you would have to ask cablelabs those questions. Cablelabs *specifies* that OCAP is included and allows the cbale company to fully control the UI for PPV/VOD services by requiring the 3rd party to let the cable company run any java code it wants to. The 3rd party company is to get any OS updates certified to make sure it does not interfere with the OCAP/java that is specified.

two large sticking points.
1. the cable companies should be allowed to sell their PPV/VOd wares as they see fit, 
2. does that extend to 3rd party devices?

so I think your questions are good questions but until cable companies compromise on VOD/PPV on 3rd party devices this will remain a sticking point since cablelabs is beholden to cable companies and not to the CEA.
perhaps the search for an SDV solution will lead to a 2 way spec that does not require a full UI spec. Then 3rd party devices will have to compete without providing the cable company VOD/PPV - which seems fine to me.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

dt_dc said:


> Umm ... actually ...
> http://www.youtube.com/t/terms
> 
> No, YouTube certainly does not encourage embedding YouTube _videos_ into third party sites. In fact ... they pretty actively discourage it (and direct links to flv files, and writing your own player, and download scripts, and a host of other no-nos) ... and, Google is even smart enough to know how to do so without Cease and Desist orders being plastered all over the web.
> ...


Right... you showed me... that's totally different than what I said.

<------------------ sarcasm.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

bicker said:


> No, not confused. I simply refuse to fall into the cliquish "bash the company" silliness that pervades online communities. I actually look at things objectively, and focus on reality, not the fantasy about how I wish things would be. Open is defined by the regulations. Live with it.


No. Open is an objective term. It is defined by objective reality.

Regulations determine how "open" something is required to be.

So in your world, anyone following regulations is being "open?"

Fella, I'm an MBA. If there is anyone on this website who would love to support big business and tell you how companies are your best friend, and they have your best interests in mind, it would be me.

But you are a whole step beyond that. You are at the point where you're saying that big cable companies have "open" networks because they follow the minimum requirements set forth by the government.

So, Coal Burning Power Plants are "green" because they follow the minimum emissions standards of the government?

Again, not a political discussion, but do you see why following the minimum standards of the government doesn't make you "open", it just makes you NOT "closed."



bicker said:


> Every business in a capitalist society should determine, unequivocally, what services they will offer, and at what pricing. That is a fundamental element of capitalism.


That would be absolutly true if cable companies were not an accepted and regulated monopoly in most communities.

But since they ARE, the government can therefore tell them what to do.

So, they don't, in fact, get to determine what services they will offer or at what prices.

edit: what I want to know is, why couldn't TiVo have an OCAP interface as a subsystem to their OS?

Like, VMWare almost? You boot into the OCAP interface, which runs in a small window that you can use to request the video stream.

That would work fine for on demand and PPV. Not like I use either anyways, but still. Give the CC a sandbox on which to load their OCAP java code.


----------



## drcos (Jul 20, 2001)

And let us not forget that Cable Labs (www.opencable.com  ) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Haddon..err...the cable companies.
Meanwhile...over at Cable Labs...


> Interactive (bi-directional) OpenCable products require an OCAP middleware stack...


Is the middleware stack the handshake between the S3 and the cable junction point for my node (to request a specific SDV channel, for instance)?
If so, it would seem we don't have to give Comcast control over the UI. I'm not worried about PPV and VOD, anyhoo, so those specs don't confront me.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Grakthis said:


> what I want to know is, why couldn't TiVo have an OCAP interface as a subsystem to their OS?


They could. Similarly, why couldn't Tivo just have some other proprietary operating system running as a subsystem on their machine- like Windows for example. Better yet, why not get the government to require that CE companies have to support it on their machines if their customers want to change channels for VOD, PPV and SDV?

As was pointed out by one of the Cable techs who posted here, SDV works on cheap 10 year old boxes from Scientific Atlanta. This is not complicated or expensive circuitry here.

But the cablecos are saying that Consumer Electronics (CE) boxes must wear a Gimp outfit like the guy in Pulp Fiction that lived in a trunk. Cableco's get to force download any software they like, defeat any features they like using OCAP software. I dunno- maybe some company could follow the CC2.0 rules and build two machines as you suggest that you could flip between.

The first question is: why is this parasite OS necessary? What is the technical justification for all this memory and CPU requirements if all we want is to change the fricking channel the way an STB from 1998 can? Why must CE companies put a computer in every Television that can run a hobbled version of Java if all they want is just to add the novel feature of changing channels?

There are a variety of CEA letters to the FCC on this theme, but they all basically complain that Cablelabs is demanding that to change channels to VOD, PPV and SDV, they being asked to wear the hood and the handcuffs and live in the trunk.

LG and Samsung are bending over and taking it like men, but they are getting paid handsomely by the Cableco's for their OCAP boxes.


----------



## Saxion (Sep 18, 2006)

Grakthis said:


> what I want to know is, why couldn't TiVo have an OCAP interface as a subsystem to their OS?


Because OCAP, as currently licensed, requires the CE device (TiVo) to 1) allow the headend to install/delete/manage all OCAP applications on the CE device, and 2) run an OCAP virtual machine that allows those applications to take full control over the graphical user interface. In other words, all OCAP applications are controlled by the cable company, and using APIs for directly controlling the graphical user interface, they can take full control of the GUI as the author sees fit.


----------



## Saxion (Sep 18, 2006)

bicker said:


> Every business in a capitalist society should determine, unequivocally, what services they will offer, and at what pricing. That is a fundamental element of capitalism.


You went way too far with that patently false statement. "Every business" would include _monopolies_, which often are _not _ allowed to determine what features they will offer, nor what price they will charge. Allowing them to do so is very un-Capitalistic.

Another fundamental element of capitalism you left out is _competition_. Capitalism with fair competition results in the best possible product at the least possible price, which is a primary goal of capitalism. Unrestrained capitalism however can easily lead to monopolies. Since capitalism only "works" in the presence of fair competition, our government and our economic system wisely recognize that monopolies undermine the very foundation of capitalism (competition). Therefore, government has an obligation to 1) regulate monopolies where they exist, and 2) encourage competition so monopolies can be avoided.

You say government gets to define what is an "open" system, and that we should respect that. Well, they also get to define who is a monopoly, and by the same reasoning, _you _ should respect _that_. Despite your fervor, our government has declared that most cable companies are not subject to effective competition.

But we are not just talking about the market for video distribution systems. The _cable set top box _ market itself has proven to be a viable market, but clearly the advent of digital and 2-way systems has corrupted that market and tilted it unfairly away from competitors like TiVo. Therefore, as a true capitalist, I'm sure you will agree it is government's duty to restore and ensure fair competition to this market.


----------



## Saxion (Sep 18, 2006)

drcos said:


> Is the middleware stack the handshake between the S3 and the cable junction point for my node (to request a specific SDV channel, for instance)?
> If so, it would seem we don't have to give Comcast control over the UI.


As currently licensed, OCAP is all-or-nothing. You can't run just the SDV part of it, to the exclusion of all else. So yes, you do have to give Comcast control over the UI. Now, the CE industry is fighting to get this changed, so we will see...


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Saxion said:


> Because OCAP, as currently licensed, requires the CE device (TiVo) to 1) allow the headend to install/delete/manage all OCAP applications on the CE device, and 2) run an OCAP virtual machine that allows those applications to take full control over the graphical user interface. In other words, all OCAP applications are controlled by the cable company, and using APIs for directly controlling the graphical user interface, they can take full control of the GUI as the author sees fit.


Good summation. I think he was imagining why you couldn't build a box that allowed the cableco to have it's own machine in the same box. My response was sure- anything is possible given enough money. As you point out, the OCAP monitor has total power over the machine***- from forcing a reset to deleting programs and anything else it wants to clean up on the customer's machine. It would be tricky to have a second machine also in control of the hardware. That is, OCAP assumes it really does have control of the hard drive, the memory, the tuners, transmitter, and interface to the Cablecard, so you probably would just have to duplicate all those components so that it's assumption of state would be correct. When the User switches From Tivo mode to OCAP mode, all you really are doing is doing an A/B switch between the two.

But it would be little more than duct taping a Tivo to an OCAP box along with an IR controlled A/B switch. Not sure how many people would want to buy such a thing, even if it were just a little bit more expensive. And it would likely be more expensive than two boxes duct taped, due to the costs of integration.

*** A good description of OCAP's system architecture may be found here.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

Saxion said:


> Because OCAP, as currently licensed, requires the CE device (TiVo) to 1) allow the headend to install/delete/manage all OCAP applications on the CE device, and 2) run an OCAP virtual machine that allows those applications to take full control over the graphical user interface. In other words, all OCAP applications are controlled by the cable company, and using APIs for directly controlling the graphical user interface, they can take full control of the GUI as the author sees fit.


But, again, couldn't tivo just let the OCAP interface run in something that is the equvilent of VMWare or virtual PC?

The OCAP app would never know the difference. And you'd just have it so that when you hit "clear" or something on the TiVo remote, it drops back out of it to the TiVo console.

And it doesn't sound like the spec specifically disallows this.

Yes, I realize it's dumb. Tivo shouldn't HAVE to, but it would be an option that would allow you to boot up the OCAP interface when you want to do things that require it. Then, for the rest of the time, you use your TiVo interface.

I mean, remember back in the days when you started out in DOS and then ran windows 3.1 when you needed it for something? Then you could quit back out when you wanted back into DOS.

Edit: You handle the hardware control via mocking API calls. The same way WINE works in Linux. It catches the calls and then translates them and creates a Windows API immitation on Linux.

Create "virtual hardware" on the Tivo, and let the OCAP interface play in that sandbox the same way VMWare and Virtual PC work.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Grakthis said:


> Create "virtual hardware" on the Tivo, and let the OCAP interface play in that sandbox the same way VMWare and Virtual PC work.


It sounds to me like that would strain the already limited system resources on the TiVo.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Grakthis said:


> Edit: You handle the hardware control via mocking API calls. The same way WINE works in Linux. It catches the calls and then translates them and creates a Windows API immitation on Linux.


Linux and Windows were written with the design goal of supporting multiple OS operation and virtualization of hardware. See- you are thinking in terms of Java Jive- like Java is designed from the ground up to be virtual right? Well- not OCAP. The executive it runs on assumes it is in control of the hardware.

What happens if the executive layers running OCAP are in the middle of a cablecard interaction that has begun sending an authentication sequence and then the user jumps over to Tivo mode. The Tivo starts initiating its deal with the cablecard not knowing the state that the OCAP machine initiated with it. You do that enough times and you are going to wedge the system in fatal embraces and looping conditions. You could say- oh- we could monitor the what OCAP is doing and save all that state- Well now you are talking about a whole new level- you are talking about constructing an artificial Matrix like reality for OCAP to move in- where your software is smart enough to undo such state.

Or, more simple states. Say you are in OCAP mode and you change the channel. Does the Tivo stop recording on that tuner? Does the Tivo "mode" jump in to ask you if you want to stop recording?

You got two cooks in the kitchen and it will be a gawd awful mess. Like I said earlier- the easiest way to avoid these contention issues and fatal state conditions is just to not even to try to create a Matrix "Neo" on the OCAP OS- just give it it's own tuners, cablecard and HD and it would be much much cheaper in development costs.

If some suit came into my office with such an idiotic architecture, I'd hand him the duct tape and tell him to do the engineering.


----------



## Saxion (Sep 18, 2006)

Also, CableLabs has to certify at least the first version of an OCAP device (manufacturers can self-certify subsequent iterations). I haven't read all the OCAP specs, so maybe Grakthis knows this better than me, but I'd be surprised if CableLabs would certify a device that doesn't allow the OCAP apps to take full control of the hardware and UI...for security reasons if nothing else...there must be _something _ in the certification test spec for this...


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Justin Thyme said:


> Linux and Windows were written with the design goal of supporting multiple OS operation and virtualization of hardware. See- you are thinking in terms of Java Jive- like Java is designed from the ground up to be virtual right? Well- not OCAP. The executive it runs on assumes it is in control of the hardware. .


Also the resources on a PC are much greater to save state and do other such things needed for VM type apps. Few would try and run Virtual software on an original Pentium PC and that is basically the comparison of a TiVo. So trying to hide the OCAP out of the way does not work.

Now, the new Comcast TiVo is fully OCAP by the way, a complete port from current TiVo functionality to OCAP/Java. Since this was specifically for Comcast then the "on demand" is simply integrated into the whole UI and any changes would come down as a change for the whole integrated App. This would be the next logical stab at what to do about the UI for cable company and works quite well for one cable company, but when you have multiple cable companies complete with their own dealings and time lines then trying this on a Standalone 3rd party TiVo architecture would be even more costly than a virtual OCAP and far uglier than the duct tape approach.

I really think what is needed is the standard should not address the UI as required. Channel changing is the name of the game. Either look for a set of APIs that 3rd party would use for PPV/VOD from the cable company. Third party devices could agree to some set presentation if they show PPV/VOd from cable company, or else they simply do not show it all and compete on other strengths. You want PPV/VOD - then get a cable company box. Reduce cable card 2 to a simple way to talk with the headend and do the simple channel changing part.

or perhaps an inline box for PPV/VOD. coax goes in, then coax goes out and the UI the cable company wants is in that box but when you actually order the cable card in the actual device gets the digital stream and does what it does to tune and display/record the PPV/VOD


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

Justin Thyme said:


> Linux and Windows were written with the design goal of supporting multiple OS operation and virtualization of hardware. See- you are thinking in terms of Java Jive- like Java is designed from the ground up to be virtual right? Well- not OCAP. The executive it runs on assumes it is in control of the hardware.
> 
> What happens if the executive layers running OCAP are in the middle of a cablecard interaction that has begun sending an authentication sequence and then the user jumps over to Tivo mode. The Tivo starts initiating its deal with the cablecard not knowing the state that the OCAP machine initiated with it. You do that enough times and you are going to wedge the system in fatal embraces and looping conditions. You could say- oh- we could monitor the what OCAP is doing and save all that state- Well now you are talking about a whole new level- you are talking about constructing an artificial Matrix like reality for OCAP to move in- where your software is smart enough to undo such state.
> 
> ...


I hear what you're saying, but PCs handle this without too much issue and without fatal errors. You can have a single physical soundcard, modem, hard drive, etc being accessed by two different virtual machines AND the primary machine all at once. Some Virtual Servers have 3-4 servers running on the same box.

TiVo runs a variant of Linux, no? It operates on similar hardware.

Now, I don't know much about Cable Cards, but I see no reason why the TiVo couldn't monitor the usage of all devices in the system and be able to regain control of them when it needs to. I mean, what happens today if you shut down the cable box? I am sure it releases control of the hardware. So why wouldn't shutting down a virtual sandbox work the same way?

You say that it's a bad architecture... but again, I point out that it's possibly the only option that is not explicitly disallowed by standards.

I mean, it's bad architecture to run windows 2000 in VMWare on Ubuntu... but if you have a few games that REQUIRE Windows 2000 and simply will not run in WINE, then what choice to you have?

Oh, you could buy another box... but who wants to spend $800 on that when VMWare gets the job done.

No one is arguing that a virtual machine is ELEGANT... but it's FUNCTIONAL.

edit: Ok, I might not have a realistic view of the hardware capabilities of the S3. I was under the impression it had more than enough processing power to spare.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Justin Thyme said:


> I point to them. You run from them and hide behind Cablelabs slogans.


No, you're wrong. You just don't like the way things are. That's a shame.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Grakthis said:


> So in your world, anyone following regulations is being "open?"


In the real world, the requirements for an open cable system are defined in the regulations.



Grakthis said:


> You are at the point where you're saying that big cable companies have "open" networks because they follow the minimum requirements set forth by the government.


Others are advocating that systems aren't open because they don't like the way things are.



Grakthis said:


> Again, not a political discussion, but do you see why following the minimum standards of the government doesn't make you "open", it just makes you NOT "closed."


Except that the FCC regulations exist to define what is an open cable system, while the environmental regulations you refer to don't define "green" -- there are stronger requirements that define "green".

You don't like the way things are. I respect that. That doesn't make the cable system here a closed system.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Saxion said:


> You went way too far with that patently false statement.


No, I simply failed to put in a necessary qualification. With your qualification the statement is patently true.



Saxion said:


> Another fundamental element of capitalism you left out is _competition_.


Nope, not left out. Not interested in rehashing that issue again. It is enough to say that I believe you're wrong.



Saxion said:


> You say government gets to define what is an "open" system, and that we should respect that.


Indeed. I know that a lot of folks in this thread seem to be very good at disrespect -- they need a little help with respect. 



Saxion said:


> Well, they also get to define who is a monopoly, and by the same reasoning, _you _ should respect _that_. Despite your fervor, our government has declared that most cable companies are not subject to effective competition.


You're wrong. They have determined the exact opposite. The courts have held that subscription television has effective competition in almost all, if not all, municipalities in the country, solely on the basis of the fact that DBS offerings are available.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

TCF not the only place folks quibble about open.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6458960.html

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6458959.html


----------



## Saxion (Sep 18, 2006)

bicker said:


> No, I simply failed to put in a necessary qualification.


So...in other words...your statement was...wrong?? 


bicker said:


> It is enough to say that I believe you're wrong.


Fair enough, but please site a specific. Did I say something controversial? I throught it was just Econ 101.


bicker said:


> You're wrong. They have determined the exact opposite.


Wow, that's quite a strong statement, but unfortunately it's quite incorrect. Please read the FCC's Report on Cable Industry Prices. The 2005 report is available here. Go to Page 17. Read Attachment 1. According to our government (FCC), *92.07% of cable communities are noncompetitive*.

Now I can see, given your mistaken notion about the state of cable competition, where you were coming from in your negative stance on regulation. Since I have now corrected your facts, I'm sure you will agree, being the good capitalist and pro-competition guy that you are, that government has a duty to regulate that 92.07% of the market and/or actively encourage competition in the segment.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

bicker said:


> No, you're wrong. You just don't like the way things are. That's a shame.


If I am wrong, you have not given the reader a chance to understand why.

If you do not bother to make a substantive response to the facts that have decimated your assertion, then we can only assume that you are blustering.

Are you just blustering, or are you going to defend your absurd position?


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

bicker said:


> Except that the FCC regulations exist to define what is an open cable system, while the environmental regulations you refer to don't define "green" -- there are stronger requirements that define "green".
> 
> You don't like the way things are. I respect that. That doesn't make the cable system here a closed system.


I am going to explain this to you one more time, and then you either get it or you don't.

Open is NOT defined by the FCC. It is a word that has a specific meaning that has existed in the technology community for a long long time. Long before the FCC started regulating network communications, there was a concept of Open.

The FCC does not get to redefine the word "Open" just because they put a regulation in place.

If you want to say that the cable network meets the FCC standards for "Open" then go for it. But if you're talking to the tech savvy (as you will tend to be on here) then you need to realize that we do not consider the FCC the deciding factor on what is and is not open. Period.

There is a reason why organic food says "USDA Certified Organic!" and not just "Organic."


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

Time Warner Cable Austin's Director of Digital Systems Todd Bowen


> "Any channel that is put into SDV is unavailable to CableCard equipped (unidirectional) TVs and PVRs such as the TiVo Series 3," writes Bowen. The resultant subscriber experience of loss can be "emotional," he adds. (An understatement, given the psychological profile of a typical TiVo devotee.)


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

I get it now What they are trying to say is that only a person with a psychological problem would get annoyed if the cable company fixed it so that if you didn't use their box, you couldn't change channels any more.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

Grakthis said:


> Open is NOT defined by the FCC. It is a word that has a specific meaning that has existed in the technology community for a long long time. Long before the FCC started regulating network communications, there was a concept of Open.
> 
> The FCC does not get to redefine the word "Open" just because they put a regulation in place.
> 
> If you want to say that the cable network meets the FCC standards for "Open" then go for it. But if you're talking to the tech savvy (as you will tend to be on here) then you need to realize that we do not consider the FCC the deciding factor on what is and is not open. Period.


There may eventually be some help on this:
Merriam-Webster's Validates DVR, RPG To Lexicon

but we may have to wait for DMR first.



> Ginormous, for example, is a combo of gigantic and enormous. Call it the mashup of the dictionary.
> 
> You may not know it but the business of reference dictionaries like M-W and American Heritage is extremely political. I didn't realize it till I took an extension course at U.C. Berkeley a couple of years ago. The instructor spent an entire semester pointing out how American and British dictionaries differ greatly on the usage of simple things like commas.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Saxion said:


> Fair enough, but please site a specific.


No, specificity isn't the issue. You don't like the way things are. I get that. However, the courts have established that there is effective competition in the subscription television market nationwide. Accept it and move on. What you're advocating isn't competition, but rather spite.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Justin Thyme said:


> If I am wrong, you have not given the reader a chance to understand why.


I've done so more than enough. All that's left now are the folks who just don't like reality, and are just trying to drive the issue into the ground.

Tough.


----------



## vstone (May 11, 2002)

Justin Thyme said:


> I get it now What they are trying to say is that only a person with a psychological problem would get annoyed if the cable company fixed it so that if you didn't use their box, you couldn't change channels any more.


I believe the context is as a humorous comment by the article's writer, not by the TWC guy.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

Grakthis said:


> edit: what I want to know is, why couldn't TiVo have an OCAP interface as a subsystem to their OS?


TiVo could, as their hardware has the horsepower to run Java code.

The key is, for a plain non DVR STB or TV set,or low-end DVR, it would add unnecessary complexity and cost.

That is, if Cablelabs were to allow OCAP as a subsystem of an CE interface, rather than a replacement.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

HDTiVo said:


> Justin:
> 
> Why do you marry OCAP and CC2.0? Couldn't a CC2.0 device be made that's fully functional without OCAP?


Fundamentally, yes, but it would require some back-end complexity to make interactive services work with a near standard.


> Also, why does OCAP have to include the UI functions? Couldn't OCAP - or something else - just provide an interface to cable services via openly documented system calls?


The cable providers want their UI. It is technically possible to have some sort of "open" language or code used to access two-way services with the STB UI.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

classicsat said:


> TiVo could, as their hardware has the horsepower to run Java code.
> 
> The key is, for a plain non DVR STB or TV set,or low-end DVR, it would add unnecessary complexity and cost.
> 
> That is, if Cablelabs were to allow OCAP as a subsystem of an CE interface, rather than a replacement.


TiVo already runs java code and the horsepower is enough to run that code.
OCAP would need to be an entirely new subsystem of java code and it would take any S2 to its kneees, unless of course you just turned off that resource hog of a real time encoder to record to the hard drive stuff 

basically to do cable card 2 spec as it stands - TiVo would need to take the port of UI to the comcast OCAP box - figure out how in the world to satisfy the requirement about any cable company being able to downlaod new java software as they saw fit and of course that new code having complete access to display hardware and cable cards. Add in the power needed to do all that and still retain the powered by TiVo aspect and you have two ways to do this
1. work out deals with all cable companies to deliver an OCAP version of TiVo specific to each cable company
2. put so much horsepower in the TiVo to allow for OCAP subsystem that 800$ becomes the price after wholesale discount


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

classicsat said:


> Fundamentally, yes, but it would require some back-end complexity to make interactive services work with a near standard.
> 
> The cable providers want their UI. It is technically possible to have some sort of "open" language or code used to access two-way services with the STB UI.


What I was hinting at in bringing up the questions is that we "talk" about this as if the entire war is lost. However there is still a fight out there, and we shouldn't settle our assumptions yet.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

HDTiVo said:


> What I was hinting at in bringing up the questions is that we "talk" about this as if the entire war is lost. However there is still a fight out there, and we shouldn't settle our assumptions yet.


Good point that the war is not over yet. TiVo has worked hard to be a good corporate citizen. In the long run it is in the cable companies interest to have a "killer app" DVR to get everyone excited about media service offerings and all the cable company is really doing is protecting their own wares they sell, not just being stubborn.

there is plenty of business room for an open dialog still if not an open system yet.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

bicker said:


> I've done so more than enough. All that's left now are the folks who just don't like reality, and are just trying to drive the issue into the ground.
> 
> Tough.


More bluster. More smoke and mirrors.



bicker said:


> No, specificity isn't the issue.


Oh, but it is. Reality is composed of facts. You do not post any. Please link to the note where you provide the factual basis for your assertion that your Comcast system is open.

If it is open, then what is the specification that third party vendors may use to build a box to connect to this fanciful "open" system? Is that specification supported by Comcast for third party boxes?

The two questions are very simple. They are very devastating to your position.

Sorry. Comcast is closed.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

We'll never agree, it is clear. So it is up to you whether or not every single thread the issue comes up in becomes a circus. I'll let you say what you believe, if you let me say what I believe, without attacking each other. Deal? (Or do you really just WANT the "attacking each other" part?)


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

HDTiVo said:


> Justin:
> 
> Why do you marry OCAP and CC2.0? Couldn't a CC2.0 device be made that's fully functional without OCAP?


Sorry HD, in the hustle and bustle I didn't realize you directed this at me.

I think that it was remarked that OCAP is part of CC2.0.

The real question was why we need OCAP to change channels. CableLabs hasn't proved that case either to the CEA or the FCC.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

bicker said:


> We'll never agree, it is clear. So it is up to you whether or not every single thread the issue comes up in becomes a circus. I'll let you say what you believe, if you let me say what I believe, without attacking each other. Deal? (Or do you really just WANT the "attacking each other" part?)


I think we'd all like to understand how your definition of an open cable network allows a closed network to be called open.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

bicker said:


> We'll never agree, it is clear. So it is up to you whether or not every single thread the issue comes up in becomes a circus. I'll let you say what you believe, if you let me say what I believe, without attacking each other. Deal? (Or do you really just WANT the "attacking each other" part?)


Not at all. The discussion is based on facts and reasoned arguments- which you refuse to provide. If folks don't respect you because of your lack of intellectual discipline, that is a conclusion that is up to them. Not me.

You see, this is not about you or me, personalities or motives or hidden agendas, whatever yours may be. It's about truth.

Not to stick to facts and arguments would allow the discussion to devolve into bickering.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Good point that the war is not over yet. TiVo has worked hard to be a good corporate citizen. In the long run it is in the cable companies interest to have a "killer app" DVR to get everyone excited about media service offerings and all the cable company is really doing is protecting their own wares they sell, not just being stubborn.
> 
> there is plenty of business room for an open dialog still if not an open system yet.


Indeed. Microsoft is our best friend right now, because they are a huge company fighting the same fight TiVo is. Microsoft has a vision for a digital media experience that lets you put TV and Movies on your HTPC.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

Justin Thyme said:


> Sorry HD, in the hustle and bustle I didn't realize you directed this at me.
> 
> I think that it was remarked that OCAP is part of CC2.0.
> 
> The real question was why we need OCAP to change channels. CableLabs hasn't proved that case either to the CEA or the FCC.


What I am really trying to point out is that none of this is set in stone and we ought to at least talk somewhat about an alternative to cable's *proposal*, and keep in mind that it is a _proposal_.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> In the long run it is in the cable companies interest to have a "killer app" DVR to get everyone excited about media service offerings and all the cable company is really doing is protecting their own wares they sell, not just being stubborn.


Isn't TiVoSoft on cable DVRs the "killer app?" 

I mean why would you need competition when cable & TiVo can provide you with what they know is good for you?


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

Grakthis said:


> Indeed. Microsoft is our best friend right now, because they are a huge company fighting the same fight TiVo is. Microsoft has a vision for a digital media experience that lets you put TV and Movies on your HTPC.


Compatibility with MSFT (esp. DRM) would be TiVo's best friend. 

If you want to talk closed and proprietary systems, walled gardens and going it alone, you're talking TiVo.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

HDTiVo said:


> What I am really trying to point out is that none of this is set in stone and we ought to at least talk somewhat about an alternative to cable's *proposal*, and keep in mind that it is a _proposal_.


We did talk about this. Last January.

Fundamentally, it's not a technical problem- support for changing channels can be solved any number of ways- each with different cost benefits.

The central dynamic of the situation is that Cable companies are disincented to reach any agreement on two way. If they agree on two way, third party boxes can be built which do everything their boxes do and more- for example access to video from competitor sources like Unbox or YouTube.

In my opinion, the FCC needs to help the cable companies by giving them an incentive to reach agreement.

FCC needs to ban the introduction of any more SDV, VOD or PPV channels until agreement on a standard for two way is reached between Cablelabs, Verizon, CEA, Intel, MSFT, and 5C.

I think you'd see a solution so fast your head would spin.


----------



## drcos (Jul 20, 2001)

Justin Thyme said:


> FCC needs to ban the introduction of any more SDV, VOD or PPV channels until agreement on a standard for two way is reached between Cablelabs, Verizon, CEA, Intel, MSFT, and 5C.


Well, at least the SDV part. I really couldn't care right now about PPV or VOD (I have a TiVO, it's like VOD, but only shows I like).
SDV seems like a good way for the cablecos to get back at the consumer for having the nerve to not want their POS equipment. And they can rationalize it to the max...we don't have room to carry all these channels.

Here's a good question that hasn't been asked here...
If we have say, 50 SDV channels on a node and there's only enough switched slots for 25 of these, what happens when I (with my mystical cable company box) want to watch one of these channels, but there are no available slots?
I would be wanting some kind of compensation from the cable company, to be sure.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

drcos said:


> Here's a good question that hasn't been asked here...
> If we have say, 50 SDV channels on a node and there's only enough switched slots for 25 of these, what happens when I (with my mystical cable company box) want to watch one of these channels, but there are no available slots?
> I would be wanting some kind of compensation from the cable company, to be sure.


Do you want a technical answer or a billing/cust srvc answer? I can't tell you how the billing will work, but I can address the technical.

First of all, your scenario is slightly off. The real scenario is what if there are enough slots for 25 unique channels and my request generates a demand for the 26th currently active channel in my node. The total number of channels offered is irrelevant. There could be a billion offered and it has no bearing.

The answer will differ in the short-term and the long-term. In the short-term (the first year at least) you will get an error message saying try again later or the totally meaningless 'one moment please' error message. Prior to things getting critical though , the operators will send messages to STBs tuned to channels that have been tuned for a very long time with no activity (like when you go to bed with your STB still on) and will ask the users to confirm they are still watching. If they confirm, it will stay, otherwise it will be recovered. Activity can be any IR signaling at all.

In the longer-term the operators will have the ability to increase the compression on the least watched channel dynamically to make more room for your additional channel. Once the demand for unique channels lowers again, compression goes back to normal.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

ah30k said:


> Do you want a technical answer or a billing/cust srvc answer? I can't tell you how the billing will work, but I can address the technical.
> 
> First of all, your scenario is slightly off. The real scenario is what if there are enough slots for 25 unique channels and my request generates a demand for the 26th currently active channel in my node. The total number of channels offered is irrelevant. There could be a billion offered and it has no bearing.
> 
> ...


What boggles the mind is that they go through all this crap just so they can show reruns of "Cheers" and "Monster Garage" more often.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

MickeS said:


> What boggles the mind is that they go through all this crap just so they can show reruns of "Cheers" and "Monster Garage" more often.


Hey, if no one watches the reruns, they won't have a problem then . Problem solved.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

ah30k said:


> Hey, if no one watches the reruns, they won't have a problem then . Problem solved.


That's precisely my point.

They are rolling out SDV in order to be able to have more channels that they COUNT ON will have very few people watching - channels that will mostly show reruns and/or niche material, that could easily be done with some VOD channels, without SDV.

I don't understand why they are doing this, and not just do more VOD like stuff.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

MickeS said:


> They are rolling out SDV in order to be able to have more channels that they COUNT ON will have very few people watching.
> 
> I don't understand why they are doing this, and not just do more VOD like stuff.


No, they want lots of people to be watching lots of the channels and paying lots of money for access to those channels.

VOD is just a specialized form of SDV. It saves nothing to use VOD instead; indeed it makes it impossible to have 2 or more watching the non-VOD SDV channel simultaneously, so VOD is worse.

Don't worry about not having enough spectrum for SDV demand.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

ah30k said:


> The answer will differ in the short-term and the long-term. In the short-term (the first year at least) you will get an error message saying try again later or the totally meaningless 'one moment please' error message. Prior to things getting critical though , the operators will send messages to STBs tuned to channels that have been tuned for a very long time with no activity (like when you go to bed with your STB still on) and will ask the users to confirm they are still watching. If they confirm, it will stay, otherwise it will be recovered. Activity can be any IR signaling at all.


You have any links on description of these sorts of details?

Assuming that Rogers is right and cableco's have something nice for us Tivo users regarding SDV, it still sucks that the operators are putting up stupid UI messages that will mess up a recording. Will the operator know that a dvr is in use/ does the dvr have a way of shutting of such UI messages/ tell the HE not to bug us? or does the message come via data and not interfere with the screen unless the cablecard host device decides to display it?


----------



## drcos (Jul 20, 2001)

Justin Thyme said:


> ... does the message come via data and not interfere with the screen unless the cablecard host device decides to display it?


Even better, another alert message that takes over the TiVo. Even if this happened on the standard POS Comcast box, I wouldn't be too happy with either scenario (annoying messages from the headend or more compression).

Perhaps even worse, SDV is a ploy by the cable companies to not have to carry new HD. They put the new HD channels on SDV, most of the folks that would watch them have S3's and can't. So they pull the channel entirely, citing 'lack of demand.'

The situation is unacceptable. Even moreso, it smacks of arrogance, especially in this area (SWFL) where FIOS is imminent, although in their defense, Comcast here has not announced any SDV plans, although our Comcast has always been one of these left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing outfits. The only time we get timely information from them is...well actually the only time I can remember is when they moved NFL to a separate 'sports/entertainment' tier, but that was a corporate thing.


----------



## vstone (May 11, 2002)

ah30k said:


> ...
> Once the demand for unique channels lowers again, compression goes back to normal.


Or not!


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

drcos said:


> Even better, another alert message that takes over the TiVo. Even if this happened on the standard POS Comcast box, I wouldn't be too happy with either scenario (annoying messages from the headend or more compression).
> 
> Perhaps even worse, SDV is a ploy by the cable companies to not have to carry new HD. They put the new HD channels on SDV, most of the folks that would watch them have S3's and can't. So they pull the channel entirely, citing 'lack of demand.'


You'd think there would be a signal sent to the set-top box that causes the box to display the message. DVRs, on the other hand, would respond differently by sending back a response stating "I'm recording this channel. Don't kill it!" Or, if they weren't recording it, they would behave like set-top boxes.

SDV is not a ploy. Everyone else can watch and record HD channels just fine. Just not S3 users. They are like maybe, 10% of HD watchers? 20% tops? The good news is that they are a significant number so that the cable companies want to work with Tivo. The industry is developing another closed standard because the open standard got stuck and the industry can't wait any longer.  (Wow, I never saw that coming at all.  )

Of course, the cable industry could be using Tivo to avoid further regulation. They will have a third-party DVR is 100% compatible with their cable system (just one, but hey, better than none). So now the FCC can get off their back. In theory, anyway.

Finally, nothing I read stated that the S3s would be upgraded. I thought it meant Tivos going forward would work with SDV. Whether Tivo gives S3 users a dongle or a transfer to a newer Tivo remains to be seen.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

I agree Switched video is not a ploy. It's a cost effective use of bandwidth.

But Cable certainly has used it as a weapon. Along with VOD and PPV, SDV is one of the low hanging fruits of having support for being able to tell the Head end what channel you want. And Cable has wanted to withold third party support of those features until they got what they want with a standard for two way devices.

Cable likes to characterize this as "interactive television". Most everyone else calls it changing channels.

Looks like Tivo will get some dongle whatever so SDV will work, at least on Tivos. Rogers testified he was confident of Cable Co's promises to solve this problem, so it is safe to assume he has a reason to be confident. So Tivo is dominant on the CE DVR side of the street, and plays the open garden, anti monopolist game for all it is worth.

Meanwhile they are being used as the poster child / hoped for "Killer App" for OCAP, taking money from the monopolists pocket at the same time. And they will be the dominant app on the OCAP/ closed garden side of the street.

Oh Tivo, behave. You're so shagadelic, everyone wants to be in bed with you.

All the while I think it's becoming clear that the cable company closed "open" strategy is not reaching the end game they had hoped. Tough break. But in the interim, Tivo will pick up some good development money, and provide a good preview for large numbers of folks on what a real tivo can do. The CableCo's may be pink, but their money is green.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

HDTiVo said:


> No, they want lots of people to be watching lots of the channels and paying lots of money for access to those channels.
> 
> VOD is just a specialized form of SDV. It saves nothing to use VOD instead; indeed it makes it impossible to have 2 or more watching the non-VOD SDV channel simultaneously, so VOD is worse.


I must misunderstand this completely.

I thought the point of SDV was to put lesser watched channels on it. If the channels are popular, where is the advantage in doing them with SDV?


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

VOD is SDV that only one person gets to watch from the beginning. Of course HD can speak for himself but it was pretty clear to me from the surrounding statements that he misworded- he meant multiple people CAN watch SDV, but multiple people can't watch VOD, so VOD is worse.

You are right that a channel that is always being watched on a node is not a good candidate for being switched. 

You do put the lesser watched channels on it, but some folks think/hope the promise of Switched Video is that they will get more of the lesser watched channels. What they do with the reclaimed bandwidth is up to the local operator. I highly doubt it will be for more "Free" channels. What SDV means is some limitations on the channels we watch now so that Cable has more room for other revenue generating products- maybe more HD channels, whatever.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

Justin Thyme said:


> VOD is SDV that only one person gets to watch from the beginning. Of course HD can speak for himself but it was pretty clear to me from the surrounding statements that he misworded- he meant multiple people CAN watch SDV, but multiple people can't watch VOD, so VOD is worse.


That sounds so much like what I said, however inelegantly, that I'll let you speak for me on this one.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

VOD includes trick-play controls as well. SDV won't.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Justin Thyme said:


> You do put the lesser watched channels on it, but some folks think/hope the promise of Switched Video is that they will get more of the lesser watched channels.


Gotcha. And thanks for the VOD clarification.

So I WAS right that they're doing all this so they can have more channels with reruns of "Cheers" and "Monster Garage". 

I guess I still don't understand what they're gaining by making everything channels instead of offering individual PROGRAMS. Or maybe that's what they'll end up doing anyway - one "Cheers Rerun Channel" another "Monster Garage Rerun Channel".


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

HDTiVo said:


> That sounds so much like what I said, however inelegantly, that I'll let you speak for me on this one.


I think you meant to say "non-SDV VOD" instead of "non-VOD SDV". Because that makes much more sense.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

MickeS said:


> I guess I still don't understand what they're gaining by making everything channels instead of offering individual PROGRAMS. Or maybe that's what they'll end up doing anyway - one "Cheers Rerun Channel" another "Monster Garage Rerun Channel".


Cable operators are not programming providers (well they do a little) and can only really broadcast what streams they can purchase. If SDV really takes off then perhaps the programming providers (DSC, TLC, NICK etc) will start to provide the streams that you are talking about. Right now though, there are no "Monster Garage Rerun" channels that the cable operators can offer. Someday, maybe.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

AH30K- don't you agree there is an infrastructure obstacle too? How many subs in your service groups?



MickeS said:


> I guess I still don't understand what they're gaining by making everything channels instead of offering individual PROGRAMS.


Well, an individual program would have to be VOD, right?

A cable service group served by one node is anywhere between 200 and 1000 subscribers, so you have maybe 1 percent of your bandwidth dedicated to a single subscriber? Concretely, say you have 600MHZ devoted to VOD/PPV/SDV, and maybe 6MHZ average per channel, then you can support 100 VOD/PPV sessions total. So the other 100-900 subscribers will have to suck rocks? Unless you can push the subs per node down, or the MHZ for VOD sessions up, you can't go to viewing by program, and must remain to a large extent in the shared viewing model.

Note that FIOS is down to 32 subs per node, so they theoretically can go to the pure VOD model you suggest.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

MickeS said:


> I think you meant to say "non-SDV VOD" instead of "non-VOD SDV". Because that makes much more sense.


Nope. There is VOD using SDV and there is regular (broadcast/multicast ie. non-VOD) using SDV.

There ain't no VOD not using SDV.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

Justin Thyme said:


> A cable service group served by one node is anywhere between 200 and 1000 subscribers,


I thought it was typically much lower than that, or at least they broke the nodes down to smaller numbers as necessary.

Anyway, if you want to really get crazy, you could imagine an all digital cbale network that could carry several hundred channels per node (even say 200 HD channels if everyone was watching HD, or 300 HD-lites  ) simultaneously and virtually give everyone on each node a VOD stream.

I'd expect the cable co's to build their networks out in that direction over time, as business and actual (physical) demand warrant.

They aren't just doing this to piss their customers off with "all circuits are busy messages." They'll add serivces (channels, etc.) as their systems' ability to deliver evolves. It will be a screw up when busy signals happen.

So maybe Justin gets famine level cable and Mr. Dobbs gets everything ever created when he visits his pad in Manhattan.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

drcos said:


> Here's a good question that hasn't been asked here...
> If we have say, 50 SDV channels on a node and there's only enough switched slots for 25 of these, what happens when I (with my mystical cable company box) want to watch one of these channels, but there are no available slots?
> I would be wanting some kind of compensation from the cable company, to be sure.


My cable costs about 14 cents per hour. Getting a refund for anything more than that would be generosity.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

bicker said:


> My cable costs about 14 cents per hour. Getting a refund for anything more than that would be generosity.


Probably more like 0.14 cents per hour if you count it by channel.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Hehe... yup.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

Justin Thyme said:


> AH30K- don't you agree there is an infrastructure obstacle too? How many subs in your service groups?


There are infrastructure problems to be overcome beyond the mere statistical odds of the channels being filled up. The biggest one I can think of is the messaging traffic which will go up tremendously once each STB starts chatting to the headend regarding channel changes. The messaging protocols in most systems was never designed for high traffic near-realtime messaging. I think the only reason VOD trick-play works now is that so few people actually are using it. I'm getting out of my comfort zone, but I think the protocols were designed for polling STBs for impulse purchases and if a message exchange got clobbered it would be no big deal since they could pick it up again during the next polling cycle. Everyone in the know is pretty confident, so I'll take them at their word that it will work out.

I think much of the messaging problems go away when systems convert over to DSG.

I'm sure DT_DC (or something like that) can correct me. That dude is way more knowledgeable than me.


----------



## drcos (Jul 20, 2001)

Well, my ploy thing was off (I did say 'perhaps' though), and my comment about compensation was rhetorically sarcastic (or sarcastically rhetoric)...

So now with all this 'messaging' it's a ploy to screw up my CABLE MODEM  

And guys, on larger systems, I would bet there are upwards of 100 households on each 'node' if not even more.
So the people who come home later (or turn on the cable later) will be the ones getting the 'busy signals' when we want to watch the Belly Button Lint Channel. I would not think you would want us ticked off there, cable booooy.

I don't see how SDV is a long-term solution, especially as channels (and subscribers) proliferate.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

drcos said:


> I don't see how SDV is a long-term solution, especially as channels (and subscribers) proliferate.


There is a pretty convincing story that, given the current state of affairs (ie the deployed base of equipment), you can use SDV to offer many more HD channels. It is shown to be working in trials. The more channels you offer, the stronger the story for SDV becomes. As for increasing subscriber base goes, cable companies have almost reached their plateau anyway. Simple tuning of node sizes can fix that.

I'd be happy to hear other solutions you can offer.

Yes, we all agree that CableCARD users are currently screwed but lets face facts. CableCARD users (me included) are but a gnat on the elephants ass. And hopefully it will get fixed.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

HDTiVo said:


> Compatibility with MSFT (esp. DRM) would be TiVo's best friend.
> 
> If you want to talk closed and proprietary systems, walled gardens and going it alone, you're talking TiVo.


 Let Microsoft in and it will be walled eventually (their walls). Keep them away from video!


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

ah30k said:


> I think much of the messaging problems go away when systems convert over to DSG.


 Right- you mean the old proprietary out of band upstream protocols like what the explorer 2200's you referred to in austin are using. Well heck- the SDV systems going in today must support Docsis Set top Gateway DSG switching.

So what the heck. FCC declares that for Docsis based systems (Cableco's) consumers requesting one must be provided a CableModem that supports DSG upstream requests to change channels.

Plug in the Tivo to an ethernet port- it finds the cablemodem- poof- ability to request SDV/VOD/PPV channels. No dongles. Why does it have to be any more complicated than that for Basic Bi-directional?

Same thing for FIOS (although using Moca in place of Docsis cablemodem).

As for interactive TV (trick play with VOD), if any analyst thinks this seems even vaguely viable, I highly recommend they go out and buy a $12 X10 module from Radio shack, an x10 light switch and see what they think. Flick on the light switch. Light comes on almost instantly. But not quite- there is a 10millisecond delay. Really brief, but it is disconcerting. See if you get used to it after a few weeks. I don't think you will either. This is called signalling latency. Now imagine that this latency is nonlinear- that is, due to loading and traffic conditions, sometimes when you press the FF, it is 10ms other times 25ms. Try it. You'll get the picture.

It's the same reason that Micros replaced Timeshare systems. It's the same reason the network computer went down in flames. Folks like instant response and they know they can get it. Also basic man machine interface tell us that anything that is not exactly as responsive as it was yesterday seems flakey. What would you think if your steering wheel had a little bit of slop in it one day, and a lot the next, and then none the third day. Our hands get wired to our machines and they get freaked when the machine behaves with even the slightest delay differences.

So uhhh long answer, but ITV? No thanks. I just want to my third party box to be able to change channels thank you very much.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

Justin,
Perhaps it is because it is very late (for me or you) but I have no idea what the hell you are talking about.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Sorry. It was cableguy763 that mentioned austin's SDV compatibility with SA's Explorer 2000.

Is that the WTF? you mean?


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Anyway, if they are putting in new SDV systems surely they are putting DSG in those because that is what the OCAP boxes use- it would make no sense to solely use the old proprietary OOB method.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

tenthplanet said:


> Let Microsoft in and it will be walled eventually (their walls). Keep them away from video!


Right, like how you can't watch YouTube, or Unbox or Veoh or Joost or Vongo or CBS's episode streams or NBC's episode streams or Fox's episode streams or anything else but MSFT sold videos on your PC.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

Justin Thyme said:


> So what the heck. FCC declares that for Docsis based systems (Cableco's) consumers requesting one must be provided a CableModem that supports DSG upstream requests to change channels.
> 
> Plug in the Tivo to an ethernet port- it finds the cablemodem- poof- ability to request SDV/VOD/PPV channels. No dongles. Why does it have to be any more complicated than that for Basic Bi-directional?
> 
> Same thing for FIOS (although using Moca in place of Docsis cablemodem).


Send that to the FCC while they are soliciting ideas for two-way.



> It's the same reason that Micros replaced Timeshare systems.


I definitely prefer clients robust enough to cover the problems you mention. In the near future those may be rather thin anyway. Think about things like PauseTV where they do it it DRAM or some such.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

Justin Thyme said:


> You are right that a channel that is always being watched on a node is not a good candidate for being switched.
> 
> You do put the lesser watched channels on it,


From a theoretical standpoint there is no downside to having *everything * SDV. If some channels are always watched by someone, then they are just as "static" as they are in a non-SDV mode. But if by chance a channel is not being watched, its bandwidth is freed for other purpose(s).

Getting from today's systems to that point would be a set of incremental steps.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

HDTiVo said:


> Send that to the FCC while they are soliciting ideas for two-way.


Ok chief but first some details. I figure I need an SA equiped SDV system and a Comcast sytle Moto equipped SDV system for implementing a proof of concept, plus access to NDA Cablelabs documents on the upstream messaging.

Unless you know some cable companies that would be motivated to help me make an OCAP less proposal, it will probably cost 10 million or so to set up. Getting access to the NDA documents may be a little rougher.

Give me a call when you've got those ducks in a row and I'll get to work.

Seriously though, I have no idea what the sequence of interactions is between an STB and the HE equipment using this DSG path. So I haven't a clue if there is a cablemodem that can be modified to act as a gateway in way I suggested.

Surely the CEA guys are working on these proposals- Does anyone publish any of this stuff or is it all only for behind closed door meetings? All these guys have agendas- Intel / Microsoft are Very comfortable if it requires lots of software/ processing power- IC suppliers (Broadcom etc) are pretty happy if they have the only secure processor/ integrated IC that can do the job for the lowest cost-

Meanwhile us schmoes that actually have to pay for the wonderous technology in these boxes are left in the dark. This is transparency?


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

Justin Thyme said:


> Give me a call when you've got those ducks in a row and I'll get to work.


Why don't you ring up Dave Zatz and put Sling on it. Then get him to have Mari slip some systems out the door with her on the way home at night.


----------



## drcos (Jul 20, 2001)

ah30k said:


> There is a pretty convincing story that, given the current state of affairs (ie the deployed base of equipment), you can use SDV to offer many more HD channels...


But theoretically the maximum number of SDV channels you could offer would be limited by the largest 'node' you have (or some factor of that number), as you would have to have that many slots in case every subscriber on that node wanted a different channel (I know not likely but still a possibility).


ah30k said:


> I'd be happy to hear other solutions you can offer.


You might be but the cable companies won't.
1. Drop analog. Put your 'lifeline' channels down there in the VHF range. It used to be like this anyway, back in the day. On our headend, that would free up about 55 channels worth of analog bandwidth.
2. Dump the shopping channels. I don't need HSN, QVC, JewelTV, ShopMSNBC, etc., etc. I can shop on the internet and I don't have to wait for them to show me something I might want to buy. If you must leave them on (as they are pretty much free to the cable co), compress the snot out of them.

The next 'news' channel that devotes more than 5 seconds to Paris Hilton can also be dumped


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

At certain points along the way, there is going to be resistance from cable networks to being put on SDV. Similar to issues like being included in basic cable vs. other tiers, cable networks will not want to lose access to some number of potential viewers who don't have equipment capable of tuning in.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

NCTA FCC filing June 5 said:


> When TiVo raised concerns that its one-way DVRs could not access two-way SDV linear channels, the *cable industry responded promptly and engineers from cable and TiVo are working now to find a solution*. TiVos President and CEO Tom Rogers recently testified that There is good news. We have pointed out this problem to the cable industry. To their great credit, they have said, we want to work this out, we want to work this through. *We are hopeful that it will be solved.*


Dateline July 2008: The NCTA is pleased to announce that its engineers have found a solution to Tivo's inability to change channels on SDV enabled networks. Working closely with Tivo engineers, the cable industry engineers have determined that what Tivo needs to use in their boxes is a standard called Cablecard 2.0. The first cablecard 2.0 device was certified tin 2005, and a certification process has long been in place for this standard. The NCTA is please to close this matter and all interested parties are directed to the open cable foundation which has tirelessly been working to promote standards for next generation video delivery that promote a competitive high technology industry... blah blah blah....

Enough. FCC needs to light a fire under Cable's behind. No more SDV/VOD rollouts until there is an agreement with manufacturers of unidirectional (UDCP) devices on changing channels. This includes FIOS VOD/PPV as well as Cable.


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

Why don't you compose a letter requesting exactly that, providing the background and the problem, and then encouraging everyone here to send it to their Senator and Representative.


----------



## vstone (May 11, 2002)

My experience is that senators & representatives don't understand any of this cable stuff. They may not care if they get campaign contributions from cable companies, which itself is likely. I sent a letter to the US senators and reps for 3 locations in 3 states - that's 6 seantors & 3 reps. The folks representing other states (ie I can't vote for or aginst them) didn't care at all. They don't care if their constituents are getting screwed. My reps would forward my letter to the FCC, which responded with a letter about OTA television. One senator had a staffy call me. I sort of straightened him out. He said he would check and get back to me. That was March.

Having said all of that I might write another letter myself. My spleen needs venting!


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

drcos said:


> 2. Dump the shopping channels. I don't need HSN, QVC, JewelTV, ShopMSNBC, etc., etc. I can shop on the internet and I don't have to wait for them to show me something I might want to buy. If you must leave them on (as they are pretty much free to the cable co), compress the snot out of them.


Now you're way out of line. That's just crazy talk. 

That would probably cause the biggest outrage of all. Locally, they broadcast **TWO** shopping channels OTA. They are the clearest channels as well.


----------



## CharlesH (Aug 29, 2002)

BobCamp1 said:


> That would probably cause the biggest outrage of all. Locally, they broadcast **TWO** shopping channels OTA. They are the clearest channels as well.


My understanding is that the shopping channels pay the cableco to be carried, so the cablecos are *happy* to carry them, and they are not going anywhere. OTOH, the other channels are paid by the cableco (on a per-subscriber to that channel basis, I believe).


----------



## drcos (Jul 20, 2001)

Compress them down to obedience, I say!!!
Shopping channels are eeeevil. Especially the Home Satan Network


----------



## smark (Nov 20, 2002)

HDTiVo said:


> At certain points along the way, there is going to be resistance from cable networks to being put on SDV. Similar to issues like being included in basic cable vs. other tiers, cable networks will not want to lose access to some number of potential viewers who don't have equipment capable of tuning in.


Not really.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Really. Small cable systems for example who can't afford to upgrade sat boxes or pay the premium for vendor lock in proprietary methods for sdv that work with the boxes they have.


----------



## smark (Nov 20, 2002)

That wasn't the statement I responded to.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Justin Thyme said:


> Really. Small cable systems for example who can't afford to upgrade sat boxes or pay the premium for vendor lock in proprietary methods for sdv that work with the boxes they have.


Small cable systems can get the older boxes for a good price from the larger cable companies. Or they can also go to Motorola and get the boxes. The bigger companies pay for the start up and development, the smaller cable companies simply feed off their high volumes and get good prices.

If they still cannot afford it, they simply do not offer as many channels. People who want HD will switch to Dish or DirecTV or Verizon or AT&T or the bigger cable company. The smaller cable companies go out of business or become ripe for takeover by a bigger company, and your point becomes moot. Problem solved! 

Constantly changing technologies is one of the reasons why many markets converge into an oligopoly. The smaller companies cannot afford to keep up.

And I don't think the networks will complain, either. If SDV is implemented correctly, the customer won't even notice.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

tenthplanet said:


> Let Microsoft in and it will be walled eventually (their walls). Keep them away from video!


Uh... microsoft is the company always developing and then giving away open standards.

And microsoft is TiVo's best ally in the cable and video industry right now. Microsoft wants to encourage their media PC idea as much as possible.

Hell, WMP for Vista is a UPnP AV controller and server. Find that anywhere else.

No... microsoft getting into the industry is awesome for us. They will go to war with cable companies, develop open standards, then give them to hardware manufacturers in the hopes that they can license their software on top of everyone elses hardware.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

BobCamp1 said:


> If they still cannot afford it, they simply do not offer as many channels. People who want HD will switch to Dish or DirecTV or Verizon or AT&T or the bigger cable company.


Sure. I was just pointing out that it is not correct to say that all cable companies will roll out SDV- which I guess is not what Smark meant to imply.

Similarly, not all cable companies will charge $70 to $125 per month like Sat and Cable companies. Small companies that don't have to buy fiber, fancy Head end servers and switched nodes (sdv is not just an investment in boxes) can pass those savings onto the customer and compete by cost.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Grakthis said:


> No... microsoft getting into the industry is awesome for us. They will go to war with cable companies, develop open standards, then give them to hardware manufacturers in the hopes that they can license their software on top of everyone elses hardware.


I agree. I've been in standards conferences with Microsoft before. Everyone always listens to what they have to say, and they have no problems telling you what they think the roadmap should be in 5 years. They are also actually quite flexible and open for suggestions and recommendations. The OS has gotten to be so huge that they can't possibly design it all themselves anymore.

Although Microsoft will try to license their software on the set-top boxes, most hardware vendors will steer clear as Microsoft's embedded OSes are considered too bulky. My guess is that Microsoft really wants Vista on PCs as a high-end all-in-one media center. It's still expensive to do this today, but they always have the 5-year plan they are trying to follow. Hardware will become cheaper eventually, making this feasible in the future. Tivo can still be the low-end media center they are striving for.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

BobCamp1 said:


> I agree. I've been in standards conferences with Microsoft before. Everyone always listens to what they have to say, and they have no problems telling you what they think the roadmap should be in 5 years. They are also actually quite flexible and open for suggestions and recommendations. The OS has gotten to be so huge that they can't possibly design it all themselves anymore.
> 
> Although Microsoft will try to license their software on the set-top boxes, most hardware vendors will steer clear as Microsoft's embedded OSes are considered too bulky. My guess is that Microsoft really wants Vista on PCs as a high-end all-in-one media center. It's still expensive to do this today, but they always have the 5-year plan they are trying to follow. Hardware will become cheaper eventually, making this feasible in the future. Tivo can still be the low-end media center they are striving for.


You're dead on with Vista. They are supporting HD-DVD specifically because it lacks some of the DRM requirements of Blue-ray such that Vista could actually host HD-DVD files and play them across a network.

Microsoft wants Vista PCs to compete with TiVo. But they need to be able to do all of the things a Cablo Co. rented box can do. The same way TiVo does.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

The problem with Microsoft is that their vision of the living room is to put a general purpose computer there. That's not inherently bad, except they have shown time and again that they are incapable / incompetent at tailoring an OS so that it is so simple and error free to use that a grandmother could use it. Apple could do it but has shown no interest in remodeling their OS so that it could theoretically be CableLabs approved- besides they really like the iTunes model where they provide all the content.

Anyway, if MS would swallow their pride/ stop being carried by the inertia of their massive investments, they could get to the living room simply by building a reference design for a Windows living room media center powered by Tivo and maintained by the Tivo service. Someone else was wondering why Tivo could not run as a dual OS alongside OCAP and the basic reason was that the Head end that expects total control over the hardware. Windows doesn't make that assumption, and there is no Head End that wants to step in and reboot your computer, toss programs you loaded, etc etc.

The various flavors of Windows are all based on NT which is a serious enough OS to pull off such a dual system.

But MS won't do it because they are big believers in a "jack of all trades master of none" device. They really haven't figured out that they need a service to maintain/ upgrade the software/ navigational aides, because they assume that the consumer will simply become more sophisticated and do these chores themselves.









But what the heck- maybe this is the future of transportation.​
Personally, I would tow a boat that could do 30 knots and my wife can pilot rather than drive into the water with a precarious contraption my wife would never use and do 5 knots.

But maybe that is just me. Whatever- Microsoft and Intel have the political muscle and inclination to fight a lot of battles with Cable that Tivo would otherwise have to fight.


----------



## Saxion (Sep 18, 2006)

I also have to chime in with support for Microsoft. They are our friends in the battle for CableCARDs and an open cable environment. I too have worked with them in several standards setting bodies, and they are a combination of smart, forward-looking, and eager to build consensus. They also see the value in open standards and actively work to develop them and participate in their formation. If you want to see evidence of walled gardens and closed systems, look to cable monopolies or Apple...


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

Saxion said:


> I also have to chime in with support for Microsoft. They are our friends in the battle for CableCARDs and an open cable environment. I too have worked with them in several standards setting bodies, and they are a combination of smart, forward-looking, and eager to build consensus. They also see the value in open standards and actively work to develop them and participate in their formation. If you want to see evidence of walled gardens and closed systems, look to cable monopolies or Apple...


or TiVo.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Except Tivo will license the box for manufacture to anyone. You can't do that with apple or cable boxes. So from a hardware perspective it isn't true.

Nor is it from a content distribution perspective. Using HME and a linux or windows media server, it would be possible to deliver content to Tivos that bypasses Tivo controlled channels such as Unbox or TivoCast. 

Cable and SatCo's don't allow that, and Apple doesn't either. Though you don't have to buy from iTunes, Apple does not allow RealNetworks for example to talk to its iPods directly through an api but Tivo does- and you can transfer entire movies or whatever without asking Tivo or paying them anything. If Tivo is a walled garden- they went to a lot of trouble to make sure that one of the walls was missing.

So really HD, the comparison has humor value for contrarian curmudgeons in the audience, but the similarities quickly fall away on closer examination. Sure- if Tivo emerges into some mature vertical monopoly, then yeah maybe Tivo would be required to reveal hidden apis to its content distribution competitors in the way that MSFT was. 

I think we are a ways away from folks regarding Tivo as one of the dominant delivery platforms, and it is a little premature to complain about such issues- but of course- that's our job- someone has to do it...


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

Justin Thyme said:


> I think we are a ways away from folks regarding Tivo as one of the dominant delivery platforms,


No kidding.


> and it is a little premature to complain about such issues- but of course- that's our job- someone has to do it...


I am not complaining in that respect. My argument is with what TiVo has done strategically and tactically to hurt its own business development. Going out and hunting down videos on your own and transcoding them to your TiVo can't be compared to the walled garden TiVo has set up for _easy _ access to professional content. TiVo is hampered by very limited compatibility with other sources and technologies offering such content.



> Except Tivo will license the box for manufacture to anyone.


Not very interesting to offer something no one wants.


> the similarities quickly fall away on closer examination


distinctions without differences. TiVo is poorly positioned for the future DMR, Internet delivered content era.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

Justin Thyme said:


> Except Tivo will license the box for manufacture to anyone. You can't do that with apple or cable boxes. So from a hardware perspective it isn't true.


Apple, no. But if you walk into Cisco or Motorola's offices and say you want to build boxes fully compatible with their system, and have enough money and a good enough name, they would likely consider it.



> Nor is it from a content distribution perspective. Using HME and a linux or windows media server, it would be possible to deliver content to Tivos that bypasses Tivo controlled channels such as Unbox or TivoCast.


Without an in-home intermediary, one cannot directly provide content for TiVos, except through OneTrueMedia, or by contracting with TiVo directly.


> Cable and SatCo's don't allow that, and Apple doesn't either. Though you don't have to buy from iTunes, Apple does not allow RealNetworks for example to talk to its iPods directly through an api but Tivo does- and you can transfer entire movies or whatever without asking Tivo or paying them anything.


Except purchasing Desktop Plus, and even that is optional with 3rd party apps.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

HDTiVo said:


> Not very interesting to offer something no one wants.
> 
> distinctions without differences. TiVo is poorly positioned for the future DMR, Internet delivered content era.


Sorry. I guess I was confused. You seem to be saying that Tivo should be a walled garden, and since it is not then it is poorly positioned to be a competitive digital Media recorder.

I thought you were saying that Tivo had closed avenues to people building third party devices or closing off the ability of third parties to distribute video via their platform. The Cable and Satcos do, Tivo doesn't.

Their hardware and content strategies make sense to me. Time to put up or shut up. Do you predict that there will be insignificant rentals and sales of Tivo Unbox content by this time next year? On topic for this thread- Do you predict that there will not be any CE vendors that announce a Tivo integrated with their product (like a Tivo+HD player or Tivo+Flat panel) by this time next year?

Careful- Note that because Tivo's board is certified as cablecard ready, CE vendors can skip Cablecard certification by simply integrating the board. Take away the box, remote, and power supply and you have pretty low cost of goods. And if you are a Samsung or a Hitachi, the hard drive Cogs are going to be pretty dang low too. Plus- calls on cablecard issues can be passed off to Tivo Support. Plus they can list internet and PC connectivity, and downloading video to portable devices like laptops and video iPods. Is that worth $100-$200 extra for some consumers?

It makes an attractive proposition for a cablecard ready flat panel- gee, and pretty handy for integration that the cablecards are now on the opposite edge of the board- and upgrading the HD doesn't involve pulling apart the flat screen, but can be done by simply pluggin in an external (up to 1 terabyte) eSata drive.

On the other hand, maybe you like seeing lots of wires and boxes hanging off a flat screen. Maybe we think that pausing a television shouldn't be an integrated function, regardless of the input. Maybe it wouldn't be nice to Tivo any video signal that the flat screen could display.

Care to take the bet?


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

Justin Thyme said:


> Sorry. I guess I was confused. You seem to be saying that Tivo should be a walled garden, and since it is not then it is poorly positioned to be a competitive digital Media recorder.


No, the opposite.



hdtivo said:


> TiVo is hampered by very limited compatibility with other sources and technologies offering such content.


You are asking about a bunch of other things and I'll get back to those latter since my time is limited today.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

classicsat said:


> Apple, no. But if you walk into Cisco or Motorola's offices and say you want to build boxes fully compatible with their system, and have enough money and a good enough name, they would likely consider it.


OK. Microsoft has a good name and lots of money, and a long standing tight relationship with Cisco. Maybe they will build an MCard certified OCUR for them for $243. They make cablecard boxes for their cable company clients for that, so why not for Microsoft? Right- it doesn't matter- they aren't the gatekeeper. Cablelabs is.

So what's your point. Cisco and Moto do not provide openness (even theoretical) to any walled garden- theirs or those of cable companies.

Regarding TivoDesktop plus- there is no need to use the plus version for either pushing or pulling info from the Tivo. In fact, I believe you can do everything you need without Tivo's dll. I am not conversant enough on HME to comment on whether it is impossible to use a non local PC to act as an intermediary device for transfers inbound to the Tivo. Certainly if they were outbound, but inbound? not sure.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

Justin Thyme said:


> The various flavors of Windows are all based on NT which is a serious enough OS to pull off such a dual system.


That's actually not true. Vista is an entirely new code base and even XP was signifcantly different enough that I would not call it "based" on NT.

But otherwise, you are correct. MS want's to sell you a PC that also does all of this other media stuff.

They do not want to sell you a cable box.



JT said:


> But maybe that is just me. Whatever- Microsoft and Intel have the political muscle and inclination to fight a lot of battles with Cable that Tivo would otherwise have to fight.


That, IMO, is the key point. More clout, more muscle, more chance of getting it done.... and TiVo looks like the "good guy" that the Cable Companies want to work with comparitively.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Grakthis said:


> That's actually not true. Vista is an entirely new code base and even XP was signifcantly different enough that I would not call it "based" on NT.


 Sorry. It's an urban legend that Vista is a new code base. It was a fork of the Windows Sever 2003 code base, and even it's build name is revealing- "NT 6.0".

However, I am not trying to trivialize it. Vista represents a significant upgrade, for example hangs in drivers are now cancelable even though they are running in kernel mode. Although asynchronous IO has been supported from the start, 95% of apps use synchronous IO- so prior to Vista your app won't even paint because it is waiting on a hung network io, or some ioditic HP driver that is written so poorly that it causes hundreds of thousands of reboots per year.

Anyway- this is a Tivo not windoze forum, but Vista is an evolution of the NT code tree, not an "entirely new code base". Though you did not point it out, my statement was overbroad. I meant all shipping versions of windows including embedded and CE trace their lineage back to NT. Consumer versions ME/98/95/3.1 of course were not NT based.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

Justin Thyme said:


> Time to put up or shut up. Do you predict that there will be insignificant rentals and sales of Tivo Unbox content by this time next year? On topic for this thread- Do you predict that there will not be any CE vendors that announce a Tivo integrated with their product (like a Tivo+HD player or Tivo+Flat panel) by this time next year?
> 
> Careful- Note that because Tivo's board is certified as cablecard ready, CE vendors can skip Cablecard certification by simply integrating the board. Take away the box, remote, and power supply and you have pretty low cost of goods.
> 
> Care to take the bet?


Finally getting back to these challenges:

The first question does not need to be answered. My two statements, 1) TiVo/Unbox does the walled garden definition; and 2) TiVo is poorly positioned ... is true regardless of some significant revenue from Unbox because other opportunities are still foreclosed, leaving TiVo limited.

Also, I can't answer the question easily because there are too many unkowns. Anamorphic? DD5.1? HD? Price? Rental terms? on and on.

The best I can say is that the way things are now in these early months TiVo's monthly take is measured in the $10's of thousands. Its pretty obvious which sorts of things would help that grow.

The second question sounds interesting regarding the re-use of CL approved hardware. But isn't CL so funky that any new hardware around the TiVo stuff is going to send everything back to square one anyway?

Either way, I don't see much interest. Something might happen, but I doubt it. I doubt major CE companies are eager to build one-way cable hardware anymore (as if they ever were  ) TiVo would need to offer something interesting - and more than just an approved board - since the major CE companies seem to do just fine getting their own hardware approved when they need to.


----------



## balto_CC-slave (Jan 5, 2008)

ScratchFury said:


> http://news.com.com/2100-1033_3-6194323.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-5&subj=news
> 
> The Digeo Moxi has been discussed previously if you're like me and missed it:
> 
> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=353966&highlight=moxi


Thanks for the link

I have had a devil of a time getting Comcast - our Baltimore city cable TV monooly masters as they bought the competing companies and FIOS is not here (and not even scheduled yet) - to give up cablecards. They scheduled me for delivery on two separate days (wasted vacation days) and never showed up, then claimed not to have them. The last call (of many) they explained that Baltimore city will only distribute multicast cards now and that these do not yet work correctly (read that as no cable cards for anyone). I would think about satellite TV but I live in a condo and dont want a dish on my small balcony.

I am hoping to see some competition in the Baltimore city market as Comcast seems routinely not to bother with such things as customer service and is probably using the excuse of the multicast card issue to force rental of their own settop boxes. Their DVR software is horrible with virtually no useful search routines and it regularly locks up.


----------



## dubluv (Mar 3, 2006)

bicker said:


> Well, be careful. The ATSC tuner isn't required either. It's only required if there is an NTSC tuner. And that really raises a question in my mind, given how television makers have moved away from CableCard: Why aren't they producing a lot of models without any tuners at all?


i think some tv manufacturers do make a 'cheapie' tv that has no tuners at all. it simply calls them monitors, and says you'll need a stb to receive tv programming. whether there are many out there now i don't know. i had an early sharp aquos that i specifically paid extra for because it had a CC slot. back in late 04, and my experiences with CV were not good because of a combination of their tech people not knowing enough, and the tv itself not being able to update its firmware to work nice with the CC. just too many errors requiring reboots all the time, i finally gave up and got their stb. sharp actually expected me to pay hundreds of dollars to send them my tv for firmware updating (and they wouldn't guarantee it would be fixed). yeah right. did i ever buy another sharp? i don't think so. since then, a 37 Olevia, and last month a sweet sony bravia KDL 46 V3000.


----------

