# President Obama to back regulators on cable set-top box competition



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

From the WSJ:

"President Barack Obama will publicly back regulators efforts to open cable set-top boxes to competition, as he issues an executive order Friday designed to stimulate market competition across the private sector.

The order will task federal agencies with identifying markets that the government might be able to help overhaul to the benefit of consumers and businesses.

White House officials said federal action can do for the set-top cable box what regulators did for landline telephones more than 30 years ago. Back then, many Americans paid the phone company not only for their landline connection, but for renting the physical phone itself.
"

rest of the story here.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

Just what we knead, first we get Obama Expensive Forced Insurance Care, now we get Set Top Box Rights.


----------



## weavb013 (Nov 28, 2009)

This is actually an interesting position. If I am reading the number of articles correctly, the action would definitely benefit the consumer. 

"Instead of spending nearly $1,000 over four years to lease a set of behind-the-times boxes, American families will have options to own a device for much less money that will integrate everything they want  including their cable or satellite content, as well as online streaming apps  in one, easier-to-use gadget," wrote Jeff Zients and Jason Furman, two of Obama's top economic advisers. - Washington Post

That sounds like what TiVo has been fighting for over the last decade.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

"One Pass"


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

Too little too late imho. When this finally gets implemented in 5-7 years, I'm not sure how big of a market for linear programming over cable will be.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

rainwater said:


> Too little too late imho. When this finally gets implemented in 5-7 years, I'm not sure how big of a market for linear programming over cable will be.


Ya by that time if you believe the current trend lines cable/satellite will only be in about 85-90 million homes.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

atmuscarella said:


> Ya by that time if you believe the current trend lines cable/satellite will only be in about 85-90 million homes.


Yes, but if they are delivering it using a different method by then, then this new rule will not apply.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

I love how some media outlets are talking about me being able to own my own set-top box with this new effort. Have they never heard of TiVo? I've been an owner for about 8 years.

SO does this actually help TiVo?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> Ya by that time if you believe the current trend lines cable/satellite will only be in about 85-90 million homes.


Cable/satellite subs have already slipped to about 94 million from a high of over 100 million. And the cord cutting trend is accelerating with the addition of OTT offerings from premium cable channels. Do you really think there will be still be 85 million cable/satellite subscribers in 5-7 years?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

I hope this applies to all providers. I really want a couple of next-generation TiVos to somehow be able to connect to a SWiMLine 3 dish with SWiM-22 and have true TV nirvana!


----------



## UCLABB (May 29, 2012)

daveak said:


> I love how some media outlets are talking about me being able to own my own set-top box with this new effort. Have they never heard of TiVo? I've been an owner for about 8 years.
> 
> SO does this actually help TiVo?


It's probably too late. If several years back they required cable/sat to allow plug and play set tops by independent companies, TiVo could have jumped on it. But the current tuning adapter and cable card requirements make it too hard for the vast majority of potential customers.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

rainwater said:


> Yes, but if they are delivering it using a different method by then, then this new rule will not apply.


That is part of the reason to move from cable card to software, so it covers all forms of pay TV, switching from QAM to IP delivery isn't going to matter and satellite will also be covered. Frankly opening up the STB market might actually save these guys as someone might actually make a box that works so well that people will stay with traditional linear Pay TV services (cable/satellite/FIOS/Uverse etc.).


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> Cable/satellite subs have already slipped to about 94 million from a high of over 100 million. And the cord cutting trend is accelerating with the addition of OTT offerings from premium cable channels. Do you really think there will be still be 85 million cable/satellite subscribers in 5-7 years?


Getting good numbers on how many households sub to some pay TV provider is like pulling teeth, I have seen numbers that say we are still in the high 90s and that losses are less than a million a year so who knows but 85 million seems pretty easy, especially if they do mess up OTA while trying to go to ATSC 3.0. Plus many places still do not have the band width to stand a major shift from linear cable delivery to IP VoD. Both of those 2 issues are very likely to slow down a mass shift away from traditional Pay TV. Unless people are actually going to watch less TV, most will end up staying with a pay TV provider.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

daveak said:


> SO does this actually help TiVo?


The industry and FCC have been working on (rather, fighting about) replacing the cablecard with a universal, downloadable standard across all video services (including satellite and IP) for the last year so far.

Blowing up the hardware stranglehold like they did for cell phones gives legitimacy to the 3rd party STB business that is virtually nonexistent but for Tivo.

Whether it's good for Tivo or not is up to Tivo. A Google TV box and AppleTV could swoop in and eat everybody's lunch of course, but it at least opens up opportunities for further innovation, and gives Tivo a chance to either sink or swim on their ideas rather than coast along for a decade doing mostly nothing other than patent trolling.


----------



## zerdian1 (Apr 19, 2015)

Obama demands better, cheaper cable boxes so you can watch TV how you want
The president's move effectively throws the full weight of his office behind the FCC, which has taken the lead role in trying to crack open the market for TV set-top boxes.

Washington Post evening edition 4-15-16.

Obama is urging the FCC to open up the cable box so you can watch TV how you really want
Resize Text Print Article Comments 457 Book mark article Read later list
Saved to Reading List
By Brian Fung April 15 at 6:00 AM

(AP/Jacquelyn Martin)
President Obama is demanding better, cheaper versions of the cable boxes that millions of Americans use to browse their pay-TV channels, in hopes of enhancing competition.

The Obama administration pressed for changes to the cable box in a letter to federal regulators Thursday night, according to multiple people familiar with the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity because the filing is not yet public.

Obama's move effectively throws the full weight of his office behind the Federal Communications Commission, which has taken the lead role in trying to crack open the market for TV set-top boxes. Millions of Americans pay, on average, more than $200 a year to rent their boxes from a cable or satellite provider.

Greater competition, the administration said in a blog post Friday, will drive down prices and result in more innovative products.

"Instead of spending nearly $1,000 over four years to lease a set of behind-the-times boxes, American families will have options to own a device for much less money that will integrate everything they want  including their cable or satellite content, as well as online streaming apps  in one, easier-to-use gadget," wrote Jeff Zients and Jason Furman, two of Obama's top economic advisers.

FCC chairman talks set-top boxes, consumers' right to choose 
Play Video6:23
The Post's Brian Fung sits down with FCC chairman Tom Wheeler to discuss cable companies, and the ongoing battle concerning set-top boxes. (Jhaan Elker/The Washington Post)
In addition to supporting the FCC's proposal, the blog post highlights a connection between a lack of choice among "overpriced products" and the fate of the working class  a timely decision in light of a rising focus in the presidential primary on stagnant wages, labor unions and this week's continuing strike by roughly 40,000 Verizon employees.

The White House's push on set-top boxes is part of a wider effort aimed at spurring more aggressive federal action on competition policy. As part of Friday's announcement, Zients and Furman said Obama would be signing an executive order that requires agencies to take stock of the steps they could make to enhance competition in industry. The agencies will have two months to report back.

The move is likely to score populist points for Democrats in the upcoming election. The administration's blog post ties the stated lack of competition in set-top boxes together with low wages and the working class. And it raises the profile of set-top boxes just as the FCC is preparing to rewrite the rules.

"The president's support for set-top box competition virtually ensures that consumers will finally see a $15 billion-per-year rip-off exploded by new electronic devices streaming innovative video services that challenge cable monopolies," said Gene Kimmelman, chief executive of the consumer group Public Knowledge.

But it could also invite backlash among Republicans who have criticized Obama before for seemingly influencing the course of a regulatory proposal. Obama's last endorsement of a move by the FCC took place in the fall of 2014, when he strongly recommended the agency adopt a set of strict net neutrality rules that banned Internet providers from blocking or slowing consumers' Web content. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, who had been considering a softer legal approach to the task, changed course shortly thereafter. The industry cried foul, accusing Obama of improperly wielding his influence upon an independent agency, even though the FCC denied any wrongful coordination between it and the White House.

Cable industry officials oppose the FCC's plan on set-top boxes, arguing there are already ample amounts of innovation in the marketplace. They also have said the FCCs proposal would disrupt their contractual relationships with the producers of cable programming.

"We are disappointed that White House political advisers are choosing to inject politics and inflammatory rhetoric into a regulatory proceeding by what is supposed to be an independent agency," said the National Cable and Telecommunications Association in a blog post. "To see the White House take political credit for the actions of the 'independent' agency and direct it to reach a specific conclusion even before the record has been assembled, shatters that faith and undermines the Commissions credibility."

Wheeler did not seek an intervention by the White House on the set-top box issue, according to one person familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the FCC's proceeding is still ongoing.

Forman told reporters Thursday that when it came to set-top boxes, Obama wished to express his own opinion, irrespective of the FCC.

"It seemed like a clear-cut case to get a win for consumers and get a win for innovation," he said. "There were a variety of different views, all pushing in different directions on this topic. We wanted to make his views known. This is something really tangible."

The FCC declined to comment.

David Nakamura contributed to this report.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...how-you-really-want/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_evening


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

rainwater said:


> Yes, but if they are delivering it using a different method by then, then this new rule will not apply.


The idea behind AllVid is for the provider to supply a gateway device which converts their technology to an open standard. So this would apply even if they changed to IP technology. It would also apply to DirecTV, Dish, UVerse, etc... maybe even internet based services like SlingTV or PSVue.

The idea is that you can use a purchased box to access any MSO's content regardless of the technology used to deliver it or if it's linear or VOD.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> The idea behind AllVid is for the provider to supply a gateway device which converts their technology to an open standard. So this would apply even if they changed to IP technology.


I believe this is why Charter and Verizon are creating completely separate streaming services from their traditional delivery system. It will allow them to get around this type of ruling. They are going to do everything they can to completely control where and what devices their services will stream on.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

The problem is that $200 a year is not that much for the box, lifetime service, and free hardware replacement in the case of failure or obsolescence. The $15/month a TiVo owner pays comes to $180/year and the consumer is on the hook for support and replacement.

My guess is that google is behind this.


----------



## Alan Gordon (May 15, 2005)

wizwor said:


> The problem is that $200 a year is not that much for the box, lifetime service, and free hardware replacement in the case of failure or obsolescence. The $15/month a TiVo owner pays comes to $180/year and the consumer is on the hook for support and replacement.
> 
> My guess is that google is behind this.


I fully suspect that if this comes to pass, most people will stick with their cablec/satco provider's equipment for the same reasons you mention, though it's possible that Google, Apple, or Amazon could come out with a really great alternative that is cheaper.

However, the important thing is that it gives the consumer a choice. I could get a Channel Master DVR to use with OTA, or I could set up a PC DVR, but I chose to get a premium product like TiVo. Having a choice is a GREAT thing!


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

Aren't they talking about the set top boxes ? Not a DVR ?

"The retail price for a Digital Adapter is $2.75 per month as of January 2015"
http://www.timewarnercable.com/en/support/tv/topics/digital-adapters.html

So $2.75x12 = $33/yr for say 5 years = $165 
vs 
one time cost of say 
Roku $50-$130
or 
Mediasonic Homeworx $35

But who really knows how much they will actually cost after patents and certifications, etc, etc are paid for.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Here the most basic box you can get is $7/mo. So $7x12=84/year. Only some cable companies offer DTAs and in most cases those DTAs do not offer VOD support so users are forced to get real boxes if they want access to the full service they pay for.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

weavb013 said:


> This is actually an interesting position. If I am reading the number of articles correctly, the action would definitely benefit the consumer.
> 
> "Instead of spending nearly $1,000 over four years to lease a set of behind-the-times boxes, American families will have options to own a device for much less money that will integrate everything they want  including their cable or satellite content, as well as online streaming apps  in one, easier-to-use gadget," wrote Jeff Zients and Jason Furman, two of Obama's top economic advisers. - Washington Post
> 
> That sounds like what TiVo has been fighting for over the last decade.


Most American families can't afford a TiVo and its full cost. Oh, and if this American Family wants to watch TV in another room, that will cost more money, and the same for the 3rd and 4th room of this American family. American families know they are getting ripped with the monthly box fee, but it is the ONLY financial model where they can afford a DVR or whole home system. And when the HDD fails, this American family will not posses the tech savvy to open it up and replace it nor pay the high price for a place like Weaknees to repair it. Essentially, no support. If the HDD fails, the consumer has support from the cable co. People would rather pay the box fee everymonth knowing it to be the worse purley financial outcome, but they can't handle more than the small box fee every month and they do not have to buy any equipment (they don't have to shell out well over $1000 plus for a couple of, say, TiVo DVR's (and add All-in or even the TiVo Service monthly fees) and Mini's and they don't have to figure out how to install the MoCA, which is beyond most people, or worry about their LAN not proplerly supporting, especially if they are WiFi only, Mini or Stream devices. Heck, they call, the cable co installs everything, no charge for all the equipment or labor, with only the manageable, affordable monthly box fees.

Yes, Costco is the greatest value when compared with supermarkets and other retailers, but in order to get that value and end up spending less money in the long run, you have to come to Costco with a lot of cash to buy the bulk at the higher total price, but lower price per item. So, this is why Costco being the superior value still does not have the masses or moderate to low income inside its warehouses becaue it aint no 99 Cent Store nor Dollar Tree and Costo does not sell a half-gallon of milk for $1.79, but rather 2 full gallons for about $4. Better value at Costco, but paying more for bulk at the register, which is money this American family does not have.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

You've never been to Costco, I would think. It is not a bulk store. You can buy things in the same amounts you buy at grocery stores which also sell in bulk.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Series3Sub said:


> Most American families can't afford a TiVo and its full cost.


Statements like this are just pure bull sh**.

Reality is most American families can easily "afford" a TiVo, they simple value something else more and spend their money on that. No one I know is driving a stripped down entry level car they have all chosen to spend 1000s more on something else. Heck anyone who smokes is spending more to intentionally kill themselves than what owning a TiVo would cost.

TiVo's issue is they have not successfully convinced people that the cost of owning a TiVo provides enough value to so.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

Tivo has no ground support. 

I support it through my own business, I help sell and install Tivos all the time, along with Roku's, FireTV's, but with no relation to Tivo.

There a lot of non tech savvy people with money. Thats a result of the new Rich and Poor economy with no middle class.

Esp old people with money


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Series3Sub said:


> Most American families can't afford a TiVo and its full cost.


There certainly are a lot of people who have stuff that they can't really afford. But the bigger issue is that most people are so clueless that they can't figure out how to set a TiVo up, or why it is better than Contour/X1/VMS, so they just have Larry the proverbial cable guy install whatever overpriced POS DVR system that their MSO offers. Even my parents, who have seen my TiVo in action, just don't get it, and keep using Comcast's crappy X1 box.



foghorn2 said:


> Esp old people with money


Yeah, it's true. There are a *lot* of older people with a lot of money to spend and burn. Here in Connecticut, they are everywhere you look.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

What's "a lot of money" when people are paying $100+ to a cable company for internet and TV ? By using a TiVo with cable TV I was saving $6.75 per month. Peanuts.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

foghorn2 said:


> There a lot of non tech savvy people with money. Thats a result of the new Rich and Poor economy with no middle class.


Define rich, poor. Older people who have money mostly lived a little beneath their means and saved some. Add that to social security and a pension and a frugal lifestyle and you can retire comfortably.

Recurring expenses are a drain on any personal economy. New cars (plus finance charges, higher taxes, and insurance), smart phones, and cable television can cost $700/month, $8,400/year, $250,000 over the course of a career -- not including potential earnings on the savings.

I would be curious to learn more about your customers -- cable vs satellite vs antenna, individuals or families, homeowner or renter. I'd be interested to know what you charge for a house call and how often you visit the same home. One of the hidden costs of cord cutting is service and support. You probably understand that better than most.

The idea that regulating or deregulating the set top box industry is going to have any significant impact on personal budgets is a little far fetched. The cable companies will simply shift costs from box rentals to content or infrastructure support (the utilities are already doing this with buy backs from the people who put collectors on their roofs in Nevada).

Frankly, it's hard to imagine people who pay $100 or more per month for a cell phone balking at a little more than that for television, internet, and voice over ip.

If the president wanted to promote affordable entertainment, he would 'pressure' the FCC to mandate inclusion of ATSC tuners in televisions and devices. He would ensure that the spectrum repacking left sufficient bandwidth and made minimal impact on reception (i.e, no UHF to VHF). This is just pandering -- probably to google and/or apple.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

foghorn2 said:


> Just what we knead, first we get Obama Expensive Forced Insurance Care, now we get Set Top Box Rights.


What does bread have to do with anything?

BTW, you're arguing _against_ something that would help you... in case you don't realize it. WITHOUT this, you might be "forced" to have only the cable company DVR.

(BTW II -- yes, people _can_ purposefully argue against things that would help them, and I do that exact same thing, but giving examples would bring this into disallowed political territory, like your comment did..)


----------



## mattyro7878 (Nov 27, 2014)

I have been a Tivo customer since thier inception. They have always been years ahead of whatever boxes my provider would offer (except for the DirecTivo, which was awesome). If Tivo could lower thier prices and monthly fees, they may be accepted by the masses. They would also need at least a 2 yr replacement warranty. People put up with crappy cable boxes cuz if it breaks , (inevitable) they get another used piece of crap but the tv doesnt go dark for long.


----------



## Old Hickory (Jan 13, 2011)

mattack said:


> What does bread have to do with anything?
> 
> BTW, you're arguing _against_ something that would help you... in case you don't realize it. WITHOUT this, you might be "forced" to have only the cable company DVR.
> 
> (BTW II -- yes, people _can_ purposefully argue against things that would help them, and I do that exact same thing, but giving examples would bring this into disallowed political territory, like your comment did..)


"If you like your set-top box, you can keep your set-top box".


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

Old Hickory said:


> "If you like your set-top box, you can keep your set-top box".


..as long as you keep paying for it and I will make sure if you don't you will paying someone else for it or I will fine you!


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

It's very possible that if something like this were to take off that cable box leasing would go away. AFAIK you can no longer rent a telephone from AT&T, they just expect you to buy your own. The same thing could possibly happen here. I doubt it, since leasing is a major profit center for MSOs, but it could if retail options were cheap and ubiquitous enough.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> It's very possible that if something like this were to take off that cable box leasing would go away. AFAIK you can no longer rent a telephone from AT&T, they just expect you to buy your own. The same thing could possibly happen here. I doubt it, since leasing is a major profit center for MSOs, but it could if retail options were cheap and ubiquitous enough.


And setup was as easy as a land line phone


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

jth tv said:


> What's "a lot of money" when people are paying $100+ to a cable company for internet and TV ? By using a TiVo with cable TV I was saving $6.75 per month. Peanuts.


I am saving $2.50/month by using my first TiVo. even smaller peanuts, and my cable bill is $200/month (two land phones numbers, 150Mb/s internet and SHO, STZ and HBO)


----------



## Alan Gordon (May 15, 2005)

lessd said:


> I am saving $2.50/month by using my first TiVo. even smaller peanuts, and my cable bill is $200/month (two land phones numbers, 150Mb/s internet and SHO, STZ and HBO)


How much do you pay for groceries though?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

lessd said:


> And setup was as easy as a land line phone


If they go with a gateway system using DLNA CVP2 then it should be as simple as plugging it in. The only setup required would be for the gateway itself, once that was working adding new devices should be plug and play. Although how it should work, and how it will work, may not actually line up.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Alan Gordon said:


> How much do you pay for groceries though?


Not much on groceries because my wife likes to make reservations


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

A bit more interesting than most though it is a bit exaggerated, isn't the set top box almost all about coax ?

The FCCs DVR Rules: Part 1, Connectivity
http://hightechforum.org/the-fccs-dvr-rules-part-1-connectivity/
"...So each network requires a different approach even to get the content into the device or application that will potentially take the place of the MVPDs native set top box or DVR. "


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

The best example currently on the market for how a "virtual headend" device would work is the HDHomeRun, which is something he specifically mentions in his article. 

The HDHomeRun works almost exactly as how I'd imagine a MSO supplied gateway to work. Basically it contains the tuners and the security hardware and it converts those to an open protocol which other devices can access via the local network. MSO supplied gateways would contain a few more features, like the ability to access VOD, but they would work essentially the same way. They'd convert from the MSOs proprietary system to an open network based standard like DLNA. Retail devices would only need to know how to "speak" DLNA to be able to access the MSOs content.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

wizwor said:


> The problem is that $200 a year is not that much for the box, lifetime service, and free hardware replacement in the case of failure or obsolescence. The $15/month a TiVo owner pays comes to $180/year and the consumer is on the hook for support and replacement.
> 
> *My guess is that google is behind this*.


Today: Google Reaps Harvest of Obama Support



> Internet giant Google has been one of the strongest political backers of President Barack Obama. As the Obama tenure in the White House comes to an end, several recent regulatory decisions have benefited Google handsomely.
> 
> The FCC is handling its set-top box proceeding, ostensibly aimed at freeing TV viewers from expensive, restrictive contracts with cable providers, *in a way that would greatly benefit Google* whether seen from the perspective of giving Google a ton of new advertising data it currently lacks or giving the tech giant access to other entities content on uniquely favorable terms.


----------



## NotVeryWitty (Oct 3, 2003)

wizwor said:


> Today: Google Reaps Harvest of Obama Support


Breitbart, the Fox News of the internet.


----------



## Dunbar (Dec 4, 2001)

I saw the article on WSJ about Comcast offering their full channel lineup on Roku in response to this push by Obama. I have the TWC app on my Roku and it works very well (it was much faster than my old Motorola DVR) but is next to useless without DVR functionality and the ability to pause/ffwd. You can't use VOD on the Roku either. Not that I like TWC's VOD. In fact, I think it pretty much stinks. Good streaming or VOD support (with the ability to skip ads) would make the Roku app much more compeling.


----------



## dbattaglia001 (Feb 9, 2003)

Dunbar said:


> I saw the article on WSJ about Comcast offering their full channel lineup on Roku in response to this push by Obama. I have the TWC app on my Roku and it works very well (it was much faster than my old Motorola DVR) but is next to useless without DVR functionality and the ability to pause/ffwd. You can't use VOD on the Roku either. Not that I like TWC's VOD. In fact, I think it pretty much stinks. Good streaming or VOD support (with the ability to skip ads) would make the Roku app much more compeling.


Exactly. I am so annoyed with cable lobbyists going, "see Comcast is developing an APP for Roku/Samsung, why change anything with requiring more access to retail set top boxes". I can't stand the ignorance of that. I've used TiVo long enough that I don't want to go back to watching live tv (which I believe is how the TWC app for Roku works). Even if everything were also available on VOD, you'd be subject to commercials and an inability to fast forward in general.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Dunbar said:


> I saw the article on WSJ about Comcast offering their full channel lineup on Roku in response to this push by Obama. I have the TWC app on my Roku and it works very well (it was much faster than my old Motorola DVR) but is next to useless without DVR functionality and the ability to pause/ffwd. You can't use VOD on the Roku either. Not that I like TWC's VOD. In fact, I think it pretty much stinks. Good streaming or VOD support (with the ability to skip ads) would make the Roku app much more compeling.


I think this is what the MSOs are going to try to do to stave off the FCC rules. They're going to quickly develop apps for popular streaming devices, or update them to include VOD, and then say "look people don't have to lease our box". The law makers are probably not technical enough to really know the difference so they'll likely accept that and move on. 

As long as we have CableCARDs we'll be OK. Although those could become harder and harder to get as time goes on.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Dunbar said:


> I saw the article on WSJ about Comcast offering their full channel lineup on Roku in response to this push by Obama. I have the TWC app on my Roku and it works very well (it was much faster than my old Motorola DVR) but is next to useless without DVR functionality and the ability to pause/ffwd. *You can't use VOD on the Roku either.* Not that I like TWC's VOD. In fact, I think it pretty much stinks. Good streaming or VOD support (with the ability to skip ads) would make the Roku app much more compeling.


TWC's Roku app does have access to TWC's VOD library.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> I think this is what the MSOs are going to try to do to stave off the FCC rules. They're going to quickly develop apps for popular streaming devices, or update them to include VOD, and then say "look people don't have to lease our box". The law makers are probably not technical enough to really know the difference so they'll likely accept that and move on.
> 
> As long as we have CableCARDs we'll be OK. Although those could become harder and harder to get as time goes on.


The problem is that even if CableCard is the law forever for QAM, QAM is going to be gone in about a decade. FIOS is going IP first, since they are FTTH, but Comcast will slowly migrate over to DOCSIS 3.1-based IPTV. I wouldn't be surprised if they add 4k channels or new HD channels that aren't available on QAM within a year or two, and start to move existing channels over in a few years, with total elimination of QAM within a decade. QAM is the new analog. They want the entire 600-800mhz of bandwidth running on DOCSIS 3.1, and within a decade, I think that's what it will be, and if we're not at N+0 nodes, we'll be close such that the node sizes are pretty small, every channel is HD, and TiVo in it's current form won't work.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Dan203 said:


> It's very possible that if something like this were to take off that cable box leasing would go away. AFAIK you can no longer rent a telephone from AT&T, they just expect you to buy your own. The same thing could possibly happen here. I doubt it, since leasing is a major profit center for MSOs, but it could if retail options were cheap and ubiquitous enough.


IT DOES NOT NEED TO "TAKE OFF" SINCE IT ALREADY HAPPENED.

That's my point. Cable cards exist, and work, despite being not as user friendly as they could be.. (Should be plug in, go to a web page, connect to your account, and it 'just works'.. similar to the on-screen setup for things like netflix nowadays..)


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

The tech challenged (there are thousands of them) don't like computers. Leased boxes and truck rolls are not going away that soon.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

mattack said:


> IT DOES NOT NEED TO "TAKE OFF" SINCE IT ALREADY HAPPENED.
> 
> That's my point. Cable cards exist, and work, despite being not as user friendly as they could be.. (Should be plug in, go to a web page, connect to your account, and it 'just works'.. similar to the on-screen setup for things like netflix nowadays..)


That's how TWC works now. It hasn't caused a big surge in TiVo sales, AFAIK.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

mattack said:


> IT DOES NOT NEED TO "TAKE OFF" SINCE IT ALREADY HAPPENED. That's my point. Cable cards exist, and work, despite being not as user friendly as they could be.. (Should be plug in, go to a web page, connect to your account, and it 'just works'.. similar to the on-screen setup for things like netflix nowadays..)


That's exactly how I did mine with fios and my bolt. Went to a webpage. Typed in the numbers. Done.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> The problem is that even if CableCard is the law forever for QAM, QAM is going to be gone in about a decade. FIOS is going IP first, since they are FTTH, but Comcast will slowly migrate over to DOCSIS 3.1-based IPTV. I wouldn't be surprised if they add 4k channels or new HD channels that aren't available on QAM within a year or two, and start to move existing channels over in a few years, with total elimination of QAM within a decade. QAM is the new analog. They want the entire 600-800mhz of bandwidth running on DOCSIS 3.1, and within a decade, I think that's what it will be, and if we're not at N+0 nodes, we'll be close such that the node sizes are pretty small, every channel is HD, and TiVo in it's current form won't work.


I agree, and that's exactly the loophole they're counting on. Stave off the regulation now using CableCARD and apps, then when it comes time for them to make the IP switch the government will be caught with their pants down and we'll be stuck for another decade, or more, with leasing equipment or at the very least using their apps.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

mattack said:


> IT DOES NOT NEED TO "TAKE OFF" SINCE IT ALREADY HAPPENED.
> 
> That's my point. Cable cards exist, and work, despite being not as user friendly as they could be.. (Should be plug in, go to a web page, connect to your account, and it 'just works'.. similar to the on-screen setup for things like netflix nowadays..)


CanbleCARDs ONLY work for QAM. That eliminates all MSOs except cable off the bat, and if cable decides to go IP then they're out to. This is about a replacement for CableCARD that works for all technologies.


----------



## Dunbar (Dec 4, 2001)

tarheelblue32 said:


> TWC's Roku app does have access to TWC's VOD library.


I forget it's Tivo that can't do TWC's VOD and the Roku that can. The app is pretty slick but the VOD is nearly worthless since they lock out FFWD during commercials.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> I agree, and that's exactly the loophole they're counting on. Stave off the regulation now using CableCARD and apps, then when it comes time for them to make the IP switch the government will be caught with their pants down and we'll be stuck for another decade, or more, with leasing equipment or at the very least using their apps.


Yeah. What's interesting is that if they do that, Comcast and others will likely lose TiVo subscribers to DirecTV for the most part, although there probably aren't enough of us to really care, combined with their ability to use aggressive bundling practices with their internet monopoly to coerce people into buying their otherwise lousy TV service.



Dan203 said:


> CanbleCARDs ONLY work for QAM. That eliminates all MSOs except cable off the bat, and if cable decides to go IP then they're out to. This is about a replacement for CableCARD that works for all technologies.


Yeah, it really erodes the ability to easily switch providers, since many areas only have one QAM provider. Right now, I could easily switch from one cable company to another without really doing much work, as my OnePasses and recordings would all still be there, but many areas don't have FIOS or an overbuilt cable company, and even fewer have 3 QAM-based options. Comcast has a LOT of areas where they are an ironclad monopoly on internet and a total monopoly on QAM-based video services, and they are likely going to be the first large HFC-based MSO to go IP. I predict within 24 months or less, Comcast will have channels that are IP-only (possibly 4k only, foreign language, sports packages, or other specialty programming), even though it will probably be 5+ years before QAM actually loses channels from the existing, and already thin lineup.


----------



## DrewTivo (Mar 30, 2005)

wizwor said:


> The problem is that $200 a year is not that much for the box, lifetime service, and free hardware replacement in the case of failure or obsolescence. The $15/month a TiVo owner pays comes to $180/year and the consumer is on the hook for support and replacement.
> 
> My guess is that google is behind this.


Google and pretty much everyone (apple, roku, etc.) except the cable cos and maybe some of the box makers.

The cable cos. want to maintain control of the box because it maintains their relevance. Without the box, then they become like any other utility that brings product to your home (water, gas, electricity) except that the product is the content being sold by ESPN, HBO etc. With the box they can offer a bunch of services on top of that, whether DVR, VOD, etc. It's a way to keep themselves in your home.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I've got one QAM choice here, Charter. Until very recently the only other internet option was 3Mbps DSL from AT&T, but a year or so ago they put Uverse in my neighborhood and now offer 45Mbps VDSL. So at least now I have a choice on internet. Although, other then the price, my TV service is fine. It's stable and we get every channel I want in HD. 3-4 years ago when we only had like 15 HD channels and still only had analog SD for most I watched I would have given anything to be able to switch to DirecTV, but didn't specifically because of TiVo. Now the incentive to switch is less, but it would still be nice to have options.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Dunbar said:


> I forget it's Tivo that can't do TWC's VOD and the Roku that can. The app is pretty slick but the VOD is nearly worthless since they lock out FFWD during commercials.


True, but that's the case for pretty much every cable company's VOD.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> I've got one QAM choice here, Charter. Until very recently the only other internet option was 3Mbps DSL from AT&T, but a year or so ago they put Uverse in my neighborhood and now offer 45Mbps VDSL. So at least now I have a choice on internet. Although, other then the price, my TV service is fine. It's stable and we get every channel I want in HD. 3-4 years ago when we only had like 15 HD channels and still only had analog SD for most I watched I would have given anything to be able to switch to DirecTV, but didn't specifically because of TiVo. Now the incentive to switch is less, but it would still be nice to have options.


WHOA! You must really love TiVo! If I lived in my own house, I'd switch to DirecTV for HD channels, and we have about ~70 HD's and 0 UHD, versus DirecTV's ~145 and 3 UHD.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

The more I read about this issue the more I appreciate what I already have with TiVo Roamio with 3 TB diy upgrade using an antenna. It really is pretty cool how I can switch over to Netflix or Amazon prime, surf tv for only favorites, easily add new one passes for shows that are Not yet in the grid guide, get consistent season episode numbers, see lists of All episodes way back to ancient times, etc, etc. Plus a huge number of features I don't use (yet). And of course commercial skip.


----------



## HobokenSkier (Oct 14, 2015)

wizwor said:


> The problem is that $200 a year is not that much for the box, lifetime service, and free hardware replacement in the case of failure or obsolescence. The $15/month a TiVo owner pays comes to $180/year and the consumer is on the hook for support and replacement.
> 
> My guess is that google is behind this.


You pay 200 for the basic box. Another 180 as a dvr fee and another or an alternate bigger fee for whole home dvr


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

It does seem most of the recent articles about don't mention the old days before cable boxes (clear qam). But then people couldn't do that anymore, they needed a box or the ridiculous cable cards And tuning adapters. 

It makes sense to have a method of installation that does not require a truck roll and scheduled appointments. It costs too much and causes way too much aggravation. Self install can be a hassle too, driving there and waiting in line

There should be a way to have TV's that are plug and play into the a cable tv system. But they don't want to talk about that.


----------



## HobokenSkier (Oct 14, 2015)

Series3Sub said:


> Most American families can't afford a TiVo and its full cost. Oh, and if this American Family wants to watch TV in another room, that will cost more money, and the same for the 3rd and 4th room of this American family. American families know they are getting ripped with the monthly box fee, but it is the ONLY financial model where they can afford a DVR or whole home system. And when the HDD fails, this American family will not posses the tech savvy to open it up and replace it nor pay the high price for a place like Weaknees to repair it. Essentially, no support. If the HDD fails, the consumer has support from the cable co. People would rather pay the box fee everymonth knowing it to be the worse purley financial outcome, but they can't handle more than the small box fee every month and they do not have to buy any equipment (they don't have to shell out well over $1000 plus for a couple of, say, TiVo DVR's (and add All-in or even the TiVo Service monthly fees) and Mini's and they don't have to figure out how to install the MoCA, which is beyond most people, or worry about their LAN not proplerly supporting, especially if they are WiFi only, Mini or Stream devices. Heck, they call, the cable co installs everything, no charge for all the equipment or labor, with only the manageable, affordable monthly box fees.
> 
> Yes, Costco is the greatest value when compared with supermarkets and other retailers, but in order to get that value and end up spending less money in the long run, you have to come to Costco with a lot of cash to buy the bulk at the higher total price, but lower price per item. So, this is why Costco being the superior value still does not have the masses or moderate to low income inside its warehouses becaue it aint no 99 Cent Store nor Dollar Tree and Costo does not sell a half-gallon of milk for $1.79, but rather 2 full gallons for about $4. Better value at Costco, but paying more for bulk at the register, which is money this American family does not have.


Lots of wrong here. TiVo is not premium. Even with bolt and a annual fee it is still cheap, just most here like cheaper still lifetime.

I did not get TiVo for 3 years because I initially did not understand how my cable bill would fall just how I would get a new TiVo bill. Someone had to explain that to me and I have done the same to others since. That's with 17 years of education.

Setting up MOCA. It is mostly self installing. Certainly was when I set up a family members TiVo plus 2 mini.

When I swapped from premiere to Roamio I offered the premiere to my on laws. They preferred yo keep their fios non dvr.

Like bank accounts cable is a sticky product once installed change is tough and the cable cos love and prey on that. The New cable modem fee is a great example of tjat.

Most dvr renting families and multi room families can afford the up front of TiVo. The bolt is less than 18m of Dvr fees.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

The cable companies will resort to the same antics with the head end devices as they did with cable cards. No doubt a $50 truck roll will be required and the installers will be clueless.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

shwru980r said:


> The cable companies will resort to the same antics with the head end devices as they did with cable cards. No doubt a $50 truck roll will be required and the installers will be clueless.


If they use the gateway approach then probably not, as a gateway will essentially be the same as a STB or DVR. In fact they may even use gateways for their own installs just because it would be cheaper for them in the long run to have one box that does the tuning.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Dan203 said:


> If they use the gateway approach then probably not, as a gateway will essentially be the same as a STB or DVR. In fact they may even use gateways for their own installs just because it would be cheaper for them in the long run to have one box that does the tuning.


I thought, with a gateway, the customer would have to provide their own set top box.

My experience is that businesses , that are essentially a monopoly, aren't really concerned about the cheapest and/or easiest alternative, but rather the most profitable alternative.

Would the cable company in put a gateway in with every install, only when the customer indicates they wish to use a third party set top box? Certainly the cable company set top boxes aren't going to be made redundant right away and will still be the default method for a cable install because of their profitability. And of course, the installer wouldn't have a gateway on the truck, so the customer has to schedule another truck roll.

I would suspect that the cable company would be able to control the number of tuners available to the customer, and like a drug dealer the first tuner is free and additional tuners cost extra and enabling additional tuners would involve a complex authorization scheme that couldn't be achieved initially and would require another truck roll.

Then you have the issue of one customer enabling multiple tuners and allowing neighboring residences to use a tuner without a cable subscription, since the signal is being delivered by IP.


----------



## i.hardon (Aug 31, 2013)

atmuscarella said:


> That is part of the reason to move from cable card to software, so it covers all forms of pay TV, switching from QAM to IP delivery isn't going to matter and satellite will also be covered. Frankly opening up the STB market might actually save these guys as someone might actually make a box that works so well that people will stay with traditional linear Pay TV services (cable/satellite/FIOS/Uverse etc.).


You don't necessarily need to do it in software to make it transport-agnostic.

In the DVB world they use a hardware module (the CAM) to do the decryption, and it's the same systems/protocols regardless of whether it is cable, satellite, or terrestrial. TVs generally come with CI slots, from extremely cheap rebranded junk to a $x000 flagship from a major manufacturer, and it will work with whatever tuners a TV has (I have a TV with a terrestrial and satellite tuner and I can theoretically use it, if I needed a CAM to decrypt anything - I don't as it's all free to air)

This may be harder in a country where there are so many proprietary protocols in use, admittedly. (I believe US cable is very proprietary, ATSC might as well be proprietary, and DirecTV still uses a modified form of DVB-S, though it does use standards compliant DVB-S2)

A gateway that takes in the proprietary technology and spits out a standards compliant signal would seem like the best solution for the US - but we all know that various factions won't make that easy


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

shwru980r said:


> Then you have the issue of one customer enabling multiple tuners and allowing neighboring residences to use a tuner without a cable subscription, since the signal is being delivered by IP.


Nothing stops neighbors from doing this now. Run a CAT 6 and/or COAX line between the homes sub to cable with a faster Internet package at one home, buy as many TiVos and minis as they need and split the cost. Gateway tuners wouldn't make it any easier to do, might cost a little less but that is it. I doubt this is a problem now and don't believe it will be any more of one if we get high count gateway tuners.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

atmuscarella said:


> Nothing stops neighbors from doing this now. Run a CAT 6 and/or COAX line between the homes sub to cable with a faster Internet package at one home, buy as many TiVos and minis as they need and split the cost. Gateway tuners wouldn't make it any easier to do, might cost a little less but that is it. I doubt this is a problem now and don't believe it will be any more of one if we get high count gateway tuners.


My sister comes from Florida on occasion. She lives next door to me. She has Dish, but the transfer would kill it for her husband who stays behind to dog sit.

So I have a wireless adapter with a Mini which gives her a tuner, No wires needed. Works great. Before I had a TiVo and our cable was clear, I would run the wire. My feed doesn't charge per outlet.

My router would support a friend across the street, but he likes his DirectTV. No accounting for taste.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

shwru980r said:


> I thought, with a gateway, the customer would have to provide their own set top box.
> 
> My experience is that businesses , that are essentially a monopoly, aren't really concerned about the cheapest and/or easiest alternative, but rather the most profitable alternative.


They'll figure out some way to charge for each device connected to the thing, a la DirecTV with RVU. Sure, you can use your Samsung TV instead of a Genie Mini, but unless you're just OCD about cables and suck at routing them, then it's completely pointless, as you're still paying $6/mo for it.

Granted, tuner level access for a third-party DVR is different, but you can bet that they are going to bundle and incentivize you to use their DVR or cloud DVR. The best we can hope for realistically is the technical ability to use a TiVo with direct tuner access.



atmuscarella said:


> Nothing stops neighbors from doing this now. Run a CAT 6 and/or COAX line between the homes sub to cable with a faster Internet package at one home, buy as many TiVos and minis as they need and split the cost. Gateway tuners wouldn't make it any easier to do, might cost a little less but that is it. I doubt this is a problem now and don't believe it will be any more of one if we get high count gateway tuners.


I don't know about neighbors, but you can bet this is commonplace in multi-family homes, especially where one unit is owner occupied, and the owner includes the internet and TV in the rent. Yeah, that's one account.


----------



## DrewTivo (Mar 30, 2005)

jth tv said:


> It does seem most of the recent articles about don't mention the old days before cable boxes (clear qam). But then people couldn't do that anymore, they needed a box or the ridiculous cable cards And tuning adapters.


There was a brief time where TVs came with cable card slots . . .


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

jth tv said:


> It does seem most of the recent articles about don't mention the old days before cable boxes (clear qam). But then people couldn't do that anymore, they needed a box or the ridiculous cable cards And tuning adapters.


I think the days before the STB became almost mandatory were pre-digital. Every channel (SD) that my feed supplies with the cable card can trace its roots back to a day when there was only analog. Once 8VSB became accepted on OTA, clear QAM was the cable equivalent. With the PSIP, even the new digital OTA channels could move yet keep users happy. TiVo doesn't care about PSIP, even when it's on a clear QAM channel. My feed always stripped the PSIP but also published a QAM channel guide right up until everything became encrypted. It's been an interesting ten years. The next ten will probably be interesting also.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

shwru980r said:


> I thought, with a gateway, the customer would have to provide their own set top box.
> 
> My experience is that businesses , that are essentially a monopoly, aren't really concerned about the cheapest and/or easiest alternative, but rather the most profitable alternative.
> 
> ...


If the technology works well then it will be better for them to install a gateway in every home and then lease simple IP boxes which use it rather then needing to be connected directly to the system.

Limiting tuners is a possbility, but I assume they will be required to offer at least as many tuners as CableCARD supports now. There will also be the limiting factor of the hardware. The gateway itself will likely only have X physical tuners inside and it will require the installation of a second gateway to get more then that.

This gateway approach is not ideal for those of us that are use to getting 6 tuners per TiVo for a $3/mo CableCARD. But for families that ate paying $5-7/mo per TV it will save them a significant amount of money.


----------



## tampa8 (Jan 26, 2016)

It appears this may not have an easy passage. The FTC has come out in support of much of what the Cable industry is against. 
http://www.cablefax.com/regulation/set-top-proposal-ftc-wants-in-comments-pour-in

Reading alot of info on this, I think Cable may have a case, and could get an FCC ruling overturned as it is being discussed at this point. I don't know that they have the power to make a company open their processes, and other developments to outside companies looking to make money off their business. I guess we will see....


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> If the technology works well then it will be better for them to install a gateway in every home and then lease simple IP boxes which use it rather then needing to be connected directly to the system.
> 
> Limiting tuners is a possbility, but I assume they will be required to offer at least as many tuners as CableCARD supports now. There will also be the limiting factor of the hardware. The gateway itself will likely only have X physical tuners inside and it will require the installation of a second gateway to get more then that.
> 
> This gateway approach is not ideal for those of us that are use to getting 6 tuners per TiVo for a $3/mo CableCARD. But for families that ate paying $5-7/mo per TV it will save them a significant amount of money.


I'm hoping that the law requires as many tuners as the MSO's flagship device would in the same installation. That way, U-Verse can poke along at 2 or 3 or 4 depending on the distance to the VRAD, DirecTV will have at least 5, maybe more by that point, Comcast 4 or 5 or 6, etc. I so want my own TiVo with DirecTV. That would be amazing. I'd pay a really pretty penny for a gateway that could connect a next-gen TiVo to a couple of gateways running off of a SWiM-22 RDBS LNB assuming it all supports 4k....


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

If the TiVo itself didn't need to contain physical tuners it would be able to record as many streams as bandwidth would allow. (both network and HDD bandwidth) With H.264 streams having it allow 8-10-12 streams would be completely plausible. It could even conceivably be capable of combining streams from multiple sources, like both a DirecTV and OTA gateway, into a single DVR. Although the software for that could be tricky depending on how the API is designed.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Dan203 said:


> That eliminates all MSOs except cable off the bat, and if cable decides to go IP then they're out to. This is about a replacement for CableCARD that works for all technologies.


But... the other technologies, at least the mini satellites, have WAIVERS and don't have to follow cable card..

I'm all for removing that waiver, and requiring future services to have the equivalent (or better than) of cablecard.. so people can buy their own equipment.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

CableCARD was developed, as a technology, specifically for cable. It is fundamentally incompatible with DSS. So even if they removed the waiver they'd need to replace CableCARD with another technology. And when you look at the broad spectrum of technology used in content delivery the only truly universal approach is the gateway approach.

Having a different technology just for DSS doesn't really help as people would still be hardware locked to tne service they chose. A universal standard that allows prople to change providers without having to buy new equipment is the only way the retail device market is ever really going to take off.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

I think they're going to have a big fight with getting sat onboard, even if they ever get cable to go along (beyond the non-FCC-compliant apps they're trying to present as a solution). Sat is not going to want the hardware cost necessary to do this.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

DirecTV already has the basic technology in their RVU platform.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> CableCARD was developed, as a technology, specifically for cable. It is fundamentally incompatible with DSS. So even if they removed the waiver they'd need to replace CableCARD with another technology. And when you look at the broad spectrum of technology used in content delivery the only truly universal approach is the gateway approach.
> 
> Having a different technology just for DSS doesn't really help as people would still be hardware locked to tne service they chose. A universal standard that allows prople to change providers without having to buy new equipment is the only way the retail device market is ever really going to take off.


Yup. It would make the market more competitive, and make user-owned DVRs a reality on DirecTV. And it would allow MSOs to change their network technology with a simple gateway swap.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> DirecTV already has the basic technology in their RVU platform.


But does that require a DVR lease, or do all current STBs have it? Can you lease one STB and run RVU on any TV you want?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I believe they only have RVU in their DVR and because it's a closed standard, and not open like DLNA CVP-2, only a few TVs include apps for it.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

I don't think the FCC is going to go for that unless DirecTV opens that up to all comers, and doesn't require a DVR lease.


----------



## jeffw_00 (Sep 19, 2000)

Guys - does anyone see the pattern here? There was a time when you HAD you rent your telephones, then you could buy your own. Then there was a time when you HAD to rent your cable modem, then you could buy your own. Now the government, apparently never having heard of TiVo, thinks you HAVE to rent your STB, so they are making rules so that you can buy your own. Fine, great. However, by the time the rule went into effect the last two times, the providers had self-servingly dropped rental fees and raised costs elsewhere to make it a non-event.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

slowbiscuit said:


> I don't think the FCC is going to go for that unless DirecTV opens that up to all comers, and doesn't require a DVR lease.


I don't think that'll be acceptible to meet the FCC requirement, I was simply using it as a way to show that the technology exists already. So all this *****ing about how they're going to have to invent new technology to kake the gateway approach work is BS. RVU is a proprietary offshoot of DLNA CVP-2 (aka VidiPath). They could use that and a simple settop box with 6 tuners and boom, you've got a "gateway". The rest is just getting CE devices to add DLNA CVP-2 support, which they'd do in droves if there were actually gateways that used it.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

jeffw_00 said:


> Guys - does anyone see the pattern here? There was a time when you HAD you rent your telephones, then you could buy your own. Then there was a time when you HAD to rent your cable modem, then you could buy your own. Now the government, apparently never having heard of TiVo, thinks you HAVE to rent your STB, so they are making rules so that you can buy your own. Fine, great. However, by the time the rule went into effect the last two times, the providers had self-servingly dropped rental fees and raised costs elsewhere to make it a non-event.


Well the 2 biggest cable companies charge $10/month to rent a cable modem, so no I don't see that pattern.


----------



## jeffw_00 (Sep 19, 2000)

when the law changed here in MA COMCAST dropped their rental to like $6 or $7/mo - then when they noticed people didn't care they raised it again


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Totally not following the logic here, HD STBs have been $10/mo. on Comcast forever. There were no savings because cards came out.


----------



## jeffw_00 (Sep 19, 2000)

I'm talking about cable modem, not STB - they were dropped to $7 here when people started buying their own.

For STB - to get a STB with DVR and decent disk space, Fios wants $33/mo - makes TiVo look like a bargain


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

slowbiscuit said:


> Totally not following the logic here, HD STBs have been $10/mo. on Comcast forever. There were no savings because cards came out.


$7.50/mo versus $10. But with TiVo, you only need one CableCard for the whole house, even if you have up to 10 TVs.


----------



## DrewTivo (Mar 30, 2005)

Bigg said:


> $7.50/mo versus $10. But with TiVo, you only need one CableCard for the whole house, even if you have up to 10 TVs.


Wouldn't you need two? I thought Tivo supported only up to 5 minis.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

DrewTivo said:


> Wouldn't you need two? I thought Tivo supported only up to 5 minis.


The Roamio and Bolt support as many Minis as are allowed on your account. You account is limited to 12 devices. Although the most you could ever use for live TV at a given time is 5 if you had a Roamio Plus/Pro because it always retains one tuner for itself.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> The Roamio and Bolt support as many Minis as are allowed on your account. You account is limited to 12 devices. Although the most you could ever use for live TV at a given time is 5 if you had a Roamio Plus/Pro because it always retains one tuner for itself.


And with a Premiere, 3 Minis at a time, but you can still have 12 total devices. So actually 12 TVs off of one CableCard!


----------



## CCourtney (Mar 28, 2006)

DevdogAZ said:


> Cable/satellite subs have already slipped to about 94 million from a high of over 100 million. And the cord cutting trend is accelerating with the addition of OTT offerings from premium cable channels. Do you really think there will be still be 85 million cable/satellite subscribers in 5-7 years?


I think that trend is true. The question is whether or not it pushes the cable and satelite companies to provide content at more reasonable prices with people cutting the cord.

While I love to hate my CableCompany. I love recording and watching every program I really want.

The majority of the time I'm going to streaming is for shows that I want to binge watch, either because I came to the show late or I want to refresh a series like Game of Thrones.

I don't want to have to look up the 30+ shows I'm watching weekly on an App to have it stream with annoying app loading, buffering, ... It's worse than use the CableCo's DVR IMHO.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

I said this before. Is the real issue price or getting the channel outside of the cable company? It doesn't matter if you get a bunch of channels you don't want as long as the price you pay for the ones you do want is acceptable.

I don't think people realize the true pain of OTT access to everything whether it be cost, forced ads, or just plain navigation.


----------



## wgameplaya (May 5, 2016)

CCourtney said:


> I think that trend is true. The question is whether or not it pushes the cable and satelite companies to provide content at more reasonable prices with people cutting the cord.
> 
> While I love to hate my CableCompany. I love recording and watching every program I really want.
> 
> ...


people in the end will probly end up paying about 30% less for the content they watch.. all the little buckets cable cos create are deisgned to force people into a bucket that maximizes revneue for them.

Freeing us from the cable equipment will allow service providers to experiment and offer a lot more buckets.

like they say in braveheart- FREEDOM


----------



## wgameplaya (May 5, 2016)

Bigg said:


> I'm hoping that the law requires as many tuners as the MSO's flagship device would in the same installation. That way, U-Verse can poke along at 2 or 3 or 4 depending on the distance to the VRAD, DirecTV will have at least 5, maybe more by that point, Comcast 4 or 5 or 6, etc. I so want my own TiVo with DirecTV. That would be amazing. I'd pay a really pretty penny for a gateway that could connect a next-gen TiVo to a couple of gateways running off of a SWiM-22 RDBS LNB assuming it all supports 4k....


service providers should just be apps on our Tivos.
that's it!


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

CCourtney said:


> I think that trend is true. The question is whether or not it pushes the cable and satelite companies to provide content at more reasonable prices with people cutting the cord.
> 
> While I love to hate my CableCompany. I love recording and watching every program I really want.


I'm finding more and more of the content I want is streaming, and most of the rest is HBO or PBS, but at the same time, there is still content on cable that I really want, especially sports, so I can't get rid of it.



wgameplaya said:


> service providers should just be apps on our Tivos.
> that's it!


NO! Allowing MSOs to do the app thing like on Roku is a terrible idea. Then they have total control over the interface and limitations.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

wgameplaya said:


> service providers should just be apps on our Tivos. that's it!


Ugh.

People complain that changing channels is slow with QAM. wait until they have to change streams in an app.


----------



## wgameplaya (May 5, 2016)

Bigg said:


> I'm finding more and more of the content I want is streaming, and most of the rest is HBO or PBS, but at the same time, there is still content on cable that I really want, especially sports, so I can't get rid of it.
> 
> NO! Allowing MSOs to do the app thing like on Roku is a terrible idea. Then they have total control over the interface and limitations.


nah if there are like 15 different apps- sonyvue, comcast, hulutv, sling, uverse, fios etc...it wont matter if they have some small amount of ui control since tons of competition.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

wgameplaya said:


> nah if there are like 15 different apps- sonyvue, comcast, hulutv, sling, uverse, fios etc...it wont matter if they have some small amount of ui control since tons of competition.


The control comes from the networks, not the conveyor. It already happens with cable and satellite on demand.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

wgameplaya said:


> people in the end will probly end up paying about 30% less for the content they watch.. all the little buckets cable cos create are deisgned to force people into a bucket that maximizes revneue for them.
> 
> Freeing us from the cable equipment will allow service providers to experiment and offer a lot more buckets.
> 
> like they say in braveheart- FREEDOM


Sorry, but you're sadly mistaken. If there are 90 million people each paying $0.50/mo for a channel, that provides lots of revenue to the content owner/creator without requiring much of a sacrifice from the viewers. But if the cable "buckets" are destroyed and every content owner/creator has to offer their content separately, they're not going to get 90 million people to pay $0.50 each per month. They'll be lucky to get 9 million people to pay $5.00 each per month. So instead of getting the content from 10 different channels for $5, you're getting the content from one, and unless your funds are unlimited, you now have to choose which few channels you want to subscribe to rather than just paying $30-50/mo and having access to virtually everything.


----------



## wgameplaya (May 5, 2016)

DevdogAZ said:


> Sorry, but you're sadly mistaken. If there are 90 million people each paying $0.50/mo for a channel, that provides lots of revenue to the content owner/creator without requiring much of a sacrifice from the viewers. But if the cable "buckets" are destroyed and every content owner/creator has to offer their content separately, they're not going to get 90 million people to pay $0.50 each per month. They'll be lucky to get 9 million people to pay $5.00 each per month. So instead of getting the content from 10 different channels for $5, you're getting the content from one, and unless your funds are unlimited, you now have to choose which few channels you want to subscribe to rather than just paying $30-50/mo and having access to virtually everything.


no no- you don't need channels- just shows. no need for a middle man distributor either- cable co will be just judged on how good of an internet pipe it has.
People may pay more per show they watch, rather than per show they GET from buckets but the total they pay will likely go down.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

He does have a point about how useless channels are nowadays, at least on the cable end oif the spectrum. Way too many channels that have little or nothing to do with their original name and purpose, like A&E and AMC. I like AMC shows btw, but it's evolved far away from what it started as.

Netflix and Amazon Prime have the right idea now - put good shows out there, you don't need channels. But of course you could say that they are just another 'channel' even if really just a brand.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

wgameplaya said:


> no no- you don't need channels- just shows. no need for a middle man distributor either- cable co will be just judged on how good of an internet pipe it has.
> People may pay more per show they watch, rather than per show they GET from buckets but the total they pay will likely go down.


For people that only watch a few shows, that might be a cost savings. But for those of us who watch a lot, there's no way it would be cheaper. Especially when many of these shows charge $2-3 per episode.


----------



## DrewTivo (Mar 30, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> For people that only watch a few shows, that might be a cost savings. But for those of us who watch a lot, there's no way it would be cheaper. Especially when many of these shows charge $2-3 per episode.


Yeah, but they'll develop different tier plans so that the per ep. cost drops if you buy a lot.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

People point to Netflix and Hulu for models for developing new programming. Sure. But they are really "replacing" HBO with an in demand model. They are not replacing abc, CBS, NBC, fox not to mention the dozen or so cable channels who create programs. 

A pure on demand model will just create chaos. 

So let's look at music. The on demand holy grail. Or not. All downloads have done is replace CDs. We still have fm radio. We have satellite radio. We have streaming music channels on cable and our iPhones that provide linear music. Without them, the download market would dry up.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Yeah, like it or not linear TV and commercial are what allow us to discover new programming. Ever since I got SkipMode on TiVo I've missed a few new shows. It use to be that if I saw a preview for a show/movie fly by while FFing I'd stop and watch it, not I never even see them so I miss stuff. If we were 100% commercial free VOD I'm not sure how I'd discover new shows. Even Netflix advertises it's original program on limear TV.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

Problem is today's commercials are annoying. Esp the old man "get it up" pills or female calcium pills with sexy naked granny sexual postures. Bones and Boners commercials I call it. You want boners, but not crack her bones with it.

I watch old 70's and 80's commercials all the time on YouBoob. I recently even purchased those products after watching (KFC, Kool Aid, Fruit Loops, Recess PB Cups, ect ect..

Non Pay TV with commercials model can work.

Streaming with Tiled selections looks like eye candy, but really its dead and lifeless.


----------



## DrewTivo (Mar 30, 2005)

TonyD79 said:


> A pure on demand model will just create chaos.


The same argument that a pure a la carte channel model will create such chaos, and not save most people money.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

DrewTivo said:


> The same argument that a pure a la carte channel model will create such chaos, and not save most people money.


That's probably true. I don't think people really mind bundles, they just think their bill is too high and they blame bundles for it. In reality all those channels you don't watch are bundled with channels you do watch and are essentially free. If you only paid for the channels you watch a la carte you'd likely pay the same amount. Although in some areas cable companies do manipulate their tiers to increase prices. For example here Charter spreads some of the more popular channels across all of their tiers essentially forcing you to upgrade to higher tiers to get just a few channels. But that has more to do with their business practices then the bundling of channels. And hopefully these new skinny bundles being offered by services like PSVue and SlingTV will force them to reconsider those sorts of practices.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

We seem to have a go around with people wanting a pure VoD (which is what no channels is) world and a la cart pay TV every few days. 

I have nothing against VoD services as an add on or supplement and I have nothing against a la cart service. That is what the Netflix's, Hulu's, Amazon's, & Vudu's for the world provide now. 

If you think these types of service are an acceptable replacement for linear TV and a DVR fine have at it. I happen to think you're nuts and have zero desire to give up my linear channels and TiVo DVR. 

Just remember this simple reality: Without linear channels most of our current streaming services can not exist in their current form. Either their price has to go way up or the amount of new future content has to go way down (or of course some combination of the 2). Like it or not advertising via linear broadcast and subscriptions via traditional Pay TV pay for the bulk of new content.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

A TiVo with SkipMode is essentially VOD anyway. If enough people adopt this technology then ad supported TV is going to collapse. Right now we're in the hay day where there are still enough people watching live linear TV that advertisers are willing to pay for it. But eventually it's going to shift and we're going to get stuck with VOD pricing, whatever that may be, because advertisers will no longer be paying for content. Or worse we're going to get stuck with content that has forced commercials and no option to pay more to avoid them.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> A TiVo with SkipMode is essentially VOD anyway. If enough people adopt this technology then ad supported TV is going to collapse. Right now we're in the hay day where there are still enough people watching live linear TV that advertisers are willing to pay for it. But eventually it's going to shift and we're going to get stuck with VOD pricing, whatever that may be, because advertisers will no longer be paying for content. Or worse we're going to get stuck with content that has forced commercials and no option to pay more to avoid them.


Which is why I am fine with TiVo having just enough customers to stay in stand alone DVR business. If most people where like the people on this forum the current add support model would have already failed. But given the data on how the majority of people still watch TV, even if they have a DVR, I am not really sure linear TV supported by adds is going to fail at all.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

wgameplaya said:


> nah if there are like 15 different apps- sonyvue, comcast, hulutv, sling, uverse, fios etc...it wont matter if they have some small amount of ui control since tons of competition.


No, that's the point though. You're talking about STB choice, through your incumbent provider. That should be regulated by the government to allow open access.



Dan203 said:


> Yeah, like it or not linear TV and commercial are what allow us to discover new programming. Ever since I got SkipMode on TiVo I've missed a few new shows. It use to be that if I saw a preview for a show/movie fly by while FFing I'd stop and watch it, not I never even see them so I miss stuff. If we were 100% commercial free VOD I'm not sure how I'd discover new shows. Even Netflix advertises it's original program on limear TV.


You end up very tied into your network. I'm very in tune to HBO and Netflix, since I go through their channels and interfaces to get content. Not so much for many other networks.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

Comcast comments:
https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Comcast-Running-our-Code-on-ThirdParty-Boxes-Not-Feasible-136957


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> That's probably true. I don't think people really mind bundles, they just think their bill is too high and they blame bundles for it. In reality all those channels you don't watch are bundled with channels you do watch and are essentially free. If you only paid for the channels you watch a la carte you'd likely pay the same amount. Although in some areas cable companies do manipulate their tiers to increase prices. For example here Charter spreads some of the more popular channels across all of their tiers essentially forcing you to upgrade to higher tiers to get just a few channels. But that has more to do with their business practices then the bundling of channels. And hopefully these new skinny bundles being offered by services like PSVue and SlingTV will force them to reconsider those sorts of practices.


+1

A la carte would mean not spending a few cents for channels we don't watch but paying a dollar or so, instead of a few cents, for channels we do watch.

An exception, a person who has no interest in sports would probably see some real savings. Regional Sports Networks still want to get included in most bundle offerings. ESPN went to court to require FiOS bundle ESPN in their skinny bundle.

Sometimes there is a reason why channels are spread across tiers. Adding an additional channel from the same content owner (ESPN, ABC, ABC Family, Disney....) may have little, or no, incremental cost to the cable provider. Adding content from a different content provider (HD Movies or Hallmark for example) may have a real cost to cable operator. Those costs have to be passed on the subscriber. I have FiOS. Hallmark Movie Channel is only included in the top package.


----------

