# Has SDV affected your S3 enthusiasm?



## FlippedBit (Dec 25, 2001)

How has your knowledge of SDV affected your enthusiasm about the S3?

The first four options assume that SDV will be employed by the cable company your S3 is/will be hooked up to.

Select the fourth option if you became aware of SDV after you bought your S3 and are still happy with your S3 purchase. (If I could edit the poll wording I would) 

The fifth option is for those that use OTA only or whose cable company is not going to implement SDV.


----------



## nhaigh (Jul 16, 2001)

Not in the slightest. 

My undersatnding is SDV is a resource sharing technology that really only suits obscure and seldom watched channels. Also the cable companies are not going to make their existing technology STB's etc redundant overnight. 

If we do see SDV I don't expect to see it on the current lineup of most watched channels. If all the channels are all watched all the time SDV given no benefit.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

nhaigh said:


> My undersatnding is SDV is a resource sharing technology that really only suits obscure and seldom watched channels.


Does having your head in the sand bother your neck? It has already been posted that significant portions of the digital lineup have already gone SDV.



nhaigh said:


> Also the cable companies are not going to make their existing technology STB's etc redundant overnight.


In fact, overnight the cable companies can spin out a new version of the guide app and 'presto' the whole footprint of STBs are SDV capable.


----------



## FlippedBit (Dec 25, 2001)

nhaigh said:


> Not in the slightest.
> 
> My undersatnding is SDV is a resource sharing technology that really only suits obscure and seldom watched channels. Also the cable companies are not going to make their existing technology STB's etc redundant overnight.
> 
> If we do see SDV I don't expect to see it on the current lineup of most watched channels. If all the channels are all watched all the time SDV given no benefit.


When I first learned about SDV I had the same thoughts as you. However, as I have learned more about what is really happening or what is really planned, I have concluded that my S3 with Comcast cable probably will not be satisfactory after SDV is rolled out.


----------



## fred_e_fender (Jan 12, 2007)

I'm fortunate enough to be on a Comcast "triple play" promotion through this December. Part of that deal was free DVR for a year, since I was coming from Directv.

I just bought an S3 to replace my 2nd Comcast DVR in the bedroom, so I now have one of each. (And the $ savings with the S3 vs the 2nd Comcast box will pay for the lifetime transfer fee in about 18 months.)

I'll keep an eye on SDV developments, and re-evaluate in December when my promo pricing expires. (FIOS may be here by then as well.) I'm figuring that even if I decide I have to sell the S3, it will still fetch a pretty good price with lifetime attached to it.


----------



## Sirius Black (Dec 26, 2001)

I voted that I wouldn't have bought an S3 if I'd known. I don't think I'm upset enough at this point to box the thing up and ship it back to Amazon (it's been less than a week and I haven't even activated it yet) but if come June Bright House does this SDV thing in Pinellas County, I suppose I'll look into switching to Knoledgy or FIOS.

Edit: I'm hoping that my apartment complex can get or is getting fios at all. More research to do.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

Yes, FIOS remains a good alternative for many of us. Hopefully my neighborhood will be lit up with FIOS in the very near future. They are already in surrounding neighborhoods. 

FIOS may go SDV in the future but they have bigger fish to fry at the moment.


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

I voted for 'Was aware and bought anyway.'


But, if it wasn't for SDV, I would have bought 2 S3's, and maybe even 3.
I'm willing to take the risk on 1. Not on more.


-Kyle


----------



## 20TIL6 (Sep 7, 2006)

FlippedBit said:


> How has your knowledge of SDV affected your enthusiasm about the S3?
> 
> The first four options assume that SDV will be employed by the cable company your S3 is/will be hooked up to.
> 
> The fifth option is for those that use OTA only or whose cable company is not going to implement SDV.


 I knew about it beforehand, and I am not skeeered.

If TWC, which is becoming Comcast, in Houston implements SDV to the point that it negatively impacts my consumption of content using my S3 units, I'll simply shop for a different carrier. So far, I have not heard anything regarding SDV affecting Houston.

I will always have options. Maybe FiOS will enter my area, maybe AT&T will lay fiber and offer S3 compatibility like FiOS. Maybe the Amazon/TiVo deal will fill in the void and I can buy cable content ala carte (and spend even less!).

Maybe, and most likely, I will add some sort of peripheral to my S3 to handle SDV signaling requirements. Maybe, since TiVo is getting cozy with cable, a software update will be applied so that upstream signaling can go out the ethernet interface to a cable company web service, that in turn manipulates the downstream bits.

All I am saying is that if you want to worry, you can, but it's wasted time. I don't think TiVo, nor the cable companies will allow the S3 to be orphaned. Especially since I think cable just gained a lot of DTV defections through the S3. Oh yeah, and DTV MPEG4 is going to obsolete HR10-250 units, yet there is still high demand for those.

So before cable does something to negatively impact a paying customer, you can be sure they will cover their bases to minimize things and keep that customer. Especially today since content is becoming available across more and more pipes other than their own.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

20TIL6 said:


> I knew about it beforehand, and I am not skeeered.
> 
> If TWC, which is becoming Comcast, in Houston implements SDV to the point that it negatively impacts my consumption of content using my S3 units, I'll simply shop for a different carrier. So far, I have not heard anything regarding SDV affecting Houston.
> 
> ...


That was surprisingly lucid and well thought out - almost too high a quality to be posted on a web forum. 

I agree with you completely. I'm not happy about it, but we'll just have to wait and see where the road takes us.


----------



## 20TIL6 (Sep 7, 2006)

GoHokies! said:


> That was surprisingly lucid and well thought out - almost too high a quality to be posted on a web forum.
> 
> I agree with you completely. I'm not happy about it, but we'll just have to wait and see where the road takes us.


 Thanks, I remembered to take my medication today.


----------



## davecramer74 (Mar 17, 2006)

i voted wont buy one now. Mainly, i dont have an alternative to cable besides IPTV, satellite or OTA. I am moving and have decided to go with the Dish Network and their HD DVR getup. Mainly, because its free now. If the S3 was more in the 299 price range, id definately consider it for OTA to record my locals and save space on my satelite one.


----------



## ewilts (Feb 26, 2002)

There should be another poll option: I wasn't aware of SDV, bought an S3, and am I now very disappointed. I'm definitely in this category - even though I've had a Series 1, and Series 2, and then a Series 3, I didn't hear about SDV until just recently - a couple of months after buying my S3. At no time during the buying cycle was I aware that Comcast could make my S3 a paperweight.

.../Ed


----------



## pmiranda (Feb 12, 2003)

20TIL6 said:


> I will always have options. Maybe FiOS will enter my area, maybe AT&T will lay fiber and offer S3 compatibility like FiOS. Maybe the Amazon/TiVo deal will fill in the void and I can buy cable content ala carte (and spend even less!).
> 
> Maybe, and most likely, I will add some sort of peripheral to my S3 to handle SDV signaling requirements. Maybe, since TiVo is getting cozy with cable, a software update will be applied so that upstream signaling can go out the ethernet interface to a cable company web service, that in turn manipulates the downstream bits.


If the Amazon thing is HD, that might fill in some of the void, but I'd need my Speed channel to really fix this. I wouldn't count on AT&T laying any fiber... they came by my house a week ago and were selling bundles with Dish... F that madness.

For SDV to really work with cable, the TiVo would have to ask (via ethernet) the headend to send a new channel map to YOUR cablecard. I'm not sure if it's possible to address a channel map that specifically.
Or they'd always have to use the same channel mappings for switched channels, which wouldn't save them any bandwidth in the last mile, and would make it a pain/impractical to deploy SDV throughout the system.

For now, I have my old TiVo controlling a cableco set-top for the switched channels, and I just don't watch the two switched HD channels they added in my area.


----------



## tivotivotivo (Aug 29, 2002)

I'm going with Time Warner Cable first then if things get out of hand (i hope) Verizon will have rolled out FIOS in my area so I will have the choice to jump.


----------



## pmiranda (Feb 12, 2003)

Why would FiOS help? As far as I can tell, it isn't cablecard compatible. [edit: oops, it is, but you can't tell from the verizon website.] 
Verizon thread


----------



## FlippedBit (Dec 25, 2001)

ewilts said:


> There should be another poll option: I wasn't aware of SDV, bought an S3, and am I now very disappointed. I'm definitely in this category - even though I've had a Series 1, and Series 2, and then a Series 3, I didn't hear about SDV until just recently - a couple of months after buying my S3. At no time during the buying cycle was I aware that Comcast could make my S3 a paperweight.
> 
> .../Ed


Your situation falls into the second option.


----------



## nhaigh (Jul 16, 2001)

ah30k said:


> Does having your head in the sand bother your neck?


Trying not to feel insulted....



ah30k said:


> It has already been posted that significant portions of the digital lineup have already gone SDV.


So far I haven't seen any reference to any of the Major channels, NBC, CBS etc or the Main premium channels. I've seen Starz Comedy, PPV, Sports subscriptions etc but nothing that is really worrying. Universal HD, and A&E HD are ones I don't have at the moment and would like but it only accounts for small quantity of programming that interests me. Even if I had that quantity of SDV I'd still have bought the S3.



ah30k said:


> In fact, overnight the cable companies can spin out a new version of the guide app and 'presto' the whole footprint of STBs are SDV capable.


True as that may be, unless I misunderstand completely how this technology works, there is little chance it will be the mainstream channels. They can probably move 100 channels off my current package and I'd not even notice they had done it.

Lastly, as mentioned here, I still have options - OTA and FIOS. In fact I'm pretty sure when FIOS finally arrives in my street I'll migrate to that anyway.

I don't feel I have my head in the sand, I just feel I haven't seen a compelling argument so dissuade me from buying an S3 given my viewing habits. In fact I'll go further and say if MRV gets enabled I'll buy another for the bedroom.


----------



## RFEngineer (Oct 30, 2006)

I was pretty excited about the prospect of the S3, and (im)patiently awaited availability of the device. Once they were available I grabbed a "virgin" image off a P-to-P network and started pricing larger drives for it

Then I read that Comcast execs declared that their next 50 HD offerings would be utilizing SDV on the cable. My tastes tend to run counter to the mainstream, so I am pretty sure that a sizeable portion of the viewing I desire would be included in the selection of channels destined for switching.

Not only would I be disappointed with the inability to record 50+ HD channels becoming available over the next year or so, but more importantly I have absolutely no desire to explain to my wife why "we can't record that show" on a box I spent $860 to purchase and "lifetime".

It was a deal-breaker for me.

I now have the Motorola 3416(III) and it has been fault-free since October when I picked it up. I've experienced exactly zero of the issues others have attributed to it.

Even with the significantly smaller drive, it has been quite satisfactory -- as my 300hr+ S1 still keeps chugging along with the standard-def duty, leaving the 3416's capacity dedicated entirely to HD content.

In summary: 
No $860 up-front cost
No channels lost to SDV
Still have 300 hours of SD + 25 hours of HD capacity

Bummed I didn't get one? Sure. 
Will I be REALLY bummed after SDV gets deployed? Nope.


----------



## Sirius Black (Dec 26, 2001)

I don't understand how someone who owns an S3 can say SDV will not affect them. It will affect all of us (S3 owners) in some way. While I'm in the boat that won't miss the removal of WE and Lifetime from the overall channel lineup, I will miss being able to watch Firefly and Battlestar Galactica in HD (Universal HD) and all the other channels that are added as a result of SDV.

I also don't understand how someone who owns an S3 can say they don't care (essentially this is option 3). I would certainly care that the channels I pay for whether I watch them or not are still being charged to me and are now unavailable to me but still part of my bill. I can pretty much confine my TV viewing to about 10 of the 150+ channels that digital cable receives, not including the big four. That isn't reflected in my bill however. I'm charged for WE and Lifetime just the same. 

The cable company has no reason to change their current billing scheme because the whole reason (as far as I can tell) they are going to SDV is to cut costs and cut out 3rd party DVRs. One would think that those costs being cut would be passed on to consumers as lower bills but that won't be the case. In fact the opposite is likely to happen because SDV will be marketed as a new feature. 

So now not only will I be paying for channels I can't receive, I'll likely be paying more for them. 

I'm hoping that the FCC can put some pressure on the cable companies to keep all of this open and avoid the mess completely.


----------



## pkscout (Jan 11, 2003)

nhaigh said:


> So far I haven't seen any reference to any of the Major channels, NBC, CBS etc or the Main premium channels. I've seen Starz Comedy, PPV, Sports subscriptions etc but nothing that is really worrying. Universal HD, and A&E HD are ones I don't have at the moment and would like but it only accounts for small quantity of programming that interests me. Even if I had that quantity of SDV I'd still have bought the S3.


Time Warner Cable in North Carolina will be putting all digital simulcast of the basic and standard channels on SDV. In the short term that means that the S3 can't get digital versions of the analog channels. If and when TWC decides to turn off analog channels, that would mean the S3 could get no channel below 99. When it happens, that would be a big impact.


----------



## pkscout (Jan 11, 2003)

Sirius Black said:


> I don't understand how someone who owns an S3 can say SDV will not affect them. It will affect all of us (S3 owners) in some way. While I'm in the boat that won't miss the removal of WE and Lifetime from the overall channel lineup, I will miss being able to watch Firefly and Battlestar Galactica in HD (Universal HD) and all the other channels that are added as a result of SDV.


While this would be a small group, there are folks who only need the S3 to record OTA HD from an antenna. What the cable company does is of absolutely no concern to those folks.

As for the FCC, the reasonable course would be to prevent cable companies from moving any existing channels to SDV until the standard is complete and published and CE companies are given some time to bring competing devices to market.

Of course in the current climate, there can be no reasonable discourse or action, so folks may as well lawyer up and ensure that the attorneys at least get something out of all this.


----------



## ashu (Nov 8, 2002)

What 20TIL6 said


----------



## DeathRider (Dec 30, 2006)

Sirius Black said:


> I will miss being able to watch Firefly and Battlestar Galactica in HD (Universal HD) and all the other channels that are added as a result of SDV.


I can see BSG, but there are only 14 Firefly episodes  - and if I remember correctly, there wasn't enough $$$ made with Serenity to make a sequel feasible


----------



## tivotivotivo (Aug 29, 2002)

DeathRider said:


> I can see BSG, but there are only 14 Firefly episodes  - and if I remember correctly, there wasn't enough $$$ made with Serenity to make a sequel feasible


Yep. I thought for sure it would make lots of money seeing as so my many Slashdot techie types loved the show.


----------



## hookbill (Dec 14, 2001)

Nice poll. I heard about SDV through my local guys in the AVS forum. I think it will affect me but not for some time since we were just recently bought by Time Warner (old Adelphia).

So far other then the name change not much has changed and I don't anticipate any major changes until June at the earliest. And since I heard that from a tech at my house you can probably tag some additional time on to that. That's suppose to be when we all get on the same channels, which will be some task since most of Adelphia in N.E. Ohio wasn't even on the same channels.  

I think it will be quite a while before it hits us.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

Knowing full well what was coming down the road, I purchased my first S3.

Knowing full well what was coming down the road, prevented me from purchasing a second S3.

As someone else said, I'll take the gamble on one, but not on two.

-Ken


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Won't affect me, since I only plan to use OTA signals. I'll get any premium content over the Internet or on HD disc-based media.

Initially I was worried about it because I was thinking of using it for cable, but I realize that I have zero interest in paying that much for TV.


----------



## Forcelite (Mar 19, 2006)

I would not have bought an S3 and also would love to see what all the new HD channels have to offer, but NOPE, SDV is in the way!


----------



## jeffsinsfo (Oct 16, 2005)

I didn't make a choice in the poll because none of the options quite suits me. While I didn't understand the potential of SDV interfering with the channels I might be able to receive in the future on my Series 3, I don't think that I would have been bothered by that enough to prevent my purchasing a Series 3 if I also knew how easily I could receive OTA HD channels. I really didn't expect most of them to come in so easily with an indoor antenna haphazardly placed. So what will I do if Comcast rolls out SDV in my area and ends up putting channels I want on the switched channels? That depends on which and how many channels are affected. The only channel that isn't OTA that I'd miss tremendously is Comedy Central. If that goes then I'd probably just disconnect my cable service entirely as a protest (unless, of course, there was some solution to enable to Series 3 to still record the switched channels). There are other channels currently in my digital lineup that I would miss a little, but if those end up on switched channels I could easily just downgrade my service and not miss that programming very much.


----------



## hookbill (Dec 14, 2001)

jeffsinsfo said:


> I didn't make a choice in the poll because none of the options quite suits me. While I didn't understand the potential of SDV interfering with the channels I might be able to receive in the future on my Series 3, I don't think that I would have been bothered by that enough to prevent my purchasing a Series 3 if I also knew how easily I could receive OTA HD channels. I really didn't expect most of them to come in so easily with an indoor antenna haphazardly placed. So what will I do if Comcast rolls out SDV in my area and ends up putting channels I want on the switched channels? That depends on which and how many channels are affected. The only channel that isn't OTA that I'd miss tremendously is Comedy Central. If that goes then I'd probably just disconnect my cable service entirely as a protest (unless, of course, there was some solution to enable to Series 3 to still record the switched channels). There are other channels currently in my digital lineup that I would miss a little, but if those end up on switched channels I could easily just downgrade my service and not miss that programming very much.


I don't really think the major networks or your premium channels (even HD) will be on SDV. However I do feel they will offer a great deal of new HD channels and we may not get them.

I know in my area I would love to get FX in HD or Sci Fi. Now they may give that even before they bring in SDV but I think there is a good posiblity that those type of networks would be moved to SDV upon arrival.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

I knew about SDV, but I bought a Series 3 to complement my new HDTV anyway. After weighing my options, I switched from DTV to cable. I checked out Time Warner's DVR, as well as the HR10-250 DirecTiVo, and the HR20 on DTV, and liked the Series 3 the best. 

I'll enjoy it for as long as I can. And so I also upgraded it to 750 GB to accommodate lots and lots of recording. 

Life's too short to worry about "what if." If my S3 stops working or doesn't allow me to access all the channels I want to access, I'll sell it and switch over the next best thing... which will probably be the HR20 on DirecTV. I hope it doesn't come to that, but sometimes you've just got to roll with the punches.


----------



## Monty2_2001 (Aug 6, 2005)

Going to an HR20 is really a case of out of the frying pan..

Its days are numbered too.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

Monty2_2001 said:


> Going to an HR20 is really a case of out of the frying pan..
> 
> Its days are numbered too.


Really? The HR20 can handle MPEG-4. So what is the dual-tuner HD receiver that DirecTV offers in its place?


----------



## Jerry_K (Feb 7, 2002)

SDV, Cable Cards, who cares. It's back to the 50's with antennae. Anyone here ever build a crystal radio and string a wire across the yard?


----------



## Monty2_2001 (Aug 6, 2005)

Fofer said:


> Really? The HR20 can handle MPEG-4. So what is the dual-tuner HD receiver that DirecTV offers in its place?


I'm sorry, you're right. I keep getting the DTV model numbers messed up in my head.

I also will consider the HR20. I haven't checked in awhile, but I hope the bugs are worked out. Also, it needs a phone connection which is irritating, since an S3 benefit is ethernet.

Maybe by the time SDV hits hard, Directv will have a newer model.


----------



## Greeble (Dec 5, 2006)

I got FiOS so SDV doesn't affect me. (And probably won't for some time since there is so much bandwidth available to fiber and so many of FiOS's channels are digital.)


----------



## FlippedBit (Dec 25, 2001)

jeffsinsfo said:


> I didn't make a choice in the poll because none of the options quite suits me. While I didn't understand the potential of SDV interfering with the channels I might be able to receive in the future on my Series 3, I don't think that I would have been bothered by that enough to prevent my purchasing a Series 3 if I also knew how easily I could receive OTA HD channels.


In the first post I suggest that people in your situation should select the fourth entry.



FlippedBit said:


> The first four options assume that SDV will be employed by the cable company your S3 is/will be hooked up to.
> 
> Select the fourth option if you became aware of SDV after you bought your S3 and are still happy with your S3 purchase. (If I could edit the poll wording I would)
> 
> The fifth option is for those that use OTA only or whose cable company is not going to implement SDV.


----------



## FlippedBit (Dec 25, 2001)

Jerry_K said:


> Anyone here ever build a crystal radio and string a wire across the yard?


I did but it didn't work and I didn't have the right equipment to troubleshoot the thing. And after winding those tuning coils by hand!


----------



## SCSIRAID (Feb 2, 2003)

pkscout said:


> Time Warner Cable in North Carolina will be putting all digital simulcast of the basic and standard channels on SDV. In the short term that means that the S3 can't get digital versions of the analog channels. If and when TWC decides to turn off analog channels, that would mean the S3 could get no channel below 99. When it happens, that would be a big impact.


Your description lines up exactly with what I have been told. S3 in Raleigh doesnt get digital simulcasts anyway so no loss there..... That boils down to no changes from what we have today. Impacts may be limited, for now, to inability to access any new content... That may force me to get an 8300 for new content if and when any new content appears... Hopfully, an S4 will be available before the analog channels get shut down or the situation gets any worse.

You miss Durham yet?

I knew about SDV and bought anyway.


----------



## pmiranda (Feb 12, 2003)

Greeble said:


> I got FiOS so SDV doesn't affect me. (And probably won't for some time since there is so much bandwidth available to fiber and so many of FiOS's channels are digital.)


If I lose too many channels to SDV, I'm seriously considering buying an HD Slingbox, and moving my S3 to my brother's house in north Texas... I wonder how bad the lag would be across 300 miles?


----------



## kb7oeb (Jan 18, 2005)

tivotivotivo said:


> Yep. I thought for sure it would make lots of money seeing as so my many Slashdot techie types loved the show.


They probably downloaded it 



pmiranda said:


> If I lose too many channels to SDV, I'm seriously considering buying an HD Slingbox, and moving my S3 to my brother's house in north Texas... I wonder how bad the lag would be across 300 miles?


Just FYI the HD slingbox accepts HD signals but downcoverts them to SD, doesn't seem to be worth it to me.


----------



## pmiranda (Feb 12, 2003)

kb7oeb said:


> Just FYI the HD slingbox accepts HD signals but downconverts them to SD, doesn't seem to be worth it to me.


Bummer, yeah I didn't check the fine print. Seemed too good to be true.

I guess I should just start stealing shows from bittorrents... it's more reliable than paying for them!


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

pmiranda said:


> If I lose too many channels to SDV, I'm seriously considering buying an HD Slingbox, and moving my S3 to my brother's house in north Texas... I wonder how bad the lag would be across 300 miles?


I can't tell from the specs, but I have doubts about the HD quality of the SlingBoxPro. Yes, it takes 1080i component inputs, but then it has to re-digitize the video signal. Then it has to transmit it over the internet at who knows what speed. The specs also don't mention digital audio so you're not likely to be able to get surround sound. I might be wrong, but I wouldn't bet a sling experience would be anywhere near as good as the real thing.

edit - oops, smeak, sorry


----------



## dconner (Mar 13, 2004)

One thing I'm confused about in all this, a fairly simple question. I understand that, if Comcast put a bunch of channels on SDV _today_, right now, I'd be unable to record them. But:

Will it *ever* be possible for a TiVo Series3 to record channels on SDV? Which answer is closest to true:
1. It is categorically, metaphysically impossible. A TiVo Series3 will never, ever be able to record SDV programs, no matter what ingenuity is applied to the problem or how much money is spent. A TiVo Series 3 has as much ability to show SDV channels as my toaster.
2. It's theoretically possible, but only with some sort of additional hardware that no one will ever make because it'd be ludicrously expensive, and/or would require cable companies to make hugely expensive modifications to their own systems.
3. It's possible that some sort of TiVo software modification or cheap, simple hardware fix could solve the problem. There's a good chance that some future TiVo Release 8.5 or something will do it.
4. Nobody knows the answer to this question, and any attempt to answer is just a wild-ass guess.


----------



## SCSIRAID (Feb 2, 2003)

dconner said:


> One thing I'm confused about in all this, a fairly simple question. I understand that, if Comcast put a bunch of channels on SDV _today_, right now, I'd be unable to record them. But:
> 
> Will it *ever* be possible for a TiVo Series3 to record channels on SDV? Which answer is closest to true:
> 1. It is categorically, metaphysically impossible. A TiVo Series3 will never, ever be able to record SDV programs, no matter what ingenuity is applied to the problem or how much money is spent. A TiVo Series 3 has as much ability to show SDV channels as my toaster.
> ...


I would say its a cross between #4 and to some degree #2.


----------



## hookbill (Dec 14, 2001)

SCSIRAID said:


> I would say its a cross between #4 and to some degree #2.


Sorry, SCSRAID. I don't think so.

From the FAQ sticky at the top of this page:

Does the S3 support CableCARD 2.0?
The CableCARD 2.0 specification has not been finalized at this time, so it is not possible to give a final answer. *However, the current CC 2.0 proposal requires hardware the S3 does not have. Therefore, the S3, as it stands today, would not be able to support bidirectional communication for CC 2.0 features such as OnDemand or Switched Digital Video.* If a 2.0 card is inserted it should fall back to 1.0 with Multi-Stream.


----------



## pmiranda (Feb 12, 2003)

1 and a half 
If cablelabs weren't a bunch of paranoid psychos it would be 2 and a half.


----------



## SCSIRAID (Feb 2, 2003)

hookbill said:


> Sorry, SCSRAID. I don't think so.
> 
> From the FAQ sticky at the top of this page:
> 
> ...


If you try to do it with CC 2 then I would agree.... However... this was a pie in the sky question so given that CC 1 can do the decryption, the challenge would be how to request the cableco to give you a frequency for the target content. This could possibly (pie in the sky theoretical remember) be done via the ethernet connection.

Is any of that gonna happen.... No way in the world IMHO.... but that wasnt one of the choices the OP listed.  Bring on S4.


----------



## davecramer74 (Mar 17, 2006)

> One thing I'm confused about in all this, a fairly simple question. I understand that, if Comcast put a bunch of channels on SDV today, right now, I'd be unable to record them. But:
> 
> Will it *ever* be possible for a TiVo Series3 to record channels on SDV? Which answer is closest to true:
> 1. It is categorically, metaphysically impossible. A TiVo Series3 will never, ever be able to record SDV programs, no matter what ingenuity is applied to the problem or how much money is spent. A TiVo Series 3 has as much ability to show SDV channels as my toaster.
> ...


no, it wont. They just had the big E3 show, and tivo was showing their 2way communication off, on a motorola box. Why wouldnt they use their own hardware? Because it wont work.


----------



## pmiranda (Feb 12, 2003)

Is this Motorola box something a consumer could buy, or the mythical Comcast TiVo?


----------



## davecramer74 (Mar 17, 2006)

> Is this Motorola box something a consumer could buy, or the mythical Comcast TiVo?


its a comcast box. they are going to port their software to SA boxes as well per this arcticle. Im looking for the one where they were talking about on demand, etc.

http://media.seekingalpha.com/article/24165


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

dconner said:


> Will it *ever* be possible for a TiVo Series3 to record channels on SDV?


I would say ...

It is theoretically possible to imagine a combination of (relatively) cheap / simple / standard hardware addition and software upgrade to the (existing) S3 that would allow recording SDV channels. However, to make that theorectical solution realistically possible and available would require a combination / series of events happening that would seem highly unlikely enough to consider as neglible.

Ie ... if x and y and z and x1 and y1 and z1 (etc, etc) happen ... one could imagine a hardware / software solution being available. That combination of events seems unlikely enough to not even (realistically) consider ...

So, as far as I'm concerned ... I'll avoid the absolutes of 'possible / impossible' for the future and just say ...

Recording of SDV channels via the S3 is something that will not happen. If it does ... especially for HD channels (in HD) ... I would be very, very, very surprised. Right here, right now, today, it is not possible. In the future ... well, anything is _possible_ if you want to go down that route ... but ... it's highly improbable (ie, not going to happen).

Not sure what # that correlates to.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

pmiranda said:


> Is this Motorola box something a consumer could buy


It's a box being made to sell to cable companies to lease to their customers. It is not a box that would be suitable to sell directly to customers at retail.


----------



## dcpmark (Feb 8, 2006)

Sirius Black said:


> I don't understand how someone who owns an S3 can say SDV will not affect them. It will affect all of us (S3 owners) in some way.


FIOS + S3 = no worries, right?? Is anyone aware of (and can point me to) proof of definite plans for Verizon to use SDV at any point? Everything I've seen has been pure speculation.


----------



## davecramer74 (Mar 17, 2006)

> Is anyone aware of (and can point me to) proof of definite plans for Verizon to use SDV at any point? Everything I've seen has been pure speculation.


They wont be doing it in any hurry. they have no need to. You've got fiber to the house. They can offer up alot more HD on their current getup. With that said, at some point they will do it, it makes sense. but there is no urgency.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

Verizon is still using QAM headend gear and set top boxes for their broadcast content so they will still run into the 850mhz limitation as they want to put more HD content in their broadcast tiers. What they do have making their architecture better is that they do not have interactive content competing for the same 850 mhz. Their interactive is done via IP.

Disclaimer - I think this statement is true.


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

ah30k said:


> Verizon is still using QAM headend gear and set top boxes for their broadcast content so they will still run into the 850mhz limitation as they want to put more HD content in their broadcast tiers. What they do have making their architecture better is that they do not have interactive content competing for the same 850 mhz. Their interactive is done via IP.
> 
> Disclaimer - I think this statement is true.


That fits my understanding too. While the fiber has greater usable bandwidth than the copper, the equipment, signals, protocols, that FIOS uses to send it over that fiber is basically the same 850MHZ QAM equipment that Cable uses today.

What Verizon has as an advantage, is that as it continues to roll into new locations, it could choose to start using newer equipment (1ghz, QAM1024, etc.) as the equipment matures. The Cable companies can do the same, but they'd be throwing out equipment they already spent $$$ on. Verizon has to spend the money no matter what, why not buy the future?

-Kyle


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

ah30k said:


> Verizon is still using QAM headend gear and set top boxes for their broadcast content so they will still run into the 850mhz limitation as they want to put more HD content in their broadcast tiers. What they do have making their architecture better is that they do not have interactive content competing for the same 850 mhz. Their interactive is done via IP.
> 
> Disclaimer - I think this statement is true.


It is (mostly). They're using 50-860MHz RF but ... same principle. They also don't have broadband or voice competing for that RF spectrum ...

Verizon has "talked publicly about their belief that they'll move to an IPTV platform in the future" (http://blog.itvt.com/my_weblog/2007/01/itvt_itv_interv.html), said that "a pure IPTV network may be in the offing down the road" (http://www.broadcastnewsroom.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=100516) and stuff along those lines.

IPTV from Verizon leads to the same issues as SDV ... ie, not bloody likely to be available via the S3.

However Verizon't IPTV plans / usage is still one of those far off, distant, fuzzy, future things. They've still got their 50-860MHz RF to max out first. They're not going to be doing anything with IPTV untill AT&T, Quest, CLECs, etc. iron out the kinks first. And, as you pointed out, the IPTV and RF won't be 'competing'. They don't have to 'make room' in RF for IPTV. Heck, I could almost see Verizon doing RF/IPTV 'simulcasting' (for things like narrowcast advertising, iTV applications, etc) before they get to the point of actually having to put any channels on IPTV-only (no RF).


----------



## ewilts (Feb 26, 2002)

dconner said:


> Will it *ever* be possible for a TiVo Series3 to record channels on SDV? Which answer is closest to true:
> 1. It is categorically, metaphysically impossible. A TiVo Series3 will never, ever be able to record SDV programs, no matter what ingenuity is applied to the problem or how much money is spent. A TiVo Series 3 has as much ability to show SDV channels as my toaster.
> 2. It's theoretically possible, but only with some sort of additional hardware that no one will ever make because it'd be ludicrously expensive, and/or would require cable companies to make hugely expensive modifications to their own systems.
> 3. It's possible that some sort of TiVo software modification or cheap, simple hardware fix could solve the problem. There's a good chance that some future TiVo Release 8.5 or something will do it.
> 4. Nobody knows the answer to this question, and any attempt to answer is just a wild-ass guess.


Somebody at TiVo probably knows but isn't telling. Either because they're working on something but aren't ready to announce it yet or because the news is bad and they don't want to cripple the S3 sales.

My personal wild-ass guess: We'll never see an S4 or an SDV update for the S3. TiVo will be bought by Comcast, the hardware platform as we know it will go away, and Comcast will ship TiVo-based DVRs (with some of the functionality like HME removed). Comcast customers will be somewhat happy. Customers of all of the other cable and OTA providers will go postal.

I have no facts to base my guess on - this opinion is worth exactly what you paid for it 

.../Ed


----------



## squirrellyman (Jan 15, 2004)

I would have held off purchasing, and like kjmcdonald I probably would already have a second S3 if not for the looming SDV issue.

By the way, I've seen in lots of posts about TiVo not letting the S3 be orphaned, TiVo must be working on an update (or political solution), etc. I feel compelled to mention that line of thinking only applies if TiVo's business strategy involves selling hardware in the future. As exemplified by the Comcast DVR w/ TiVo software announcement, it's quite possible that TiVo's business plan is to become a software company.


----------



## SMWinnie (Aug 17, 2002)

20TIL6 said:


> *(as edited from original post):* Maybe, and most likely, I will add some sort of peripheral to my S3 to handle SDV signaling requirements.


Well thought-out post. I came to a similar conclusion on the facts but a different outcome. My wife and I have decided not to purchase an S3 at least until TiVo announces a credible SDV workaround. We will probably wait until they ship it. We may even wait until they ship it and enough people here indicate that it works.

In the meantime, I'm actually getting used to the Moto6412P3.


----------



## prisk (Nov 19, 2006)

One of the sad truths to the technology age we live in is that even consumer electronics become obsolete very quickly. Many of us, I'm sure, have TV's or other components which are many years old and work fine. We replace them either when they break or when something new comes out that is worth the price. I had a 15-year old NEC TV which I only replaced a few months ago with a 42" plasma. Many on this forum still have VCR's someplace (maybe in a closet, but they still have them and they probably still work, in case you need to pull it out for that oddball video you still have lying around).

TiVo is no exeception. The 40-hour TiVo (with lifetime) I bought 2 1/2 years ago is effectively obsolete. It still works, but won't record HD, and definitely won't work with SDV. So it usefulness diminishes a little bit as the years pass by and new technologies make it less and less useful. I figure that if I get a few years out of it and the S3, then that is about their life expectancy anyways, till the next new technology hits and makes it obsolete. And that is simply something I have to accept when I decide how much to plunk down for it. For example, how long does anyone here expect to keep their DVD player? I have a 5-year old Philips DVD player I just gave away (which cost $500 back in the day). It still works fine, but is flakey with home-burned DVD's and kind of big in comparison with the newer Sony I have. And it's worth exactly $0. And, much as we don't want to admit it, that will be the fate of the S3 in a few years, just as it is coming to be quickly with the S1. 

SDV is the wave of the future till the next one comes along right on its heels. 5 years from now we will be saying, "Hey remember when Comcast rolled out SDV and they thought it was so hot, then this guy a few months later figured out how to transmit 20Gbps over the electric lines and we now all get 500 channels simply by plugging into an electric socket?"


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

How about- "I am well aware of SDV and still evaluating my options"

I knew about Switched video for some time now. I still bought my FIRST S3 the day they came out. Couldn't live without the ONE.

But I'm still debating getting a SECOND unit- that's a bit too much of a risk to take for the pleasure I would derive from it at the moment. 

To me actually the lack of MRV TODAY is a bigger disincentive then some potential missed channels in the future. When (IF?) MRV comes along for the S3's I may decide that the pleasure derived from the second box overcomes the potential for switched video to screw me in the future. 

(A big fat price drop also would likley affect my calculus)


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

I totally aggree on how fast technology is moving.

I was used to it in the PC arena, and I'm kinda disappointed that the TV arena has picked up speed. There were always improvements in TV technology, but for so many years the signal was the same. Hopefully once the the transisiton from NTSC to ATSC is complete things will (at least signal wise) slow down again.



prisk said:


> TiVo is no exeception. The 40-hour TiVo (with lifetime) I bought 2 1/2 years ago is effectively obsolete. It still works, but won't record HD, and definitely won't work with SDV.


Actually, your S2 Tivo is more compatible with SDV than an S3. As long as a TiVo has the ability to control an external Cable Box, it's immune to signaling changes the Cable Company makes on it's network.

-Kyle


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

ah30k said:


> Yes, FIOS remains a good alternative for many of us. Hopefully my neighborhood will be lit up with FIOS in the very near future. They are already in surrounding neighborhoods.
> 
> FIOS may go SDV in the future but they have bigger fish to fry at the moment.


FIOS only does the locals in analog. Assuming worst case 30 analog channels they still have tons of room. FIOS uses 850 mhz PURELY for broadcast video (might be only 750- but i'm pretty sure I've read 850). Unlike cable their vod and ppv and internet are all IP based.

Assuming 6 SD digitals to 6mz and 2.5 HD to 6 mz. That means that they can fit something like 672 SD channels OR 225 HD channels along with those 30 ananlog channels.

I beleive their ads say they currently have 200 channels, or which 20 are HD. So worst case that's 30 analog, 150 sd digital, and 20 HD now. That's 30 analog channels taking 30 rf slots. 25 rf slots with SD digitals at 6 to a slot. And then 8 rf slotswith the 20 HDs. Total of 63 RF slots full. Means they have 45 Rf slots free. That's an addtional 110 HD channels before they run out of room. That likley gets them around Feb 2009 anyway when they can kill of the analog locals and go ATSC only since all their subs already need boxes or cablecards for everything beyond locals. So those 30 locals- assuming all go HD (even the high school and mayors channel...) take up just 12 of the 30 rf slots set aside. That means another 47 HD's can fit in in the free up space come the analog shut off.

So come feb 2009 , that's gets them to like 30 Locals in HD, 180 nationals in HD, and 180 sd cable channels before they need to bother with switched video.

Verizon might add it at some point, but i dont think it's any time soon. They just have piles of room.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

kjmcdonald said:


> I voted for 'Was aware and bought anyway.'
> 
> But, if it wasn't for SDV, I would have bought 2 S3's, and maybe even 3.
> I'm willing to take the risk on 1. Not on more.
> ...


as above- my sentiments exactly....


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

pkscout said:


> Time Warner Cable in North Carolina will be putting all digital simulcast of the basic and standard channels on SDV. In the short term that means that the S3 can't get digital versions of the analog channels. If and when TWC decides to turn off analog channels, that would mean the S3 could get no channel below 99. When it happens, that would be a big impact.


likely though at that point the most popular channels go back to broadcast ainstead of switched video. The SD version of ESPN is probably never going to be switched video because most of the time someone will want it on- there's no point to wasting your fancy switched video gear to make a channel dynamic when it's on 24/7 anyway. At the point that such a popular cable channel's sd version becomes so unwatched they probably kill it anyway as the HD version will have become the norm.

Also, many cable operators are hamstrung becasue they can't pull channels off the analog tier becasue of contracts. So the powerfull channels aren't going to let themselves get put on SDV (asssuming a sizable pentration of cablecards).

So much of the first 99 channels might go bye bye, but likely many of the analog always on versions will be replaced with a digital always on version when the analogs are tossed.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

hookbill said:


> Sorry, SCSRAID. I don't think so.
> 
> From the FAQ sticky at the top of this page:
> 
> ...


But

first we dont know what the CC 2.0 spec that the CEA and the FCC and Cablelabs all finally agree to says?

and also we dont know what the "missing hardware" is. It could be just the firewire port. Or it could be the firewire port and the 2-way capability. No one from tivo has confirmed that it's impossible to go 2-way with the current cardware.

Depending on those 2 questions tivo may or may not be able to get exceptions or create add on hardware stuff.

So I'd have to vote #4 is the answer now. And I'll keep my fingers crossed that 2 or 3 might be possible (Long shot I will completely agree but I dont think YET we have the facts to say NEVER for certain.)


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Another holy grail for would be an S4 or S3.5- that is 2-way certified by cable and that cable fits sdv into that 2-way spec . Then make sure MRV is enabled and Im fine with one s3 that can get OTA and some of the cable channels and one S4 that can get everything. 

As crazy as it sounds, an announcement that the S3 can never do it but that they have the s4 worked out and will release it in a year might actually make me pick up a second s3. And then Id get an S4 for box #3.


----------



## pkscout (Jan 11, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> Another holy grail for would be an S4 or S3.5- that is 2-way certified by cable and that cable fits sdv into that 2-way spec . Then make sure MRV is enabled and Im fine with one s3 that can get OTA and some of the cable channels and one S4 that can get everything.


This reminds me of that Embark commercial on the radio...

"In the year 2295..."

The two way CableCARD spec is still just in draft after, what, three years. TiVo has been trying to get MRV approved by CableLabs for, conservatively, 8 months. There isn't even a proposal about SDV two way communication never mind a draft or an agreed on spec. And that cable companies have every incentive to drag their feet on this to keep the CE manufacturers out of the game.

So maybe you'll get everything on your list by 2010, right after Dave returns from the black obelisk.

Oh, and I would like a pony. A robot pony. Or maybe by the time all this is done it will be a robot pony overlord.


----------



## prisk (Nov 19, 2006)

kjmcdonald said:


> I totally aggree on how fast technology is moving.
> 
> Actually, your S2 Tivo is more compatible with SDV than an S3. As long as a TiVo has the ability to control an external Cable Box, it's immune to signaling changes the Cable Company makes on it's network.


Good point. Actually, the TiVo S3 as a platform can probably be expanded or modified using the USB port, OTA feed, or something else. And even if TiVo itself never goes down the path, never underestimate the ingenuity and determination of 3rd party developers. If there is enough of a need, some smart tinkerer (or ex-TiVo engineer) will invent a gadget that plugs into a TiVo and gets it to talk with an SDV setup.


----------



## SMWinnie (Aug 17, 2002)

pkscout said:


> Oh, and I would like a pony. A robot pony. Or maybe by the time all this is done it will be a robot pony overlord.


...And I for one welcome our new robot pony overlords.


----------



## markr33 (Dec 20, 2002)

Do TV sets (any of them, flat or not) that have cable card support SDV?

If the answer is no, at least for some of them, does the switch to SDV also make those TVs into "paperweights"?


----------



## davecramer74 (Mar 17, 2006)

it makes the cablecard slot paperweigiht, but with a tv you can plug in a set top box, so no.


----------



## Blanchard (Feb 3, 2007)

I just got back from Costco an hour ago. I returned both (two) of my S3s because of this SDV issue. I didn't know about SDV when I bought them last Fri. IMO, Comcast will switch many current and future HD channels that I want to SDV within the next year or two because benefits them. Sadly, it was just too much money for me to take a chance on them not doing it. Thanks, TiVo Community for this info.


----------



## hookbill (Dec 14, 2001)

Blanchard said:


> I just got back from Costco an hour ago. I returned both (two) of my S3s because of this SDV issue. I didn't know about SDV when I bought them last Fri. IMO, Comcast will switch many current and future HD channels that I want to SDV within the next year or two because benefits them. Sadly, it was just too much money for me to take a chance on them not doing it. Thanks, TiVo Community for this info.


Now this is just about the dumbest thing I've ever read. Really. Here you have two S3's that as far as I know are working fine, you read a blurb on here about Comcast going to the S3 and you jump the gun and return your S3. First, SDV is not anything new, just that Comcast made an announcement which most of us expected that they were going to go forward with it. Time Warner said the same thing as well but only a couple of areas have been affected by this. YOU bought wisely bought your S3 from Costco yet you turn it in before anything even hits your area.

I'm really not trying to be mean but at Costco you could have returned it at anytime. Why didn't you wait until you saw what happened?

Not a wise choice my friend. Not at all. :down:


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

hookbill said:


> Now this is just about the dumbest thing I've ever read. Really. Here you have two S3's that as far as I know are working fine, you read a blurb on here about Comcast going to the S3 and you jump the gun and return your S3. First, SDV is not anything new, just that Comcast made an announcement which most of us expected that they were going to go forward with it. Time Warner said the same thing as well but only a couple of areas have been affected by this. YOU bought wisely bought your S3 from Costco yet you turn it in before anything even hits your area.
> 
> I'm really not trying to be mean but at Costco you could have returned it at anytime. Why didn't you wait until you saw what happened?
> 
> Not a wise choice my friend. Not at all. :down:


Except he would have to have at least one year commitment to TiVo service or prepaid for 2 units and unlike Costco TiVo would not refund his money nor let him out of the commitment without penalty. SDV is real and it is coming, to some areas earlier than other. And he might be from Austin or upstate NY.


----------



## ewilts (Feb 26, 2002)

Blanchard said:


> I just got back from Costco an hour ago. I returned both (two) of my S3s because of this SDV issue. I didn't know about SDV when I bought them last Fri. IMO, Comcast will switch many current and future HD channels that I want to SDV within the next year or two because benefits them. Sadly, it was just too much money for me to take a chance on them not doing it. Thanks, TiVo Community for this info.


This was a brilliant move on your part. The S3 boxes are a ton of money, especially with the long-term expensive commitment that TiVo tries to force us into now. The Comcast TiVo-based DVR is right around the corner and TiVo Inc is being *way* too silent on the SDV issues. There is no doubt in my mind that SDV will impact the channels I either currently receive or will prevent me from seeing future HD content (which is, after all, the *only* reason I bought my S3 in the first place).

If more people voted with their wallets like you've just done, perhaps TiVo will actually wake up and smell the roses and address SDV.

.../Ed


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

pkscout said:


> The two way CableCARD spec is still just in draft after, what, three years.


What part of this spec do you imagine to be still in draft status? The MCARD specs were CLOSED almost a year ago. The OCAP 1.1 spec was Issued at the end of December; CableLabs certified an LG production television for OCAP compliance in January (which presupposes MCARD-host compliance).

My question is why didn't TiVo implement the bidirectional host spec in the S3? That's been ready since early last year and it's barely changed since CableCARD V1.


----------



## Blanchard (Feb 3, 2007)

samo, you're correct. I purchased the S3s on the 2nd, a week ago. They wouldn't record after today without a TiVo service plan. Apparently, hookbill feels that its ok to abuse Costco's return policy (use it as his insurance policy). IMO, this is FRAUD. My returning the S3s to Costco at this time may be stupid to some (hookbill for one), but at least I'm honest. Again, a big THANKS to the forum; you saved me $1,300.


----------



## hookbill (Dec 14, 2001)

Blanchard said:


> samo, you're correct. I purchased the S3s on the 2nd, a week ago. They wouldn't record after today without a TiVo service plan. Apparently, hookbill feels that its ok to abuse Costco's return policy (use it as his insurance policy). IMO, this is FRAUD. My returning the S3s to Costco at this time may be stupid to some (hookbill for one), but at least I'm honest. Again, a big THANKS to the forum; you saved me $1,300.


Is it knocking at your door right now? Is it? Then you panicked. Plain and simple.

It's not fraud to return something that DOESN'T WORK. And if SDV came into your area and your S3 doesn't work anymore then you are not committting fraud by returning it.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

Blanchard said:


> samo, you're correct. I purchased the S3s on the 2nd, a week ago. They wouldn't record after today without a TiVo service plan. Apparently, hookbill feels that its ok to abuse Costco's return policy (use it as his insurance policy). IMO, this is FRAUD. My returning the S3s to Costco at this time may be stupid to some (hookbill for one), but at least I'm honest. Again, a big THANKS to the forum; you saved me $1,300.


Hookbill hit it on the head. Yes, you would have had a one year commitment, but the chances of you seeing SDV in the next year are slim to none. (Think about how fast Comcast, like everyone else, gets products to market after announcing them)

Even I (who have railed on abuse of the Costco return policy on here in the past), think that if SDV comes and makes your S3 not work a return to Costco is perfectly appropriate...

In related news, I heard that we're going to run out of oil one day so I went out and sold my car. Biking the 30 miles to work every day in the cold is kind of a pain, but you guys sure are going to look like fools when there isn't any more gas for your cars!!!


----------



## pl1 (Jan 18, 2007)

GoHokies! said:


> In related news, I heard that we're going to run out of oil one day so I went out and sold my car. Biking the 30 miles to work every day in the cold is kind of a pain, but you guys sure are going to look like fools when there isn't any more gas for your cars!!!


Good one. He's probably already having withdrawls. Once you go HD you can't go back!


----------



## markr33 (Dec 20, 2002)

I don't know anything about SDV, but am wondering if it will really work in areas with lots of cable subscribers in the first place. If there are lots of folks, then for almost all channels, there will pretty much be someone tuned to them, especially with all those DVRs out there. For very unpopular channels, they might be able to use SDV, but they still need to handle the peak load of all channels being tuned at the same time. I just don't see how they will handle that - will they pop up a message that the channel is unavailable or something like that?

How small can they define SDV segments? If it is something like 500 households, then it might work, but that is a heck of a lot of new equipment!


----------



## hookbill (Dec 14, 2001)

markr33 said:


> I don't know anything about SDV, but am wondering if it will really work in areas with lots of cable subscribers in the first place. If there are lots of folks, then for almost all channels, there will pretty much be someone tuned to them, especially with all those DVRs out there. For very unpopular channels, they might be able to use SDV, but they still need to handle the peak load of all channels being tuned at the same time. I just don't see how they will handle that - will they pop up a message that the channel is unavailable or something like that?
> 
> How small can they define SDV segments? If it is something like 500 households, then it might work, but that is a heck of a lot of new equipment!


Well, it's already working full blown in a couple or rather large areas, Austin Texas and Rochester NY. Granted that's not L.A. or N.Y. but still it is working.

However you comment says many of the things I have mentioned. SDV just can't be switched on overnight. There's too many obsticles in the way.

My area is a perfect example. Old Adelphia, bought by Time Warner and then absorbed some of Comcast as well. The old Adelphia that it bought in this area was already divided into several smaller head ends so that not everyone got the same channels. TW's first goal is to figure out a way to take all these different head ends which were all actually different cable companies at one time and get them on the same channels. That is going to take time and money.

I've heard that's suppose to happen in June but I can almost guarantee that it will take another year. Then and only then they can they even start to think about SDV.

Remember most of the big cable companies acquired all their equipment and territory from small mom and pop companies that all had and still have different equipment.


----------



## joelkfla (Feb 9, 2002)

markr33 said:


> I just don't see how they will handle that - will they pop up a message that the channel is unavailable or something like that?


That's what I'm thinking. I've seen a message just like that when I tried to view some of BHN's free VOD programs. I don't remember the exact wording, but it was something like, "We are unable to provide your selection at this time; please try again later."


----------



## QZ1 (Mar 24, 2003)

All I had to read was this:

_"According to the report, Comcast execs plan to have a quarter of their footprint enabled for SDV by the end of 2007, and launch "the next 50 channels of HD" as switched channels."_

http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=113263


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

markr33 said:


> I don't know anything about SDV, but am wondering if it will really work in areas with lots of cable subscribers in the first place. If there are lots of folks, then for almost all channels, there will pretty much be someone tuned to them, especially with all those DVRs out there. For very unpopular channels, they might be able to use SDV, but they still need to handle the peak load of all channels being tuned at the same time. I just don't see how they will handle that - will they pop up a message that the channel is unavailable or something like that?
> 
> How small can they define SDV segments? If it is something like 500 households, then it might work, but that is a heck of a lot of new equipment!


To do this, they'll have to switch where the optical signal becomes an electrical one. That's supposed to be every 100-2000 households, typically around 500 in a system of any size.

I think that your viewing pattern assumptions are a bit faulty. During the day, probably 80% of televisions are not in use. In primetime, more than 50% of televisions in use will be tuned to the "big four" networks; of the remaining televisions in use, very few channels will be being viewed by only one household in any segment; it's probably no households or some households. After primetime, the number of televisions in use drop precipitously, as daytime workers and their families go to bed. I would be surprised if half of all of the channels in my provider's lineup are ever being viewed by people in any arbitrary group of 500 households. They're not spending the money to implement SDV arbitrarily--they _know_ what kind of bandwidth savings they can expect, depending upon how much stuff they put in SDV.


----------



## jaredmwright (Sep 6, 2004)

Having owned my HD Series 3 since November 2006, I can honestly say that I have no regrets. I paid about $600.00 for it and took advantage of the $200.00 lifetime transfer (Which finally went through and shows on my series 3). 

I agree that it will be unfortunate for Comcast users if/when they are unable to tune some of the HD content coming with SDV. I myself and one of those Comcast users. The features that are coming with Amazon Unbox along with other features TiVo says they will implement (I know they will, but I don't expect them right away) more than make up for not having a HD TiVo. 

If TiVo cannot support SDV using Comcast cable network, I am sure they will develop a new device that will to gain more customers. When that device comes out I will more than likely purchase it as well. With TiVo you pay more for the intelligence of the system and the fact that it just works and works well. 

Technology is always changing and we can never stay on top of it. Let's enjoy it and see where the ride takes us. Until then, I am going to enjoy my overpriced underfeatured TiVo because it does what I want which is: keeps the wife happy, works with my two Comcast cable cards and gives me the main networks channels in HD now. 

Good luck to everyone on the fence and trying to make their decision! Remember that TiVos hold their value, especially if they have a lifetime status associated with the device. 

JW


----------



## tivotivotivo (Aug 29, 2002)

QZ1 said:


> All I had to read was this:
> 
> _"According to the report, Comcast execs plan to have a quarter of their footprint enabled for SDV by the end of 2007, and launch "the next 50 channels of HD" as switched channels."_
> 
> http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=113263


yikes!


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

markr33 said:


> How small can they define SDV segments? If it is something like 500 households, then it might work, but that is a heck of a lot of new equipment!


500 homes per node / service group is actually right about where the 'typical' cable system is right now. Hard to generalize for cable systems as everything from housing density to % of overhead cabling affects how much a given cable plant has prioritized node splitting and segmentation ... but anyway ... 500 homes per addresable service group is very typical right now.

Node splitting / segmenting brings effeciencies for VOD, broadband, VOIP, Time Warner's 'Start Over' service, etc. too ... cable companies have been bringing down that homes per node number for the past few years (1,000 - 5,000 used to be typical).


----------



## Monty2_2001 (Aug 6, 2005)

You 'understanding' guys of wasting big bucks on something that'll barely last a year amaze me. Tivo, get your act together. Address this. Offer some plan.

At this rate, I'll be back on Directv with an HR20 by the end of the year.


----------



## 444turbodiesel (Jan 30, 2007)

I figure by the time SDV hits my area ABC will be broadcasting HD OTA (which is really the only reason I have digital Comcast currently) so it won't be an issue for me. Extended basic (3-99) and broadband are all I'm willing to pay for long term.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

> Even I (who have railed on abuse of the Costco return policy on here in the past), think that if SDV comes and makes your S3 not work a return to Costco is perfectly appropriate...


Actually you most likely will be returning your S3 to TiVo. I don't have first hand knowledge of Costco-TiVo distribution contract, but majority of Costco contracts with the vendors stipulate that manufacturer has to except all returns and credit Costco wholesale cost regardless of timing or validity of the return. Also if returns exceed certain percentage, Costco can break distribution agreement without penalty.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

Monty2_2001 said:


> You 'understanding' guys of wasting big bucks on something that'll barely last a year amaze me. Tivo, get your act together. Address this. Offer some plan.
> 
> At this rate, I'll be back on Directv with an HR20 by the end of the year.


You're making assumptions about what various of us "understanding guys" need out of TiVo. Many people are probably using the S3 with basic cable, for access to the local DTV rebroadcasts. Probably 90% of my own HD Viewing is of ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox content; I watch one program on the CW. I watch the ESPNs, the Tennis Channel and SciFi and I subscribe to HBO. I don't see them putting any of that in SDV, with the exception of possibly the Tennis Channel and I can live without it. There is a huge population of basic and expanded basic subscribers out there, paying $15 or $50 per month each, who won't have a cable STB in their home under any circumstances. The providers have to keep enough of the most popular stuff out of SDV to keep them as customers.

I suppose that if added something like SciFi HD as an SDV channel, I wouldn't be happy, but I'd live.

The FCC will never allow the cable providers to put local DTV in SDV, or any other channel in the core basic tier. They're not even allowed to encrypt it; by FCC regulation it all has to be accessible without any leased cable provider equipment. Off the top of my head I can think of 17 hours a week of HD programming from the major networks that I watch (_Bones_, _House_, _Smallville_, _CSI_ x 3, _L&O_ x 2, _NCIS_, _Lost_, _Heroes_, _NUMB3RS_, _Las Vegas_, _ER_, _Shark_, _Friday Night Lights_ and _Criminal Minds_). I watch another 2 hours of Sunday night adult comedy animation on Fox and about 4 hours of stuff on SciFi (_BSG_, the _Stargates_ and _The Dresden Files_). Then there's the occasional tennis tournament on the ESPNs and the Tennis Channel. I need to cut down on TV viewing and spend much more time doing other things; I really don't have time for content from "50 more HD channels" and there are a lot of developing sources of HD movies; if they take the HD premiums away, I'm not going to miss 'em.


----------



## Monty2_2001 (Aug 6, 2005)

Well, you're very understanding. To me, that's insane to live without channels you want. For the money this thing cost to buy plus the monthly service, it's just stupid to lose channels.

I just hope Tivo will let me out of my 2 year contract. When I did it, I figured SDV was going to be at least that long away. Now it seems we'll be lucky to get out of 2007 without major losses in channels.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

I think that you'll be laughed off the phone if you try that now - you MAY have a leg to stand on whenever SDV comes to your house, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Of course, if it's just the contract that you're worried about, I'll gladly take the S3 off of your hands and assume the monthly payments!


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

Monty2_2001 said:


> Well, you're very understanding. To me, that's insane to live without channels you want. For the money this thing cost to buy plus the monthly service, it's just stupid to lose channels.


My point was that those of us who are interested in few things other than the national networks aren't "losing" anything--there are more than 200 video services on my system that they could remove tomorrow without affecting me. Pretty much the only things in expanded basic that I watch are the ESPNs and SciFi. If I lose those, I'm not going to be happy, but my cable company's going to lose $40/month in the difference between the price of basic and the price of expanded basic.

Obviously, TiVo's inability to access SDV channels is a big issue for you. What I'm trying to make you understand is that it is NOT a big issue for everyone.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

mikeyts said:


> Obviously, TiVo's inability to access SDV channels is a big issue for you. What I'm trying to make you understand is that it is NOT a big issue for everyone.


I find it hard to believe that more than a small handful of people that laid out big bucks for the HD TV, the S3, and the monthly Tivo fees are not going to be irate if they can't get all their HD channels. Especially when their neighbor gets them just by leasing a dvr from the cable company.

It's not the number of channels you get in HD, it's what you don't get in HD that will drive you nuts when you have to watch it in SD.


----------



## hookbill (Dec 14, 2001)

HiDefGator said:


> I find it hard to believe that more than a small handful of people that laid out big bucks for the HD TV, the S3, and the monthly Tivo fees are not going to be irate if they can't get all their HD channels. Especially when their neighbor gets them just by leasing a dvr from the cable company.
> 
> It's not the number of channels you get in HD, it's what you don't get in HD that will drive you nuts when you have to watch it in SD.


I think that remains to be seen as to what they allow and don't allow when if SDV enters the area. For example, If ESPN, ESPN2 are put on SDV that would bother me only in the sense that I wouldn't be able to watch a day game downstairs. We already know the networks arn't going to SDV and that's the majority of my viewing.

Now if they take a pay channel like HBO which I do record I'd be highly p.o.'d and would stop my subscription in retalitation.

In addition I just bought a small HDTV for the upstairs so if something is on SDV I'll still be able to see it I just won't be able to record. Right now the only other channel I record HD on is TNT and that's like two shows in the summer. Any other recording I do is on analog cable and again I don't see that going digital because it would mean a loss of business for the cable company. People will refuse to purchase decoders, and the FCC mandate for digital broadcasting does not include cable companies.


----------



## dig_duggler (Sep 18, 2002)

HiDefGator said:


> I find it hard to believe that more than a small handful of people that laid out big bucks for the HD TV, the S3, and the monthly Tivo fees are not going to be irate if they can't get all their HD channels. Especially when their neighbor gets them just by leasing a dvr from the cable company.
> 
> It's not the number of channels you get in HD, it's what you don't get in HD that will drive you nuts when you have to watch it in SD.


+1

Especially S3 owners who have no idea what SDV is and won't until it's too late.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

hookbill said:


> Any other recording I do is on analog cable and again I don't see that going digital because it would mean a loss of business for the cable company. People will refuse to purchase decoders, and the FCC mandate for digital broadcasting does not include cable companies.


The FCC is counting on people being able to get analog television from cable; there are tens of millions of people with legacy televisions who are not interested in anything more than basic cable and millions more who want expanded basic for services like ESPN, The Food Network and SciFi. Cable is going to have to hang onto most of the 70 or so analogs for quite some time into the future and they know it. Locally, the providers have been cherry-picking services to move from expanded basic into the digital tiers to free up as much of that as they dare (I think that what they can charge for expanded basic depends in part on how many services it contains).

I feel fairly certain that they collect data on what people with STBs are watching and sell it (I believe that TiVo does this); they could use this same data to determine what the least watched digital channels are and move the lot of them into SDV, leaving everything else alone.


----------



## hookbill (Dec 14, 2001)

dig_duggler said:


> +1
> 
> Especially S3 owners who have no idea what SDV is and won't until it's too late.


I can't believe and the poll seems to indicate that I'm correct that there arn't that many S3 owners who don't know about SDV. It all goes down to doing the research and applying common sense. Again this is not cable trying to crush TiVo. Will S3 be affected, most certainly.

People who own S3's are not your usual joe who comes out of the cold. Most are people who know a bit about first the HD world, and second what's going on in the cable and satellite world. That is how I mand an *informed decision * to purchase my S3.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

hookbill said:


> I can't believe and the poll seems to indicate that I'm correct that there *aren't* that many S3 owners who don't know about SDV.


Fixed your post. Not that this poll is statistically relevant, mind you. S3 owners, active on this forum, probably does not represent the market. But your point stands...



hookbill said:


> People who own S3's are not your usual joe who comes out of the cold.


Especially considering the price (both for the hardware and subscription.)


----------



## dig_duggler (Sep 18, 2002)

hookbill said:


> I can't believe and the poll seems to indicate that I'm correct that there are that many S3 owners who don't know about SDV. It all goes down to doing the research and applying common sense. Again this is not cable trying to crush TiVo. Will S3 be affected, most certainly.
> 
> People who own S3's are not your usual joe who comes out of the cold. Most are people who know a bit about first the HD world, and second what's going on in the cable and satellite world. That is how I mand an *informed decision * to purchase my S3.


Why do you assume that the majority of s3 owners read this forum? Even those knowledgeable of it's existence may only post when there's a problem. This forum != S3 owners.

Also, these polls are completely invalid statistics if you want to apply it to "S3 owners" (as would any voluntary poll, especially one restricted to people who are members on a forum who read said forum on a regular basis).

Believe it or not there are a large number of S3 owners who probably bought it b/c they had dispensable income, have an hd tv, and like their s2 tivo.

It would be interesting to get a snapshot of this. # S3 purchases (or users - possibly more difficult to get) - users frequenting here (the s3 forum specifically). Not sure those numbers are easily available...


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

pkscout said:


> This reminds me of that Embark commercial on the radio...
> 
> "In the year 2295..."
> 
> ...


come on now- I guy can dream can't he?

(dream being the operative word I know)


----------



## davecramer74 (Mar 17, 2006)

> I can't believe and the poll seems to indicate that I'm correct that there are that many S3 owners who don't know about SDV.


really, well walk around your office, ask every person in your office what sdv is. I bet you'd find next to none of them know. I find it hard to believe that 5% of the population would have a clue what sdv is.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Monty2_2001 said:


> You 'understanding' guys of wasting big bucks on something that'll barely last a year amaze me. Tivo, get your act together. Address this. Offer some plan.
> 
> At this rate, I'll be back on Directv with an HR20 by the end of the year.


What's not to understand?

It's exactly the same as people buying the H10-250 knowing full well it had a limitied upside for channels.

People should look at the facts and decide if the cost is worth it to them.

S3 users plunking down 600 bucks to watch tv aren't likley to be earning minimum wage and socking away a months pay to buy the stupid things. They probably are closer to Donald Trump then to the grocery store bagger along the income percentage scale.

Myself as an example- I'm no donald trump. I do alright and am greatfull for what I have but I live in a townhouse not some mansion with 20 acres. My vehicle is 5 years old and I dont plan to trade it in for another 2 or 3 years. So I'm not sitting in cash to toss around. But in the case of the HR10-250 I like many here bought it very early for something close to 800 or maybe a grand (I cant recall to be honest) and I got a few years out of it before i ditched it for an S3. To me it was worth every dollar. The S3 I bought the day they came out. I am well aware that switched video may limit my options at some point in the future. But I suspect it will be at least a year of use that I get out of it before my provider puts up a single switched channel. Beyond that of ALL the channels announced (even by Directv) the only thing that i really would watch regularly that they dont already have is NGC. So if I get lucky and they add NGC before they go switched then there's not likley to be anythign on switched that i care about for another year or 2. So I should be able to get 2 or 3 years out of the S3 before it hits the scrap heap. To me that's worth it.

So my S3 at least will last much more then "barely" a year.

My personal situation aside- not everyone is served by comcast and time warner. Tivo sold alot of HR10-250's to people only on Directv which serves just 15% of the market. The people that have cable that wont use switched video is likely to be much more then 15% for years. There will be a market for the S3 for plenty of time.


----------



## davecramer74 (Mar 17, 2006)

that hr10-250 was a 1000 bucks when it first came out, as an fyi.


----------



## zzzzdoc (Oct 18, 2004)

Sirius Black said:


> I don't understand how someone who owns an S3 can say SDV will not affect them. It will affect all of us (S3 owners) in some way.


Is TWC Tampa Bay going to SDV? Do you know the time frame?

Both sides of the Bay?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

HiDefGator said:


> I find it hard to believe that more than a small handful of people that laid out big bucks for the HD TV, the S3, and the monthly Tivo fees are not going to be irate if they can't get all their HD channels. Especially when their neighbor gets them just by leasing a dvr from the cable company.
> 
> It's not the number of channels you get in HD, it's what you don't get in HD that will drive you nuts when you have to watch it in SD.


plenty without the facts will be pissed. But people with the facts might have done the math and find the facts to be fine- If everything people watch is in HD today then it's highly unlikley it will be unavailible tomorrow.

Switched video only makes sense for less popular channels. ESPN and HBO are not likely to go that route right away becasue someone is likley waching them all the time. More esoteric stuff is much more likley to go SDV and since it's more esotreic then by default not that many people will care about it.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

dig_duggler said:


> Why do you assume that the majority of s3 owners read this forum? Even those knowledgeable of it's existence may only post when there's a problem. This forum != S3 owners.
> 
> Also, these polls are completely invalid statistics if you want to apply it to "S3 owners" (as would any voluntary poll, especially one restricted to people who are members on a forum who read said forum on a regular basis).
> 
> ...


I too agree the majority of owners might not post here. But the majority of people dont know what the hell an S3 is either. They will walk in the best buy see the S2dt for 50 bucks and the S3 for 800 and buy the s2 not understanding what all the fuss is about.

So I dont think the vast majority of S3 owners are clueless either.

it's more in the middle of the bell curve someplace.....


----------



## hookbill (Dec 14, 2001)

dig_duggler said:


> Why do you assume that the majority of s3 owners read this forum? Even those knowledgeable of it's existence may only post when there's a problem. This forum != S3 owners.
> 
> Also, these polls are completely invalid statistics if you want to apply it to "S3 owners" (as would any voluntary poll, especially one restricted to people who are members on a forum who read said forum on a regular basis).
> 
> ...


Show me some statistics that you have that say otherwise. How do YOU know that the majority of S3 owners don't read these post. When I got my first D-TiVo back in 2001 this was the first place I ended up at via the TiVo website. There is still a link there.

So I would think that anyone who wants to get the most out of their S3 would end up here. A google search will bring you here. It's not hard to find.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

I certainly hope for TiVo's sake that the 264 people who've voted in this poll don't represent any significant number of S3 owners (and according to their responses 44 of those people don't own a Series 3). Only 145000 are registered in these forums--I hope that that's only a tiny fraction of people currently using TiVos or who are interested in buying one. And only 2% of those folks have viewed this thread.

I really don't think that there's any reason to believe that this poll is representative of the public at large, or even of TiVo users.


----------



## ewilts (Feb 26, 2002)

dig_duggler said:


> Believe it or not there are a large number of S3 owners who probably bought it b/c they had dispensable income, have an hd tv, and like their s2 tivo.


That was me. I won an HDTV, had been a long-time S1 and S2 owner, so I bought an S3 to record my HD. I had absolutely no knowledge of SDV until a couple of months *after* I bought the S3.

I'm not a technical neophyte, nor am I a TiVo neophyte. I am also not new to these forums but that doesn't mean I read them every day. It's just that I did not extensively research this forum before my S3 purchase - I did not really think that I needed to. How was I to expect that after a good long-term relationship with TiVo, I would be shafted like this?

.../Ed


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

I had Tivo's for years before I stumbled across this forum.


----------



## Lampei (Feb 2, 2002)

I e-mailed my cable company (Brighthouse) to find out what their plans for SDV were and got this in response



> We are aware of TiVO series 3 requirements and I will try to explain what we are currently working on here at Bright House Networks. Our cable cards do meet the requirements for TiVO series 3. As far as SDV is concerned. We are as a company looking at utilizing this technology. And if implemented it will not function with our current 1 way cable cards. We however are in the process of rolling out 2 way cable cards which will be sdv compatible. These new cards are not yet available for instillation and no date has yet been set for release. We will notify you as soon as they are available.


Now, will the 2 way cable card work with the S3 or are we still out of luck?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

ewilts said:


> That was me. I won an HDTV, had been a long-time S1 and S2 owner, so I bought an S3 to record my HD. I had absolutely no knowledge of SDV until a couple of months *after* I bought the S3.
> 
> I'm not a technical neophyte, nor am I a TiVo neophyte. I am also not new to these forums but that doesn't mean I read them every day. It's just that I did not extensively research this forum before my S3 purchase - I did not really think that I needed to. How was I to expect that after a good long-term relationship with TiVo, I would be shafted like this?
> 
> .../Ed


just to be clear- you dont know the sky is falling- your provider or head end may not use SDV for years if ever. The sky actually may be falling but no one except the people in Rochester and Austin on TW really know one way or the other what their head end will do (and maybe those people were told off the bat when they tried to get cablecards).

There is certainly reason to be concerned but declaring today that you are shafted is a bit like declaring that the HR10-250 would be worthless on Directv the day that they announced MPEG4 plans. 2 (or is it 3?) years later- at least a third of Directv subs still cant get a single program in mpeg4. Maybe a third can now get their local big 4 nets in mpeg4 instead of the NY/LA feeds in MPEG2. Maybe 50% can can't see all their RSN programming without MPEG4 equipment. It's far from staggering the "screwing" that has occured to the directv subs. Many haven't been effected at all and for those that have seen something occure only a fraction think it is earth shattering

I'm not saying that's how this all will play out with switched video. But we just dont know....


----------



## tivoknucklehead (Dec 12, 2002)

all this nonsense makes me glad I kept my SA8300 cable DVR when I got my S3. if needed I'll record stuff I can't get on the S3 on the SA 8300


----------



## dig_duggler (Sep 18, 2002)

hookbill said:


> Show me some statistics that you have that say otherwise. How do YOU know that the majority of S3 owners don't read these post. When I got my first D-TiVo back in 2001 this was the first place I ended up at via the TiVo website. There is still a link there.
> 
> So I would think that anyone who wants to get the most out of their S3 would end up here. A google search will bring you here. It's not hard to find.


That is some sound logic. Extrapolate your experience and choices to all series 3 owners. There are no statistics on the matter. I would imagine just common sense, but I see that's not going to get us anywhere.

[sarcasm]

If you own a series 3 tivo -> you know about these forums and read them frequently.

Sounds tautological to me.

[/sarcasm]

I wish I didn't feel I needed the tags.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

hookbill said:


> ... We already know the networks arn't going to SDV and that's the majority of my viewing...


 I'm sorry but I didn't know that was an established fact? I think it's similar to the issue of cable companies re-broadcasting OTA transmissions - there is some ambiguity there. On that issue dt_dc and others have uncovered various regulations that may imply that OTA retransmissions should remain unencrypted but the issue is still fuzzy at best. Over in AVSForums there are users reporting their cable company OTA HD locals are indeed encrypted. So the issue of whether it is legal or not to use SDV for HD locals is if anything even fuzzier, at least to me. Believe me I'd like to think HD locals were safe from SDV, but I haven't seen anything concrete to that effect. Hope you can put my mind at ease.


----------



## davecramer74 (Mar 17, 2006)

> Now, will the 2 way cable card work with the S3 or are we still out of luck?


still out of luck, those cards arent compatible with the s3. Do some searching on these forums. There was a lot of talk about them with people just wanting on demand, interactive guide, etc. From my recollection, isnt ever gonna happen for the s3. The cable company will have to provide these cards though with the addition of sdv. You will have to get the S4 however to use them. Alot of people bought tv's that do cable card. They are out of luck as well on the new ones.  Lucky for them though, they do have the option of going STB, so they arent completely screwed.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

M-CARDs are fully backwards compatible with unidirectional CableCARD slots--they just act as S-CARDs. It's the slot, not the card, which offers communication back to the headend which enables OCAP and SDV. It's my understanding that TiVo did not put bidirectional host interfaces in the initial S3.

The CableCARDs themselves just decrypt the proprietary encoding coming into your television (S-A Powerkey, Motorola Digicipher, etc) and re-encrypt it using the standard DFAST encoding, passing that into the host. The new M-CARDs can decrypt/encrypt multiple service streams simultaneously, supporting multi-tuner hosts with a single card.


----------



## hookbill (Dec 14, 2001)

davecramer74 said:


> still out of luck, those cards arent compatible with the s3.


Wrong. They will work with the S3, but not two way. In other words if they are inserted they should work just like the current cable card but the S3's hardware currently cannot do two way communication.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

davecramer74 said:


> Alot of people bought tv's that do cable card.


yeah but most of them never put a cable card in them. A few months back the statistics for cable cards were discussed on this forum. There were a VERY small number of cable cards actually in use in the US before the S3 came out.


----------



## hookbill (Dec 14, 2001)

moyekj said:


> I'm sorry but I didn't know that was an established fact? I think it's similar to the issue of cable companies re-broadcasting OTA transmissions - there is some ambiguity there. On that issue dt_dc and others have uncovered various regulations that may imply that OTA retransmissions should remain unencrypted but the issue is still fuzzy at best. Over in AVSForums there are users reporting their cable company OTA HD locals are indeed encrypted. So the issue of whether it is legal or not to use SDV for HD locals is if anything even fuzzier, at least to me. Believe me I'd like to think HD locals were safe from SDV, but I haven't seen anything concrete to that effect. Hope you can put my mind at ease.


While it is possible for them to go to SDV it's my personal feeling they won't because in the areas when SDV is being used network channels are still available and are not encrypted at this time.

I am of the belief that cable companies are trying to find a way to deliver more HD, not to make our S3's useless. And I think it would benefit them not to go into areas where HD is available without cable. So I really don't see the four networks going to SDV.

If they were to do that to me, I cancel my cable and stick an antenna up. It's that simple. They'd shoot themselves in the foot.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

moyekj said:


> I'm sorry but I didn't know that was an established fact? I think it's similar to the issue of cable companies re-broadcasting OTA transmissions - there is some ambiguity there. On that issue dt_dc and others have uncovered various regulations that may imply that OTA retransmissions should remain unencrypted but the issue is still fuzzy at best. Over in AVSForums there are users reporting their cable company OTA HD locals are indeed encrypted.


And they are doing so in _clear_ defiance of the regulations under which they are licensed to operate. Code of Federal Regulations Title 47 §76.901(a) states:


> (a) _Basic service_. The basic service tier shall, at a minimum, include all signals of domestic television broadcast stations provided to any subscriber (except a signal secondarily transmitted by satellite carrier beyond the local service area of such station, regardless of how such signal is ultimately received by the cable system) any public, educational, and governmental programming required by the franchise to be carried on the basic tier, and any additional video programming signals a service added to the basic tier by the cable operator.


CFR Title 47 §76.630(a) says:


> (a) Cable system operators shall not scramble or otherwise encrypt signals carried on the basic service tier.


The first provision asserts that all rebroadcasts of local over-the-air television stations must be carried as part of the core basic tier, and you can't subscribe to cable without subscribing to the basic services tier. The second provision states that nothing on the basic tier may be encrypted. In essence, you cannot be charged more than the cost of bare minimum cable service to receive every rebroadcast of a local television station carried by your provider and that all of those stations must be carried in the clear, tunable by proper customer owned equipment with no lease of cable boxes. There's nothing "fuzzy" or "implied" about it.

In the beginning of cable carriage of local DTV broadcasts many providers chose to encrypt them and to charge their subs extra for access to them. All you have to do is complain to your provider, carefully documenting all of the people that you dealt with and their responses. If you get no joy after taking that as far up the ladder as you can, draft a letter to the FCC complaining of your provider's failure to comply to those regulations, citing all of your attempts to get them to comply, with the names of all of the CSRs and people in management that you may have contacted. Send the letter to the proper office of the FCC in snail mail, with a copy sent in snail mail to the management of your cable service provider. In every case where this has been done the cable provider has capitulated and complied with the regs. Until a few years back, Cox in my area was encrypting local DTV rebroadcast and charging extra to receive them; they're not doing it now.

The cable providers probably break all sorts of FCC regs. As long as no one complains, they can get away with it.


----------



## davecramer74 (Mar 17, 2006)

> Wrong. They will work with the S3, but not two way. In other words if they are inserted they should work just like the current cable card but the S3's hardware currently cannot do two way communication.


The point was he wont have 2 way communication. Whats the point of putting one of those new cards in if it does nothing for you?



> I am of the belief that cable companies are trying to find a way to deliver more HD,


im in complete agreemant there. I dont see them putting their locals on SDV. I dont think the S3 guys will be losing any programming. I just dont see them gaining much HD stuff going forward. You've got most of the main channels, ESPN, ESPN2, Movie channels, discovery, etc. Your just not going to get the lesser watched channels. which ya, is a bummer, i'd be disappointed. But id get my couple years use outta my s3 and move it into the bedroom and upgrade once again. Sometimes early adopters get the short end of the stick. I bought an xbox360. They are coming out with a version 2 that has HDMI, can do IPTV, bigger hard drive, etc. Im stuck with the one i spent like 500 bucks on originally with the extras.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

moyekj said:


> I'm sorry but I didn't know that was an established fact? I think it's similar to the issue of cable companies re-broadcasting OTA transmissions - there is some ambiguity there. On that issue dt_dc and others have uncovered various regulations that may imply that OTA retransmissions should remain unencrypted but the issue is still fuzzy at best. Over in AVSForums there are users reporting their cable company OTA HD locals are indeed encrypted. So the issue of whether it is legal or not to use SDV for HD locals is if anything even fuzzier, at least to me. Believe me I'd like to think HD locals were safe from SDV, but I haven't seen anything concrete to that effect. Hope you can put my mind at ease.


i dont know the legality of it, but I would look at it from a common sense point of view. Why spend money on switching equipment to futz with channels that will be on the vast majority of the time for someone in the 500 home cluster? It just makes sense to leave the most watched things alone and broadcasting over the simple system them to futz with it.

Considering what's HD today is just the most watched channels I'm not too worry about the current channels getting moved. The one that I do have a concern about are the HD RSN's. The vast majority of the watching on those I WOULD GUESS is only during the few hours a day of live games. PLus there might be days when there aren't even live games at all and therefore few watching them- I do worry that those channels might get moved to switched.

The big 4/6/7 I dont worry about. The top tier HD channels like ESPN HD, HBO, maybe Discovery HD, etc I dont worry about either.

One last bit is- I'm SURE the channel owners will have some say. Just like EPSN forces their SD to be in the basica analog tier, I would think they will demand that their HD not get switched for any system they currently aren't.


----------



## hookbill (Dec 14, 2001)

davecramer74 said:


> The point was he wont have 2 way communication. Whats the point of putting one of those new cards in if it does nothing for you?
> .


I think further ahead we may all end up with those 2 way cards anyway. This is something I think I read in the forum or AVS or maybe I made it up, I'm really not sure but that's what I think.  Anyway, that's why I answered and your on the money on your point about inability to deliver 2 way signal.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

If you are going to switch 2/3 of the channels, why not just go ahead and switch them all? Even if the major networks are unlikely to not be active in the cluster, they offer 4 more chances for switching something off and not having a conflict at very little additional switching expense.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> One last bit is- I'm SURE the channel owners will have some say. Just like EPSN forces their SD to be in the basica analog tier, I would think they will demand that their HD not get switched for any system they currently aren't.


If the number of people that can't get switched channels is limited to the current S3 owners, the channel owners won't care if ESPN HD gets switched or not.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

HiDefGator said:


> If the number of people that can't get switched channels is limited to the current S3 owners, the channel owners won't care if ESPN HD gets switched or not.


again it's not just series 3 owners. It's EVERY Cable card user to date.

Granted that's no big number either, but it's disengenious to imply that only tivo users are effected. That's not the case.

I agree with your premise though if a cable system can show they only have 0.00000001% of their subs using cablecards then ESPN probably wont flinch.


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> again it's not just series 3 owners. It's EVERY Cable card user to date.
> 
> Granted that's no big number either, but it's disengenious to imply that only tivo users are effected. That's not the case.
> 
> I agree with your premise though if a cable system can show they only have 0.00000001% of their subs using cablecards then ESPN probably wont flinch.


Actually, It's all Cable Subscribers who rely on QAM Tuners instead of Cable STB's.

This includes non-CableCARD QAM tuners, CableCARD tuners with no CableCARDs, and CableCARD tuners with CableCARDs.

The installed base of these devices is probably much much larger than that of S3's. 
The unknown is how many people with these devices also have a Cable STB and therefore won't notice?

-Kyle


----------



## vstone (May 11, 2002)

Has SDV affected your S3 enthusiasm? 

No, my wife and I have regular relations. I never thought of the S3 as a substitute for Viagra.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

mikeyts said:


> And they are doing so in _clear_ defiance of the regulations under which they are licensed to operate....


 Yes I've seen most of the stuff you posted about, but then it gets down to basic definitions of what Basic Service encompasses. For example, I've seen the argument that for the network channels both analog and digital simulcast SD versions are carried unencrypted which could be considered the Basic Service, so users who need basic level access to locals already have that. I've also seen it the other way around where HD locals are unencrypted but digital simulcast channels are encrypted. You are right, with enough people in those markets arguing against such practices and referencing the regulations you post they can make a very compelling case to change it, but the vast majority of customers don't know or care much about it, so getting critical mass together to influence a change may not be easy.

The point I'm making is that even when there are regulations in place some cable companies are still skirting them in some fashion, so since there are no regulations in place related to SDV (AFAIK anyway) it's not certain that SDV will not be employed for HD locals. Let's hope that since the economics of doing so doesn't make much sense that logic will prevail and it won't happen, but I wouldn't be too shocked to find out one day if all my network channels were no longer available via cable for my S3. If that day happens I am prepared to drop digital cable all together and go OTA only for HD, but I hope it doesn't come to that.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

HiDefGator said:


> If you are going to switch 2/3 of the channels, why not just go ahead and switch them all? Even if the major networks are unlikely to not be active in the cluster, they offer 4 more chances for switching something off and not having a conflict at very little additional switching expense.


who has said 2/3'rds? The only thing in writting I've ever seen is the blurb on the time warner website for Rocherster that says all FUTURE channels will go SDV.

Are they going to add 200 digital channels there to get to 2/3rds switched (I assume they already have 100 digital channels for round numbers)?

Another point is first off they need to make sure all their own digital boxes can be updated with the appropriate software to handle the SDV. It's not clear to me that that is a FACT.

dt_dc is probably able to answer that best on these forums- maybe he can answer?.

But it very well may be that some older boxes aren't worth the time and effort to get updated and so those subs would need to get swapped to new boxes- if so it only makes sense to proceed like Directv and slowly deploy the newer boxes for new channels and force people to call and ask for upgrades. You dont want to have to go digging and swapping all your subs on day 1.

I believe nationally something close to 50% of subs have digital cable that means there are at least 40-50 million digital boxes out there- you think each and every one can be upgraded to SDV? I'm not sure of that. Could be, I'm just not sure.

Assuming all your digital boxes can get firmware updates in a short period of time, I'm not even sure there is much to be gained by taking ALL the current Digital channels and moving them to switched. If you have 500 homes to a node and you have 50 new channels you want to add and your actuary figures only 20 of those will be watched at anyone moment in time then why are you going to make any more then 20 switched digital slots? You would need to get 20 slots somplace and maybe they do that by pulling current digitals instead of analogs but you only need 20 slots not all 100 digital channels (It gets all messy I know dealing with HD vs SD but point is there is a point where you likley just dont need any more slots so why bother shutting down linear broadcast channels to get any more)

What I figure i: it's a mess- it's a given that at some point some people will be effected. In my mind, how many are effected, and at what point, and to what degree are all OPEN questions. Yet some here seem to think it's clear that 100 percent of the people will be effected in the next few months and that they will be massively inconvenienced as all their current channels become unavailible. I think the truth is something less then that.

If I was one of the unlucky's who get effected in a few months and is massively inconveinenced as all my channels go dark then I'll be pissed for sure. But I think the likely hood of that is pretty slim considering all the facts.


----------



## hookbill (Dec 14, 2001)

I would like to see us stop some of the negative speculation here. And it's truly a selfish reason. I know you guys are going to say what you want and it's your right but if your an S3 owner think about it. Do we really want to hurt S3 sales by this type of speculation? That "everything" will be SDV?

When I look at the poll I see more people saying they won't get an S3 because of SDV now. That's because of all the paranoia we are putting forward on this thread.

I know some of you guys are gonna light the torches on me with this but that's ok and really you have your right to. On this topic though I'm going to stop contributing because I really would like to see the thread leave the front page. And I know that won't work but it's the best I can do.

Like I said, it' purely selfish. I want the S3 to be the best.

Got to go now, I can feel the heat already.


----------



## kjmcdonald (Sep 8, 2003)

hookbill said:


> I would like to see us stop some of the negative speculation here. And it's truly a selfish reason. I know you guys are going to say what you want and it's your right but if your an S3 owner think about it. Do we really want to hurt S3 sales by this type of speculation? That "everything" will be SDV?
> 
> When I look at the poll I see more people saying they won't get an S3 because of SDV now. That's because of all the paranoia we are putting forward on this thread.
> 
> ...


I agree.

I know all about SDV. I work at a company that makes SDV hardware (I dont' work on the hardware though it's another Dept.)

Even knowing all about it, I still just bought my first S3. And even though you can probably find posts around here where I said I wouldn't buy more than one, I'm currently seriously considering buying at least one more. If not 2.

I think SDV will be inconvienent. But I don't think it will be the death of the S3. It's not all doom and gloom.

Also, as I've written in other posts, it's not only the S3 that's in this boat.

-Kyle


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> Another point is first off they need to make sure all their own digital boxes can be updated with the appropriate software to handle the SDV. It's not clear to me that that is a FACT.


The vast, overwhelming majority of currently deployed cable digital STBs can be updated with the appropriate software to handle SDV.

If you've got one of those old cable STBs that needs a phone line hooked up to it to order PPV ... no, that box probably can't. Not many of those kicking around. There's some of the non SciAtl / Motorola boxes around (like CableVision's Sony boxes ... some of the old Pace boxes, etc). Those boxes that _can_ technically, in theory could be upgraded for SDV but ... it's probably going to be cheaper to replace the box than find someone who remembers how to write the code to do it ...

But anyway, the vast, overwhelming majority of currently deployed cable digital STBs can be updated with the appropriate software to handle SDV. Which is exactly what makes it (relatively) attractive compared to (some) other ways of saving / expanding bandwidth ...

AVCs (MPEG4 / VC-1) - not compatible with current (typical) STBs

1GHz RF - not compatible with current (typical) STBs

1024QAM - not compatible with current (typical) STBs

IPTV / V-DOCSIS - not compatible with current (typical) STBs

Wally-Wonka's-Wonderful-Bandwidth-Bandaid - not compatible with current (typical) STBs

etc.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

davecramer74 said:


> I bought an xbox360. They are coming out with a version 2 that has HDMI, can do IPTV, bigger hard drive, etc. Im stuck with the one i spent like 500 bucks on originally with the extras.


Not a great analogy. The "version 2 of the Xbox 360" is still a rumor, and hey, the original Xbox 360 has been out for more than a year already. I fully expect Microsoft to release a model that has better specs. It won't render the previous model any less capable than it was on the day I bought it. I can still play the same games and watch the same HD-DVD movies. The only thing I've "lost" is the smug satisfaction of knowing I have the "latest and greatest Xbox 360." That sensation will always be fleeting, for the early adopter at least.

However, if Time Warner in my area starts rolling out SDV and all of a sudden I can't watch channels I have enjoyed on the Series 3 (that I just bough last month) then that's a different story entirely. The product I bought yesterday is suddenly less capable today.


----------



## davecramer74 (Mar 17, 2006)

Fofer said:


> Not a great analogy. The "version 2 of the Xbox 360" is still a rumor, and hey, the original Xbox 360 has been out for more than a year already. I fully expect Microsoft to release a model that has better specs. It won't render the previous model any less capable than it was on the day I bought it. I can still play the same games and watch the same HD-DVD movies. The only thing I've "lost" is the smug satisfaction of knowing I have the "latest and greatest Xbox 360." That sensation will always be fleeting, for the early adopter at least.
> 
> However, if Time Warner in my area starts rolling out SDV and all of a sudden I can't watch channels I have enjoyed on the Series 3 (that I just bough last month) then that's a different story entirely. The product I bought yesterday is suddenly less capable today.


ya basically i guess your right. Ill still be able to play my vids on my box. Your basically SOL. itake it you didnt buy it at costco.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

davecramer74 said:


> ya basically i guess your right. Ill still be able to play my vids on my box. Your basically SOL. itake it you didnt buy it at costco.


No, I didn't, but I didn't fully aware of the implications. I am a Costco member, but opted to purchase elsewhere. I bought it from a discount retailer (for $611) then transferred lifetime ($199) to the box. I then added in a 750 GB drive for good measure. I'm relatively handy, and if it ever broke, returning it for a refund wouldn't be on my to-do list. I'd find a way to fix it myself, to try and preserve the recordings on the box.

I'm taking my chances with it's long term viability, but I am enjoying it while it works, and while it lasts. In my mind, life's too short to worry about "what if?" The S3 is currently (still) the best HD DVR on the market. Others are nipping at it's tails, though. And I'll keep watching the market. TiVo's got to stay on it's toes, or the crown will be passed, and I (and many others) will jump ship soon enough.

I also know full well that if I ever grow displeased with it for any reason (a better DVR comes out... or SDV renders my S3 less functional... or a more compelling selection of channels/content from a different provider overrides my desire for the TiVo OS and UI) that I'll have quite a few avenues to SELL this S3 to someone else who'd be happy to have it. With the large HD and lifetime service associated with it, I'd expect to make quite a bit of my investment back, too.

I voted "Was aware of SDV and bought an S3 anyway," by the way.


----------



## QZ1 (Mar 24, 2003)

mikeyts said:


> The second provision states that nothing on the basic tier may be encrypted. In essence, you cannot be charged more than the cost of bare minimum cable service to receive every rebroadcast of a local television station carried by your provider and that all of those stations must be carried in the clear, tunable by proper customer owned equipment with no lease of cable boxes. There's nothing "fuzzy" or "implied" about it.


Comcast sends out HD and SD Digital Locals unencrypted.

However, for Analog Locals, in this area, and some others, if Basic is taken without Expanded, (Basic-only or Basic with Digital and/or Premium), then one gets the entire Analog spectrum of 2-99 filtered out.
So, this is ok for TVs already with a Digital or HD Box, they unencrypt HD and/or SD Digital Basic.

But, for any other TV, which would expect to get Analog Basic w/o a box, gets nothing until they rent a 'Basic-only Box/Remote' for $1.30.
The reason is, because Basic channels are scattered amongst the Expanded channels.

So, much for sending out unscrambled Basic to TVs w/o a box.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

moyekj said:


> Yes I've seen most of the stuff you posted about, but then it gets down to basic definitions of what Basic Service encompasses. For example, I've seen the argument that for the network channels both analog and digital simulcast SD versions are carried unencrypted which could be considered the Basic Service, so users who need basic level access to locals already have that. I've also seen it the other way around where HD locals are unencrypted but digital simulcast channels are encrypted.


Again, let me point out the pertinent phrase from the FCC's definition of the "Basic Tier":


> all signals of domestic television broadcast stations provided to any subscriber (except a signal secondarily transmitted by satellite carrier beyond the local service area of such station, regardless of how such signal is ultimately received by the cable system)


What this means is any signal that you can get over the air, no matter how it gets to the cable company (it might be being provided to them in some provide feed from the broadcaster's studio). Channels that are local channels in some other area, like the old "Superstations", are exempt, since you couldn't get them without your cable provider.

The digital simulcast of the SD analog local broadcasts are encrypted by both Cox and Time Warner in my area, and they are perfectly at right to do so. They are providing the analog, over-the-air form of the broadcast in unencrypted form on the wire--the digital version of the program is something that they themselves create with the broadcaster's consent. The local DTV channels that they carry are receivable with the proper equipment over the air, and, as such, must be part of the basic tier and cannot be encrypted. The FCC doesn't require them to carry both the analog and digital broadcasts of any local, but if they choose to carry both, they can't encrypt either.

Thus far, I haven't heard of anyone complaining to the FCC that their cable provider was encrypting local DTV rebroadcasts to whom the FCC replied, "Your cable provider is in their rights to do that." And it doesn't require "enough people"--a single person's complaint has to be addressed by the FCC, particularly when the complaint is that the cable provider is flagrantly breaking FCC regs for profit motivated reasons. "I want to use the clear QAM tuner in my new television to tune a cable rebroadcast of a local DTV channel and I can't because it's encrypted in defiance of these regulations." The intent of the regulations is clear; the cable companies must offer some core basic level of subscription which does not require that the subscriber pay additional charges to the cable providers to lease equipment that is not available for them to buy. If you want to view a channel encrypted by the provider, your only choice is to lease equipment from them. That core basic level of service must include all local television.


> The point I'm making is that even when there are regulations in place some cable companies are still skirting them in some fashion, so since there are no regulations in place related to SDV (AFAIK anyway) it's not certain that SDV will not be employed for HD locals.


Any remaining providers who encrypt local DTV rebroadcasts aren't "skirting" the law any more than you're "skirting the law" if you don't keep your car registration current. Sure, you might get away with it for a while, but as soon as law enforcement notices, you will be forced to comply with the law requiring that you register it, or forced to stop operating it. As soon as any one customer makes a proper complaint to the FCC about it, they'll be forced to stop breaking the rules.

If you know of a case where someone went to the FCC about this and the FCC came back and said, "We approve of your cable provider encrypting the local television broadcasts that they carry", please show me. There were multiple cases in the past where one cable subscriber complained and the FCC enforced the existing regulations and stopped their provider from encrypting local DTV and/or charging extra for access to it; I "witnessed" people going through the process as they discussed it in AVS Forums.

There is one situation in which a provider might be allowed to encrypt his basic tier; if they can prove that theft of basic cable is so rampant that their ability to make a profit is compromised, they can request an exemption to Title 47 §76.630. I am unaware of any provider ever having been granted this exemption.

Placing local channels in SDV would be just another case of cable providers offering their customers something which they could get for free over-the-air with the proper equipment and forcing them to lease equipment from them to get it on cable. There can be absolutely no justification for it. I can almost guarantee that in any group of 500 subs, there will be someone watching each of the local channels at any given time of day, so no bandwidth would ever be saved by placing it in SDV. They couldn't make a case for doing it and the FCC would probably slap them down for trying. It'd probably break the FCC's Emergency Alert System. They'd also have to face the considerable wrath of the broadcasters at both a local and national level, who'd hardly be in favor of letting them place their broadcast on the cable in such a way as to preclude it being directly tuned by subs possession many millions of pieces of equipment with clear QAM tuners, especially since they'd be doing it in order to field additional channels to compete with them for audience share.


----------



## Monty2_2001 (Aug 6, 2005)

A lot of people here seems giddy that the S3 might only last a year or so. The absolute THRILL that some are getting is just sickening. They'll point to polls on this forum as being representive of the S3 market. They are basically saying Tivo customers are idiots for thinking their $600 Tivo S3 will last for more than a year. Way to go guys! That's just what the Tivo execs love I bet.

And then there's the 'it'll only be the food channel 2 in russian that'll be SDV' crowd. Well guys, that's NOT what is being proposed.


----------



## Monty2_2001 (Aug 6, 2005)

All I'm saying is Tivo itself needs to have an answer. Can we get some clue if SDV is going to screw us or not. If x cable company decides to go entirely SDV (proposed), are all S3 owners in that area out of luck? Is there any possibly upgrade or workaround? 

Are people that paid $600 like me going to miss out on future HD expansion, when I bought the freaking thing for HD cable? 

The poll right now should be 100% not to buy an S3 until we get answers on this. You'd have to have rocks in your head to buy an S3 right now with the latest announcements, as in the last few WEEKS. IE, entire lineups going to SDV in major markets.

Also, someone patronizingly above said more or less only the rich can buy this thing. Well, some people like me actually save up money and then buy HD equipment over time.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

Monty2_2001 said:


> A lot of people here seems giddy that the S3 might only last a year or so.


I'm not giddy, I'm realistic. I'll enjoy it while it works, and when it stops, I'll get rid of it. eBay has always been a great resource for us early adopters to... well... adapt.

I'm not about to avoid it entirely just because it "might not" work as well with my provider "one day." I've done my homework. For now, it's the best HD DVR out there.


----------



## Monty2_2001 (Aug 6, 2005)

Yes, it's the best DVR.. Except it's a bit slow on the searches. I've had zero bugs and a great experience so far with my S3. 

However.. Realistically we need to know what Tivo's stance is on SDV. 

I've heard wacky things from going to OTA only and FIOS. Well, I get OTA fine, but I mostly watch cable channels. Can't get FIOS yet. I really want to stick with Tivo long term. I've had the S1 from the old days, then 2 generations of Directivos and now an S3. All of them were voluntary upgrades after a few years (or more) of use. To me, dumping 10 years of Directv (I used the S1 with a serial connection to a 2nd gen Sony Directv receiver) to go to Digital Cable with S3 was a pretty big deal. I just hope I didn't make a big mistake.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

I'm in the same boat, Monty. I had the S1 back in the day (with cable,) and then switched to DTV with a S1 DirecTiVo... and later upgraded to a pair of S2 DirecTiVo's (hacked to the high heavens for maximum "feature set.")

Transitioning back to cable and the Series 3 was not a decision I made lightly.

That said, as much as I'm impressed that I could stick with the same TiVo OS and UI that I've come appreciate... and _also do Hi-Def..._ it's still lacking in some areas. No MRV, no TiVoToGo, no (easy) hackability to achieve the same. And I do have to say that even scrolling through the "Now Playing" menu seems slower than it should be on brand new hardware. Also, TiVo hasn't really added THAT much when it comes to new features I'd appreciate. "Smart" features, like soft padding or Caller ID, is what I'm talking about. And other DVRs have them (at much less cost.)

TiVo's taking the slow and steady approach. And the fact is, my #1 priority is, for it to be a reliable DVR that doesn't fail to record what I tell it to. And if it does, it should give me a great reason why not! TiVo does that for me; I can trust it will do "it's primary job." The others can't same the same, at least not right now.

But these other DVR's that are out there, are constantly getting upgraded, and are nipping at TiVo's tail. And in time one of them may unseat it from the throne. If/when that happens, I switch, plain and simple.


----------



## Monty2_2001 (Aug 6, 2005)

I wouldn't mind the switching, but that S3 down payment is, to me, a commitment for a few years. If there's an S4 2-way in the works, or an add-on for the S3, I'd love to know. I see endless back and forth on whether the S3 can possibly use a USB dongle to get SDV channels. 

I have the utmost appreciation for Tivo itself. I just feel a little burned now. This S3 really should be the cutting edge, for the cutting edge price. I know it's out of their control, but we need communication.


----------



## QZ1 (Mar 24, 2003)

mikeyts said:


> The FCC doesn't require them to carry both the analog and digital broadcasts of any local, but if they choose to carry both, they can't encrypt either.
> 
> Thus far, I haven't heard of anyone complaining to the FCC that their cable provider was encrypting local DTV rebroadcasts to whom the FCC replied, "Your cable provider is in their rights to do that."


So, I guess you think Comcast here sends out HD Locals unencrypted, so they don't have to send out Analog Locals unscrambled to Analog Basic-only subs.
Because that is what they do, as I said in my previous message, which I have edited for clarity.

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=4867266&&#post4867266

How is that allowed since not everyone has a TV with A Digital Cable tuner, whereas virtually everyone has a TV with Analog Cable tuner?

And, so many people probably sub to just Basic for Analog Locals, and would like to not have a box, (compared to those who get Basic for HD Digital Locals), yet no one has complained about using a box?

Or have they complained, and the FCC has said getting requiring a box for $1.30/mo. is ok?


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

QZ1 said:


> So, I guess you think Comcast here sends out HD Locals unencrypted, so they don't have to send out Analog Locals unscrambled to Analog Basic-only subs.
> Because that is what they do, as I said in my previous message, which I have edited for clarity.


I agree with you--there's something hinky there. They have to carry the broadcast that they received in the clear without modifications not agreed to by the broadcaster (stipulated in other regs); re-encoding in MPEG-2 is a *huge* modification. Note this is only true of things in the core basic tier, typically about 20 channels; they can carry the expanded basic channels however they please.

If this negatively affects you, why don't you complain to the FCC?


----------



## pmiranda (Feb 12, 2003)

mikeyts said:


> encoding in MPEG-2 is a *huge* modification


They're still not necessarily modifying anything... what if they are taking the OTA HD simulcast of the locals and sending that in clear QAM? They're still carrying the channel. Or does must-carry apply to analogs as long as they're available OTA?


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

QZ1 said:


> How is that allowed since not everyone has a TV with A Digital Cable tuner, whereas virtually everyone has a TV with Analog Cable tuner?


Note: Putting a tap on the line is not the same as 'encrypting' or 'scrambling'. Some people seem to interpret 'encrypting' and 'scrambling' as 'anything that can't be recieved by a standard ATSC or QAM tuner'. It's not. Scrambling is scrambling ... encrypting is encrypting. Putting a tap on a line to filter out analog locals does not violate the 'no encryption / no scrambling' rules.

I'm not saying Comcast can (or can't) put that tap on the line ... I'm just saying that it doesn't violate the following:


> http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/...ccess.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/octqtr/47cfr76.630.htm
> 
> (a) Cable system operators shall not scramble or otherwise encrypt
> signals carried on the basic service tier.


Other regs and such are, of course, applicable and in place (although I can't really think of any that would preclude that tap either).

Just saying ... "scramble or otherwise encrypt" means just that ... "scramble or otherwise encrypt".


----------



## QZ1 (Mar 24, 2003)

mikeyts said:


> They have to carry the broadcast that they received in the clear without modifications not agreed to by the broadcaster (stipulated in other regs); re-encoding in MPEG-2 is a *huge* modification.
> If this negatively affects you, why don't you complain to the FCC?


It doesn't affect me. 
I read in the last three local prices/services lists that this configuration exists.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

I have a simple question for all the "legal experts" who interpret FCC rulings here.
Do you think that cable companies are so stupid that they didn't check and cleared it with FCC BEFORE they spent billions on implementing SDV? Don't you think that giving millions of customers opportunity to greatly expand HDTV offerings outweighed the problems of few thousands who rushed to get crippled S3?
IMHO SDV is here to stay and S3 TiVo is on a way out. I don't know how long before SDV will be implemented by all cable companies, but it eventually will be implemented. If you can afford to spend $600-800 for the DVR that will soon become almost a doorstop - more power to you. But don't proclaim that SDV violates FCC rules or some other nonsense.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

pmiranda said:


> They're still not necessarily modifying anything... what if they are taking the OTA HD simulcast of the locals and sending that in clear QAM? They're still carrying the channel. Or does must-carry apply to analogs as long as they're available OTA?


If they're also carrying the analog as it comes over the air, they have to carry it in the clear.

What this situation he's talking about sounds like is that if I order basic cable and connect it to a legacy NTSC television without a box I won't be able to receive the over-the-air locals. That's just ludicrous. Contact the local stations and make them aware that you can't get them on cable on an everyday NTSC television; I gotta believe that they'll take action on it.


----------



## QZ1 (Mar 24, 2003)

dt_dc said:


> Note: Putting a tap on the line is not the same as 'encrypting' or 'scrambling'. Some people seem to interpret 'encrypting' and 'scrambling' as 'anything that can't be recieved by a standard ATSC or QAM tuner'. It's not.
> 
> I'm not saying Comcast can (or can't) put that tap on the line


I think they are called frequency 'traps'.

I think you meant to write 'NTSC' and 'QAM', since we are just talking about cable.
(AFAIK, 'Encrypting' would relate to 'QAM', and 'Scrambling' would relate to 'NTSC')

So, seeing as Comcast follows the regs. on sending out HD Locals in the clear, they are probably doing so with regards to Analog Locals. I guess they are allowed to filter out Analog, and require a box for Analog Basic w/o Analog Expanded.

I heard that in another system in this metro area, they scramble Analog Expanded, but I don't remember if they scramble Analog Basic, also; but, since they apparently can, they probably do so, as well.


----------



## QZ1 (Mar 24, 2003)

mikeyts said:


> If they're also carrying the analog as it comes over the air, they have to carry it in the clear.
> 
> What this situation he's talking about sounds like is that if I order basic cable and connect it to a legacy NTSC television without a box I won't be able to receive the over-the-air locals. That's just ludicrous. Contact the local stations and make them aware that you can't get them on cable on an everyday NTSC television; I gotta believe that they'll take action on it.


Exactly. As I said, it affects people who have Basic w/o Expanded. So, that affects those with only Basic, on all of their Analog TVs. It also affects those with Basic and Digital and/or Premiums, on any Analog TVs w/o a Box.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

QZ1 said:


> I think you meant to write 'NTSC' and 'QAM', since we are just talking about cable.


Sorry ... yes ... typo / brain fart.

Although, technically 'VSB' and 'QAM' would probably be more correct.


----------



## Monty2_2001 (Aug 6, 2005)

samo said:


> I have a simple question for all the "legal experts" who interpret FCC rulings here.
> Do you think that cable companies are so stupid that they didn't check and cleared it with FCC BEFORE they spent billions on implementing SDV? Don't you think that giving millions of customers opportunity to greatly expand HDTV offerings outweighed the problems of few thousands who rushed to get crippled S3?
> IMHO SDV is here to stay and S3 TiVo is on a way out. I don't know how long before SDV will be implemented by all cable companies, but it eventually will be implemented. If you can afford to spend $600-800 for the DVR that will soon become almost a doorstop - more power to you. But don't proclaim that SDV violates FCC rules or some other nonsense.


Yeah, S3 is probably on the way out. All the buyers are total suckers. This will probably go down in the books as the 'worst purchase ever' since it's not going last very long and was very expensive. IMHO hddvd is dying too, but at least you get to keep your discs you bought. The S3 will be ebay-fodder, and the price will collapse there as fewer people will need it and more people try to sell their SDV-killed S3.

Tivo needs to address this and come up with some options. Either tell us we're completely out of luck, come up with a USB dongle for major companies, fight like hell to the FCC for allowing cable card to die, or offer major rebates for an S4.

From the sounds of it, a 2-way Tivo is nearly impossible due to the proprietary systems the cable co's use. So basically, the FCC's rulings will be nulled shortly.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

samo said:


> I have a simple question for all the "legal experts" who interpret FCC rulings here.
> Do you think that cable companies are so stupid that they didn't check and cleared it with FCC BEFORE they spent billions on implementing SDV? Don't you think that giving millions of customers opportunity to greatly expand HDTV offerings outweighed the problems of few thousands who rushed to get crippled S3?


Sure they may have consulted the regs but I doubt that the use of SDV in and of itself is against regs (at least not yet--the regs are a living document and if the FCC decides that something the cable industry is doing is bad for consumers, they're free to write new regulations prohibiting it). I'm asserting that putting any of the core basic cable channels in SDV is against the regs, and explicitly against the intent-CFR Title 47 §76.630 is entitled "Compatibility with consumer electronics equipment". The FCC has legislated that there be a core level of cable service to which you can subscribe which can be tuned with any modern piece of television equipment, without the need of leasing any equipment--CableCARDs included--from your cable provider; that core level of subscription will include all of the local channel rebroadcasts. When you have a 300+ channel system there is little need to even attempt to put the 20 or so core basic channels in SDV anyway.

And it's not just a few crippled S3's we're talking about here--it's many millions of CableCARD V1 equipped televisions and STBs sold over the past 3 years or so; CableCARD V1 slots continue to appear on recent new models (I bought one a month ago, a Mitsubishi LT-46231 1080p LCD flatpanel).

This entire thread is alarmist. Do we have reports of systems which have gone to SDV? Did any of them try to put local rebroadcasts into SDV?


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

mikeyts said:


> This entire thread is alarmist. Do we have reports of systems which have gone to SDV? Did any of them try to put local rebroadcasts into SDV?


I answered my own question. This post in the Official Time Warner Cable Thread lists switched channels on TWC in Austin. Of all that stuff, I'd miss The Tennis Channel (but I'd also save $3/month ); I can see where a few others would be lamented by other people. Like the guy who wrote the post, I'm surprised that they'd switch Cinemax HD and Starz! HD especially while they're not switching HBO HD or Showtime HD, but I'm sure that they have their rationale for these choices.

The only locals they're switching are digital simulcast of analogs. The analog locals ain't going anywhere anytime soon.


----------



## pmiranda (Feb 12, 2003)

Yep, in Austin we've got switched video but analog locals are sent in the clear as analog signals any old cable-ready TV can receive, and I believe the local HDs (with one exception, not TW's fault) are sent in clear QAM. Either way, I get them all with my S3, and with a couple channels I have to record with a box and an old TiVo, I get way more programming than I could ever watch with my S3. I'd upgrade to an S4 if I can, especially if MRV is enabled on both boxes... then I could record the few shows a week I want off SDV and watch everything on either box!


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

pmiranda said:


> I'd upgrade to an S4 if I can, especially if MRV is enabled on both boxes...


Lots of assumptions there... I mean, who's to say TiVo will be around to even _make_ a "Series 4?" 

In the meantime, I'm doing my best to relax and enjoy my Series 3.


----------



## bonnie_raitt (Sep 14, 2001)

Help. Help

The sky is falling


----------



## dig_duggler (Sep 18, 2002)

bonnie_raitt said:



> Help. Help
> 
> The sky is falling


or a lot of people here have invested a significant amount of money in a device that there is a real possibility will be obsolete w/in a year...

While there is some overreaction this is not a Chicken Little situation...


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

Monty2_2001 said:


> From the sounds of it, a 2-way Tivo is nearly impossible due to the proprietary systems the cable co's use. So basically, the FCC's rulings will be nulled shortly.


This isn't true. SDV is just a network application protocol--even if it's proprietary, any bidirectional CableCARD host with an OCAP platform could be dynamically programmed by the headend to do it. Unfortunately TiVo doesn't have the necessary backchannel built into their CableCARD slots. (Personally, I think that they could have done that much forward-thinking engineering, since the host interface spec has been done for well over a year. There might have been other issues, such as availability of off-the-shelf bidrectional CableCARD host interface hardware).

There is work being done by the OpenCable group in CableLabs to define a lightweight standardized SDV protocol; the cost of a processor powerful enough to run an OCAP platform with a sufficient amount of memory isn't something that a low-end television can afford. When this exists, future TiVo models could use it.


----------



## pmiranda (Feb 12, 2003)

mikeyts: Do you think bidirectional CC2.0 will ever get deployed, or is OCAP close enough to nip it in the bud? Do you know if it's much more effort to support CC2.0 than a set-top at the headend? I assume OCAP is a ton more effort to support than CC.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

OCAP is part of CableCARD 2.0 (or, as I prefer to say, "Plug-and-Play 2.0"). OCAP + Multi-Stream CableCARD = CableCARD 2.0, although you can probably do bi-directional communication with S-CARDs as well--I haven't looked at the host spec in a while.

OCAP (OpenCable Applications Platform) is a virtual machine for a Java profile, allowing cable providers to download applications into a host (television or set-top box) for local execution in the host's processor. They can download things like Interactive Program Guides and code for Impulse Pay-Per-View and Video On Demand menus (and code for the dread Switched Digital Video protocols  ). To use OCAP to do much of anything useful, you pretty much need a bidirectional host interface--IPG, IPPV and VOD (the Holy Trinity of revenue generating cable apps ) all require communication from the host to the system, though I can think of ways of doing an IPG with a unidirectional host. Time Warner has been doing a dog-and-pony show of their new Digital Navigator IPG running on new model Samsung televisions.

The cable industry has stated a desire to skip CC 2.0 altogether in favor of DCAS (Downloadable Conditional Access System). This is hardware in the host into which proprietary conditional access systems could be loaded and executed. CableCARDs interpret proprietary conditional access on the wire (like SciAtl's PowerKey and Motorola's DigiCipher), decrypting the stream from the source and re-encrypting it with a standard system called DFAST for output through the host interface into the host for decoding and display. DCAS is basically something built into your television or STB to do what a CableCARD does, without the "CARD". It's very elegant, but the consumer electronics industry objects vehemently to the cable industry's proposal that the FCC forestall the ban on their buying new boxes without separable security until they can get DCAS working. For years, the CE industry has had to live with poor support for their CableCARD products from the cable providers, who weren't required to use CableCARDs in their own equipment. The ban on boxes without separable security was supposed to begin in 2005, but cable asked for and was granted a 2 year extension to get the OCAP, V2 host interface and M-CARD specs ready.


----------



## Leo_N (Nov 13, 2003)

pkscout said:


> Time Warner Cable in North Carolina will be putting all digital simulcast of the basic and standard channels on SDV. In the short term that means that the S3 can't get digital versions of the analog channels. If and when TWC decides to turn off analog channels, that would mean the S3 could get no channel below 99. When it happens, that would be a big impact.


If (probably when, but I imagine it'll be a while) they ever decide to completely drop the analog portion of their system, that will also open up ALOT of bandwidth, probably what, close to 1000 regular digital channels or about 200 HD or some combo of the two. Once they drop analog SDV will be almost a waste of money for them to operate. Unless they are planning to completely annihilate satellites number of channels available.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Wasn't aware of SDV but probably would have bought an S3 anyway. I have charter. Charter is likely the most incompetently run/managed company of its size in the entire world. I know that sounds like intentional hyperbole, but I really believe it could be true.

When I moved into my apartment, it took 5 phone calls before anyone believed that I could get cable. This is after charter installed a new "hi-tech" box into the basement of my building. The reason? Their computer system, apparently written by a 12 year old, required entering my address as xxx 1/2 because xxx was the ground floor and belonged to a business. It took 4 visits to the apartment to get cable working. My neighbors actually literally gave up on getting cable after 5 phone calls of being transferred around and told that cable service was not available in our building.

My phone service is worse than vonage through charter. They supplied me with a cordless phone, and using the phone they supplied, it rings any time I hang up at the end of a call. For 2 months I had a constant "voicemail" dial tone and it took 2 hours of phone calls to fix it.

We had a line severed here that caused over 100,000 customers to lose all cable-related services for 5 hours last sunday. 1 hour into the outage, none of the operators were even aware of it from all accounts. When I called, it took 30 redials to get through a busy signal. The first thing I'm greeted with is "we are aware of outages in your area". I was calling from a cell phone and had not put in my phone #. So they in fact could not POSSIBLY be ware of outages in my area since they didn't know what my area was. When I finally get through to the operator, they are totally unaware of an outage in my area.

As for SDV, my on-demand does not even function properly. It pixelates frequently and I have to rewind and watch parts again. This is on a line that supposedly has really great signal strength. My cable STB that is used by my old S1 does not get sound on my local CW 50% of the time, even though my S3 cable card CW works fine.

So what's the point of all this? The point is, even though I now am somewhat concerned about SDV, I am 99.9% certain that charter will handle SDV the same way they handle everything else, in other words with unrivaled incompetence. So even if I assume the sky is in fact falling, I know for certain that charter will screw it up so badly that the FCC will need to step in and slap them around. I am not sure why they haven't done so already given the utter idiocy of the company.

Yeah, I would be really, REALLY upset if my S3 is virtually worthless in a year. But the statistical probability of that is so small that I am content knowing that it won't really be an issue for at least 3 years.


----------



## mooneydriver (Feb 17, 2007)

Sorry to keep beating on this dead horse, but I found an interesting Motorola white paper that provides an insight into the cable operators' perspective on SDV. Since I don't have 5 posts yet, I cannot post a URL, but you can find the WP by googling "Using Bandwidth More Efficiently with Switched Digital Video".

A quick summary, for those who don't wish to read this white paper, is that SDV makes economic (or technical) sense when it is applied to a small subset of least-frequently-watched channels. As an example, a cable provider may analyze users' viewing patterns, selects the 60 least popular digital channels, and reserves a total of 30 channels on the cable plant to transmit them to that particular subscriber population. If, by chance, a subscriber selects a new switched service while other subscribers are watching a total of 30 switched channels at the same time, the new request has to be denied until a switched channel opens up. That has a huge impact on customer satisfaction (not that cable companies care that much about customer satisfaction, but they also hate to reimburse customers due to loss of service ...) 

The upshot is that if your cable company decides to deploy SDV in your area, you should only be concerned if you use your S3 to view and record rarely-watched digital channels (for example, certain ethnic programming or music channels). I don't pay much attention to what that Comcast VP said about "being able to add 50 HD channels using SDV." In all likelihood, what he meant to say was that they would be able to open up dedicated spectrum for 50 new HD channels by moving some least-popular digital channels to SDV. With the large increase in the number of HDTV sets sold in the US in the last year or two, any new HD channel added to Comcast programming will be popular and will not merit being placed in the SDV section of the spectrum.

My two cents' on this topic. For the record, I just bought an S3 after carefully studying and considering the SDV problem. I simply don't watch (or care for the loss of) any extended digital SD channels or music channels.


----------



## synch22 (Dec 30, 2003)

it was holding me back, decided to pull the trigger anyway and get the S3 with lifetime. Worst case scenarion my box becomes a great OTA HD Recorder.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

mooneydriver said:


> As an example, a cable provider may analyze users' viewing patterns, selects the 60 least popular digital channels, and reserves a total of 30 channels on the cable plant to transmit them to that particular subscriber population.


That wouldn't bother me, if they used SDV for the shopping channels or Taiwanese soap opera channels. 

/fingers crossed, as I'm really enjoying my S3 and don't want to get rid of it

I would like to see more HD offered by Time Warner though. I've become an HD snob and don't like watching anything in SD anymore. So if employing SDV (on those unpopular channels only!) make more bandwidth available for more HD channels, I'm all for it.


----------

