# CEA mentions TCF in FCC filing



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

CEA mentions TCF in FCC filing

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518528834



> CEA filing to FCC
> Re: Implementation of Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices
> 
> A visit to the web site www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/ shows the stark reality about the cable industrys commitment to deploying CableCARDs and enabling consumer choice.


Anyway, just though ya might want to know.

Note to mods: wasn't sure what forum to post in ... put it here because it's CableCard-related ...

Edit: Same reference is also in all the following. Each is basically the same response to various group / company letters of support for the Charter / Verizon integration ban waiver application.
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518528834
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518528837
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518528840
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518528843
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518528835
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518528838
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518528841
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518528836
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518528839
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518528842


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

To tell you the truth, I don't really care if the MSOs are granted a waiver for low-end STBs as long as they force the mid and high-end STBs to use removable security. Verizon requesting a total waiver across all STBs is another story.

Whoops, I guess the waiver topic is not really the subject of this thread.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

ah30k said:


> Whoops, I guess the waiver topic is not really the subject of this thread.


Well, it IS the subject of the filing / link ...

The issue isn't getting much discussion here. But ... this kinda makes it personel eh? 


ah30k said:


> To tell you the truth, I don't really care if the MSOs are granted a waiver for low-end STBs as long as they force the mid and high-end STBs to use removable security. Verizon requesting a total waiver across all STBs is another story.


Yah ... I dunno. Then you start having to get into exactly what is (and isn't) "high end" / "low end" ... "limited functionality" / "advanced functionality". Where's that line? HD / SD? DVR / STB? Ethernet, USB, etc / standard video output? Access to two way functionality like VOD, SDV, etc. / access to just linear channels?

I dunno.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Granting the waver in any form is a slippery slope and will lead to the MSOs pushing the limits of "low end" too see what they can get away with. It's much better to just make it a cut and dry, everyone uses CableCARDs, approach.

On the plus side the fact that these MSOs are applying for specific wavers could be a sign that they don't have hopes for the FCC granting another extension to the integration ban. If that integration ban holds then next year CableCARDs are going to be a whole lot easier for consumers to deal with.

Dan


----------



## KenS3 (Oct 17, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> Granting the waver in any form is a slippery slope and will lead to the MSOs pushing the limits of "low end" too see what they can get away with. It's much better to just make it a cut and dry, everyone uses CableCARDs, approach.
> Dan


While I agree about the "slippery slope" aspect, and I'm not generally a fan of corporate monopoly in any form, I'll have to disagree with your conclusion. Cable sells to a range of customers, including folks like retirees with limited incomes who only get basic cable. No box with a slot and a separate device is going to match the cost of an integrated low-end solution. The inventory management costs for those cablecards need to be passed along, as well as the component cost for the slot driving hardware and the packaging (case and interface circuitry, not to mention the little plastic case they come in) of the circuits on the separate card, and there are other factors that affect such pricing also, not all under the control of the cable companies.

It may seem that there shouldn't be a major component cost difference between a box capable of basic service and a more advanced one, but those boxes come from third parties who need to recover development costs (and make a profit). And they do that by factoring in volume. Low-function high-volume hardware costs a lot less than devices with greater functionality sold in smaller volumes, far more than component costs would lead you to believe. I've had a bit of experience with this with CPE routers for an Internet provider, where a 4x wholesale price difference between two nearly-identical boxes isn't uncommon, if one supports higher-capability services than the other.

And while boxes and cable cards may last a very long time, they're probably limited in how long an interval they can depreciate them over (by their accountants and the SEC). In my (non-cable) experience, service price gets set from the hardware depreciation, even if the hardware lasts longer (or shorter!) than accountants believe it will. The excess (shortage) isn't factored in except as a modifer to the company's overall overhead costs (which does affect prices, but only indirectly). If a cable-card costs $100 (hardware + packaging, inventory, etc), and gets depreciated over 5 years, it's still adding at least $1.67/month to the bill, without considering cost-of-money or unrecovered damage/loss costs for equipment broken or not returned after service cancellations. While the hardware will eventually cost much less as development is paid off and manufacturing scale kicks in, or if improved designs with lower cost are developed, packaging and distribution costs will keep it well above zero.

Selling a one-size-fits-all solution means the separate components, plus the manufacturers inability to separate the low-end from the high-end in their pricing, will raise the cost of basic service for those who can least afford it (or, if the cable company is prevented by regulators from raising it, they'll find a way to recover the costs as "overhead" from everyone else). Either way, customers will pay more for that hardware.

Maybe this "downloadable security" stuff the cable companies are pushing will solve this, although it seems to me that it would just add the cost in another form if the low-end boxes still need high-end decryption hardware that they don't use.

So, to me, a waiver for "simple" devices makes sense, despite the "slippery slope" aspect. Defining "simple" is the hard part. I agree that advanced services like VOD don't belong there, but since that's a cash-cow for the cable companies, I doubt they'd agree.


----------



## Maeglin (Sep 27, 2006)

"Simple" in my book for a device that would even qualify as a potential CableCARD host (ruling out analog-only boxes) would be single tuner with no HD or DVR capabilities, much like the cheap Motorola box I had before getting an S3. It had PPV and VOD, but no actual display on the box beyond 2 LEDs (no buttons either) and only RF, composite and stereo audio out on the back. A card and the matching slot hardware would have taken up at least half of the internal volume of the thing.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

KenS3 said:


> While I agree about the "slippery slope" aspect, and I'm not generally a fan of corporate monopoly in any form, I'll have to disagree with your conclusion. Cable sells to a range of customers, including folks like retirees with limited incomes who only get basic cable.


In almost all markets "basic cable" is analog only and does not require the use of any STB. In fact in most markets there is also a "lifeline" service available which provides access to the local broadcast channels via cable for a nominal fee (less then $15/mo) so that those without access to an antenna can still get "free" TV.

Digital cable is a premium service, and customers who can't afford an extra $5/mo to cover the cost of this new technology shouldn't be subscribing to it in the first place.

Dan


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

Cable companies complain that CC are too expensive for deployment in "low end" boxes when it's that kind of mass deployment that is needed to bring the cost of CC down. As soon as cable providers are forced to use CC they'll force the cost issue with suppliers and CC boxes won't cost substanitally more than a normal box now. 

It's all smoke and mirrors to keep competition locked out. The FCC needs to cram it down their throats and make them stop their foot dragging.


----------



## nyjklein (Aug 8, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> In almost all markets "basic cable" is analog only and does not require the use of any STB. In fact in most markets there is also a "lifeline" service available which provides access to the local broadcast channels via cable for a nominal fee (less then $15/mo) so that those without access to an antenna can still get "free" TV.
> 
> Digital cable is a premium service, and customers who can't afford an extra $5/mo to cover the cost of this new technology shouldn't be subscribing to it in the first place.
> 
> Dan


I think many cable providers are trying to go all digital to recover bandwidth. To do this they have to supply cable boxes to basic customers that used to not need a box for analog. Since they can't charge these customers for the box, the providers want VERY cheap boxes.

Nonetheless, I'm against the waiver unless it somehow clearly limits the deployment of waivered boxes to basic services that the customers aren't charged for.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I haven't read the waiver request... is there a clear definition of what a low-end STB is? I could see granting the waiver for no more than 98 channels, no pay-per-view, no on-demand, and no pay-per-channel (HBO, Showtime, etc.), and only where analog channels are NOT provided at all.


----------



## pkscout (Jan 11, 2003)

Maeglin said:


> "Simple" in my book for a device that would even qualify as a potential CableCARD host (ruling out analog-only boxes) would be single tuner with no HD or DVR capabilities, much like the cheap Motorola box I had before getting an S3. It had PPV and VOD, but no actual display on the box beyond 2 LEDs (no buttons either) and only RF, composite and stereo audio out on the back. A card and the matching slot hardware would have taken up at least half of the internal volume of the thing.


I would add to this no PPV or VOD. The only "simple" box I feel should get approved is one that gives you a EPG and a way to tune a single digital (non-HD) channel. *Anything* else in my book is advanced. If you let cable operators give folks PPV or VOD (which are good money makers for them), then there is no incentive to get those things working with CableCard.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

nyjklein said:


> I think many cable providers are trying to go all digital to recover bandwidth. To do this they have to supply cable boxes to basic customers that used to not need a box for analog. Since they can't charge these customers for the box, the providers want VERY cheap boxes.
> 
> Nonetheless, I'm against the waiver unless it somehow clearly limits the deployment of waivered boxes to basic services that the customers aren't charged for.


I'm completely against any sort of box that prevents the use of basic services. By adding a box in this way every added feature from PIP to VCR recording will be eliminated because these devices have no means of controlling the box. Cable is going to have to keep it's basic service analog for a long time or it's going to lose customers.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> Granting the waver in any form is a slippery slope and will lead to the MSOs pushing the limits of "low end" too see what they can get away with. It's much better to just make it a cut and dry, everyone uses CableCARDs, approach.
> 
> On the plus side the fact that these MSOs are applying for specific wavers could be a sign that they don't have hopes for the FCC granting another extension to the integration ban. If that integration ban holds then next year CableCARDs are going to be a whole lot easier for consumers to deal with.
> 
> Dan


Dream on. The ban holding will have no real effect on that side. There is way too much hw out there and too little cablecard. With little real demand for cablecard so the overwhelming majority will still be non-cc devices - meaning that support will still be focused on something else. Also, demanding everyone to use cc and abandon anything else is just plain wrong - no matter what people think. It won't happen. With no real 2-way cc standard, that would mean the loss of huge interactive based revenue for MSOs which nobody will tolerate - including the FCC.


----------



## AbMagFab (Feb 5, 2001)

winpitt said:


> Dream on. The ban holding will have no real effect on that side. There is way too much hw out there and too little cablecard. With little real demand for cablecard so the overwhelming majority will still be non-cc devices - meaning that support will still be focused on something else. Also, demanding everyone to use cc and abandon anything else is just plain wrong - no matter what people think. It won't happen. With no real 2-way cc standard, that would mean the loss of huge interactive based revenue for MSOs which nobody will tolerate - including the FCC.


Dream on.

Force the CC issue, and you'll quickly see a CC 2.0 standard. That's the whole point. The cable companies are dragging their feet because they don't want to level the playing field at all.

The FCC needs to actually do something useful, instead of fining people for farting.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

AbMagFab said:


> Dream on.
> 
> Force the CC issue, and you'll quickly see a CC 2.0 standard. That's the whole point. The cable companies are dragging their feet because they don't want to level the playing field at all.
> 
> The FCC needs to actually do something useful, instead of fining people for farting.


Nope. The FCC is not going to force the MSOs to drop their current architecture and adopt CC - which means that they are still going to have non-cc devices deployed as the majority of their user population.

Then consider that really nobody but TiVo has a strong vested interest in this fight because they rely on the MSOs to deliver content. TiVo is the only competition left in the DVR space.

This isn't about "leveling the playing field". The Cablecos spent the money to roll out infrastructure and develop against it. While neither you nor I like it, you can't blame them for not wanting to have to support yet another technology which will both potentially increase their cost to deliver while reducing revenue.

To thing otherwise is to allow our bias to drive the discussion rather than logic.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

nrc said:


> Cable companies complain that CC are too expensive for deployment in "low end" boxes when it's that kind of mass deployment that is needed to bring the cost of CC down. As soon as cable providers are forced to use CC they'll force the cost issue with suppliers and CC boxes won't cost substanitally more than a normal box now.
> 
> It's all smoke and mirrors to keep competition locked out. The FCC needs to cram it down their throats and make them stop their foot dragging.


Now that is an incredibly narrow minded position. Providers currently have a huge inventory and large deployed base as well as extensive R&D (with partners such as Moto and SA) to maintain and deliver on that base. They have no choice but to continue that work, but you think that adding CC R&D, development and service should just be "eaten" by them because it's great for you but the average consumer doesn't give a hoot?

There is a huge amount of change that would need to take place, all of it quite expensive. And, if it falls your way the current Telecommunications Act of 1996 would mean that 100% of those costs could - and probably would - be passed onto the consumer. Further, if any of the new "state" or "federal" franchise laws are passed, it would result in both yet higher costs as well as some areas no longer having service delivered - because they would no longer be required to do so.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

AbMagFab said:


> Dream on.
> 
> Force the CC issue, and you'll quickly see a CC 2.0 standard. That's the whole point. The cable companies are dragging their feet because they don't want to level the playing field at all.
> 
> The FCC needs to actually do something useful, instead of fining people for farting.


Uh, it's not the cablecos that have stalled 2.0. It's the device manufacturers who cannot agree on the standard. That's been widely know for well over 18 months. Very very very similar to the also current BluRay vs HD-DVD fiasco.


----------



## Bodshal (Jan 4, 2005)

AbMagFab said:


> The FCC needs to actually do something.


I cut out some of what you said just to get to the _real_ requirement. 

Chris.


----------



## pkscout (Jan 11, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> I'm completely against any sort of box that prevents the use of basic services. By adding a box in this way every added feature from PIP to VCR recording will be eliminated because these devices have no means of controlling the box. Cable is going to have to keep it's basic service analog for a long time or it's going to lose customers.


Lose customers to who? Every other competitor (satellite, UVerse, FIOS) requires a box for the most basic things. Only OTA ATSC doesn't require a box (although it can require a huge butt ugly antenna). I guess if in addition to going digital they did everything as unencrypted QAM or ATSC then you could get away without a box with cable, but I think all the other services will require a box.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> In almost all markets "basic cable" is analog only and does not require the use of any STB. In fact in most markets there is also a "lifeline" service available which provides access to the local broadcast channels via cable for a nominal fee (less then $15/mo) so that those without access to an antenna can still get "free" TV.
> 
> Digital cable is a premium service, and customers who can't afford an extra $5/mo to cover the cost of this new technology shouldn't be subscribing to it in the first place.


Which is why the push to all-digital is a key point for the waiver applicants. While Charter and Comcast are a little more vaugue on the issue ... some providers are more specific:


> BendBroadband Filing to FCC
> 
> Re: In the Matter of BendBroadband's Request for Waiver of 47 CFR76.1204(a)(1)
> 
> In 2005, BendBroadband became one of the first cable operators in the nation to complete a network-wide transition to digital simulcast, allowing it to provide 100% all digital services to all of its digital cable customers. And if this waiver request is granted, the company plans to move to an entirely all-digital network by 2008 and reclaim the spectrum now used for analog channels for even more HD and VOD, increased broadband capacity, and other new digital services.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Look, the bottom line here is that we here on the site really want inexpensive and reliable cablecard because we have a vested interest for the S3. Apart from a small handful of people who want cablecard so that they can hang their cc equipped plasma on a wall, nobody else cares.

What the FCC is interested in is getting the content to a pure digital (not pure HD) transport. That frees up capacity, reducing a problem for them.

What the consumer is interested in is getting inexpensive, reliable, quality content with features/functions.

Cablecard DOES add cost for the MSO. It increases complexity in the delivery system as there are then different issues where you would need to consider 3rd party devices, cablecard, software, MSO provisioning/service software, portal software, network related and content related issues. Today SD/HD is provided by a restricted set of HW per MSO/region, allowing for reduced service and R&D costs. 

Yes, we want it - badly. But you can't just try to hammer the cableco's.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

winpitt said:


> Look, the bottom line here is that we here on the site really want inexpensive and reliable cablecard because we have a vested interest for the S3. Apart from a small handful of people who want cablecard so that they can hang their cc equipped plasma on a wall, nobody else cares.
> 
> What the FCC is interested in is getting the content to a pure digital (not pure HD) transport. That frees up capacity, reducing a problem for them.
> 
> ...


There's always the argument that if all the MSO's are developing for the same standard there will be economies and innovation gained since the control mechanism doesn't get redesigned with each new device.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Stormspace said:


> There's always the argument that if all the MSO's are developing for the same standard there will be economies and innovation gained since the control mechanism doesn't get redesigned with each new device.


But that is exactly the misunderstanding. If you look at this from an engineering and service perspective, you need to consider the following:

1) Cablecard functionality is first enabled by 3rd party devices, each with individual and specific hardware/software specifications and manufacturers. So the first thing is that the Cableco will have to spend resources supporting potentially defective 3rd party HW or poorly implemented firmware on the device side. Beyond their ability to control. For this, just look at the S3 issues as a guide. Cableco's have to spend cust svc, tech support and truck rolls to try and resolve issues that in many cases have ended up being acknowledged as TiVo bugs. Not criticizing TiVo, but am acknowledging that while the Cablecos get little revenue out as an upside they have to spend service/support.

2) Cablecard functionality is then enabled by the CableCo head-end/distribution software, which consists of wide variations of each. Meaning that for example even across Comcast there are multiple system types out there of yet further revision leves, and even further service portal versions. If you are at all familiar for example with IT ERP implementations, you must also recognize that trying to get everyone on the same version of software or portal is not even remotely practical. Such deployments are "Big Bang" deployments and would be unbelieveably disruptive to the customer base. Not to mention incredibly expensive.

3) Then you either have to assume that they'll need to continue supporting the existing architecture (ie, SA or Moto boxes) or they'll need to write off millions upon millions of dollars of HW and try to then deploy CC only systems. Huge cost, huge disruption - and with absolutely no upside. Only cost.

4) Then you have to consider that while there is no 2.0 bi-directional CC standard yet, that any such standard would then finally limit what each provide would be capable of doing - since new yet to be determined services would not necessarily be even thought of during the standards development. So, you'd end up yet again with proprietary implementations of the "standard" or an inability to deliver new services.

5) Then you need to consider that this not only affects the MSOs (Cableco's) but also affects people like TI, SA, and Moto. It also completely disrupts their product line and attaches those same costs directly to them.

This is not even close to being a free-market. We need to face that we're a minority of the consumer population but we're demanding something that would have a dramatic effect on everyone else - and after reviewing the above comments would certainly have a pretty dramatic affect on costs. It sucks to be us, but that's life.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> I haven't read the waiver request... is there a clear definition of what a low-end STB is?


Not really ...

Most of the waiver applicants are providing a specific list of equipment they're looking to get a waiver for. For example, from Charter's application:

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518400205

Motorola DCT-700
Scientific Atlanta 1840
Scientific Atlanta 940
Pace DC501p
Motorola DCT2500e
Scientific Atlanta 3200
Pace DC511p

Specs on these can be found in their attachment:
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518400206

The common thread is SD-only digital-capable "interactive" (ie, 2-way, supports VOD, EPGs, iPPV, SDV, etc). Beyond that ... some also support analog channels (for plants that haven't implemented digital simulcast yet) ... some don't. Some other minor differences (some have front panels, some don't ... some support SVideo some don't ... etc.) The Pace boxes include USB ... which some CEA members had issue with.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

winpitt said:


> To thing otherwise is to allow our bias to drive the discussion rather than logic.


 :up: Absolutely on-target.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dt_dc said:


> The common thread is SD-only digital-capable "interactive"


I would like the FCC to consider interactivity to be a disqualifier for waiver. The regulation exists to serve a specific public interest, and waivers should only be granted when the waiver itself substantially serves a public interest, not the MSO's personal interest. Any advantage to the MSO should be coincidental, and the advantage to the public should be obtainable through no other means (i.e., a means that perhaps is less advantageous to the MSO).

Having said that, that criterion is not very likely to be considered by the FCC. They have several interests that they have to balance against each other: The general public's, the government's, and the industry. We television viewers tend to think every entity should be working in our personal interest, when in reality we typically get no better than one-vote-in-three with regard to any of these decisions.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

bicker said:


> I would like the FCC to consider interactivity to be a disqualifier for waiver. The regulation exists to serve a specific public interest, and waivers should only be granted when the waiver itself substantially serves a public interest, not the MSO's personal interest. Any advantage to the MSO should be coincidental, and the advantage to the public should be obtainable through no other means (i.e., a means that perhaps is less advantageous to the MSO).
> 
> Having said that, that criterion is not very likely to be considered by the FCC. They have several interests that they have to balance against each other: The general public's, the government's, and the industry. We television viewers tend to think every entity should be working in our personal interest, when in reality we typically get no better than one-vote-in-three with regard to any of these decisions.


You're right. And to be yet further clear, that "general public" part is a lot bigger than us here on this site who have/want S3's that need Cablecard. Personally from an engineering perspective instituting mandatory cablecard in reality gives a strategic and cost advantage to Dish and Direct. They'd have far less complexity and service costs.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

winpitt said:


> Dream on. The ban holding will have no real effect on that side. There is way too much hw out there and too little cablecard. With little real demand for cablecard so the overwhelming majority will still be non-cc devices - meaning that support will still be focused on something else. Also, demanding everyone to use cc and abandon anything else is just plain wrong - no matter what people think. It won't happen. With no real 2-way cc standard, that would mean the loss of huge interactive based revenue for MSOs which nobody will tolerate - including the FCC.


That's NOT true! The cable companies can use CableCARD and OCAP to create CC1.0 based STBs with full support for bi-directional services such as PPV, VOD and SDV. There is absolutely no reason for them to get out of the mandate, other then money.

Dan


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> That's NOT true! The cable companies can use CableCARD and OCAP to create CC1.0 based STBs with full support for bi-directional services such as PPV, VOD and SDV. There is absolutely no reason for them to get out of the mandate, other then money.
> 
> Dan


And you are absolutely incorrect. There is already a very large deployed set of non-cc devices which still require support. CC2.0 is required for interactive.

I guess the cableco's "could" use Cablecard and discard all their existing devices. Remember that OCAP (while there is some commitment to as of Jan 06) is NOT a design parameter of existing devices, and that there is very little support on the device side at this time.

I suppose that they could also park satelites above everyone's house, or start giving away brand new OCAP compliant digital TVs too. But that would be equally as illogical.

The one part that you are correct about is that it IS about money. That being, the cost to deploy, service and maintain customers. Because we have a vested interest we want them to adopt this technology which has increased costs. But to proclaim that those costs don't exist or that it's easy/cheap is a gross mis-representation of reality.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

winpitt said:


> What the FCC is interested in is getting the content to a pure digital (not pure HD) transport. That frees up capacity, reducing a problem for them.


This is a completely seperate issue. The FCC cares about freeing up the airwaves, and as such wants all broadcast channels to go digital, but they could care less if cable companies were all digital or not. In fact the big digital switchover of 2009 does NOT require cable companies to go digital. It only effect OTA stations.

You also seem to be under the impression that the CableCARD mandate is a choice. When in fact, provided the FCC doesn't grant yet anotehr extension, on July 1st 2007 cable companies will no longer be able to deploy non-CableCARD equipment to any customer. That means that all the boxes in the field can stay in the field, but if they break or are upgraded for any reason, then they will be replaced by CableCARD equipment. And all new installs will be CableCARD equipment. If that doesn't give them incentive to get CableCARDs working reliably then their business is doomed to fail.

Dan


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

winpitt said:


> And you are absolutely incorrect. There is already a very large deployed set of non-cc devices which still require support. CC2.0 is required for interactive.
> 
> I guess the cableco's "could" use Cablecard and discard all their existing devices. Remember that OCAP (while there is some commitment to as of Jan 06) is NOT a design parameter of existing devices, and that there is very little support on the device side at this time.


What are you talking about? CC2.0 is absolutely NOT required for cable companies to deploy a CableCARD based STB that supports interactive content. As a matter of fact neither is OCAP. The intergration ban only mandates that they seperate encryption from the rest of the box. They could actually create an entirely proprietary box just like they are using now, as long as they are using CableCARDs for the encryption/decryption. In fact dt_dc posted a link a while back where both Motorola and SA have designed just such devices for if the 2007 deadline holds.

Dan


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> This is a completely seperate issue. The FCC cares about freeing up the airwaves, and as such wants all broadcast channels to go digital, but they could care less if cable companies were all digital or not. In fact the big digital switchover of 2009 does NOT require cable companies to go digital. It only effect OTA stations.
> 
> You also seem to be under the impression that the CableCARD mandate is a choice. When in fact, provided the FCC doesn't grant yet anotehr extension, on July 1st 2007 cable companies will no longer be able to deploy non-CableCARD equipment to any customer. That means that all the boxes in the field can stay in the field, but if they break or are upgraded for any reason, then they will be replaced by CableCARD equipment. And all new installs will be CableCARD equipment. If that doesn't give them incentive to get CableCARDs working reliably then their business is doomed to fail.
> 
> Dan


First of all I understand both points. For the first I was referring to the fact that (because somebody else on the thread had brought up bandwidth, SD, and HD) with respect to delivering content the elimination of Analog is the most important thing on the FCC's mind. Also consider that your cableco in many cases gets that content via analog signal and then propogates it via cable to subs.

For the second what I was alluding to is that there is really no reason why the FCC would not allow the situation to continue as there is increasing pressure from several fronts to not enforce the cablecard standard.

More importantly, if the waiver is not granted that only means that they need to deliver "something" via cablecard. Meaning that they would again focus on a very restrictive product line pre-populated with cablecards. It really has minimal effect on 3rd party devices using cablecards, as configurations, specifications, versions would all be different.

Also, you should recognize that since there is just about no agreement whatsoever on 2.0, and since there is a great deal of revenue and competition tied into interactive services, MSOs may well even choose to ignore and further fight in court in order to protect revenue. Frankly, that's exactly what I expect them to do. They're playing "nice" now, and will eventually take the gloves off. It's very unlikely that when it then gets litigious, we'll see changes by Jul 07.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> What are you talking about? CC2.0 is absolutely NOT required for cable companies to deploy a CableCARD based STB that supports interactive content. As a matter of fact neither is OCAP. The intergration ban only mandates that they seperate encryption from the rest of the box. They could actually create an entirely proprietary box just like they are using now, as long as they are using CableCARDs for the encryption/decryption. In fact dt_dc posted a link a while back where both Motorola and SA have designed just such devices for if the 2007 deadline holds.
> 
> Dan


The word proprietary is what eliminates this from reality. See my last post.


----------



## bilbo (Dec 7, 2004)

I think the FCC should grant Verizon and Charter these waivers...

But I think that the FCC should state that the non-Cable Card devices should be "rented" to the end-users (VZ and Charter's customers) at no additional charge.

Not that it would ever happen, but I think it would be a good example of a Win-Win-Win conflict resolution. The MSO's would win {they wouldn't have to implement CableCard across the board}; the fixed-income elderly would win (they could "rent" inexpensive boxes for no additional fee (beyond what their usual programming costs); and I guess I would win since I came up with the solution.

Of course, there is no way that is going to happen. I am really not sure why the MSO's are so opposed to CableCard in the first place. They should see a steady annual increase in rental money (for CableCards or set-top boxes with CC's in them) for the next 5-10 years as a result of the conversion to digital (in 2009?).


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

winpitt said:


> The word proprietary is what eliminates this from reality. See my last post.


http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=4323142

dt_dc is in the cable industry and if you do a search for his posts you'll see that he's much more knowledgeable on the subject then either me or you. If you choose not to believe his comments, then you're obviously not as smart as you think you are.

Dan


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

winpitt said:


> But that is exactly the misunderstanding. If you look at this from an engineering and service perspective, you need to consider the following:
> 
> 1) Cablecard functionality is first enabled by 3rd party devices, each with individual and specific hardware/software specifications and manufacturers. So the first thing is that the Cableco will have to spend resources supporting potentially defective 3rd party HW or poorly implemented firmware on the device side. Beyond their ability to control. For this, just look at the S3 issues as a guide.


the bulk of the problems on this forum were the result of the cable companies not knowing how to identify the hostid and provision the cards correctly from their headend. The only real problem they had on the S3 was dealing with getting two cable cards working. Those that followed the directions for how to do the two cards had no problems with that.
Cablelabs was put in place to ensure cosistency of cable card integration among 3rd party devices.

if the MSOs had been forced last year or this year to put out new equipment using cable card then you can be assurred that the DVRs from the cable co would have had a steady supply of multi stream CC1.0 cards and the install hassles for S3 would have been way down. And PPV and VOD would still be very active on the cable company DVRs in a proprietary format. I think the MSOs have signalled they are ready to fight it out over the CC2.0 standard that would force CEAs to put a lot of extra hardware in a 3rd party device and then have no control over the software loaded in by MSOs via the 2.0 standards java environment.

your argumenrts in this thread are just not based in reality

PS - it is easy to define a simple STB not needing a cable card as one the cable company does not charge a fee for


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

bilbo said:


> I think the FCC should grant Verizon and Charter these waivers...
> 
> But I think that the FCC should state that the non-Cable Card devices should be "rented" to the end-users (VZ and Charter's customers) at no additional charge.
> 
> ...


If they let you get the box for free, they'll just recoup the expense in increased rates elsewhere, so that wouldn't work.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> the bulk of the problems on this forum were the result of the cable companies not knowing how to identify the hostid and provision the cards correctly from their headend. The only real problem they had on the S3 was dealing with getting two cable cards working. Those that followed the directions for how to do the two cards had no problems with that.
> Cablelabs was put in place to ensure cosistency of cable card integration among 3rd party devices.
> 
> if the MSOs had been forced last year or this year to put out new equipment using cable card then you can be assurred that the DVRs from the cable co would have had a steady supply of multi stream CC1.0 cards and the install hassles for S3 would have been way down. And PPV and VOD would still be very active on the cable company DVRs in a proprietary format. I think the MSOs have signalled they are ready to fight it out over the CC2.0 standard that would force CEAs to put a lot of extra hardware in a 3rd party device and then have no control over the software loaded in by MSOs via the 2.0 standards java environment.
> ...


However the 2005 report (available online) shows that the largest issue with cablecard is quality and compliance - which you would force the Cableco to spend money in supporting - while they have no control over it. So, cannot agree with you. The only hassles that would "possibly" have been avoided in reality for the S3 were the cablecos "forced" to adopt a new platform at their own cost would be a pre-defined rate structure for multi-cablecard device, or as you mention the potential availability of a multi-stream (not interactive) device.

The bottom line here is that while you and I both want cablecard (preferably 2.0) you want to force cablco's to eat the cost and I personally don't think that's right. It most certainly increases their COGS and service/support costs for some time.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

winpitt said:


> However the 2005 report (available online) shows that the largest issue with cablecard is quality and compliance - which you would force the Cableco to spend money in supporting - while they have no control over it. So, cannot agree with you. The only hassles that would "possibly" have been avoided in reality for the S3 were the cablecos "forced" to adopt a new platform at their own cost would be a pre-defined rate structure for multi-cablecard device, or as you mention the potential availability of a multi-stream (not interactive) device.
> 
> The bottom line here is that while you and I both want cablecard (preferably 2.0) you want to force cablco's to eat the cost and I personally don't think that's right. It most certainly increases their COGS and service/support costs for some time.


I don't disagree with your analysis, but from my point of view the consumer has been playing catch up with cable for a long time and eating the costs involved in each upgrade. Cable ready sets, to digital boxes, and now cable card. Each time the CEA introduced a device to recieve the channels the cable co's transmitted a new STB was introduced that made the technology obsolete. How many people purchased cable ready TV's only to have to rent a box when digital came out, or how many PIP sets were obsoleted? Cable Card is the answer to allowing us to actually use the features on our sets and recorders and I frankly don't mind if this one time cable companies are having to eat some costs if they really are. I bet we see rate increases over the next year as Cable Companies pass along costs for upgrading to us, if they haven't already increased rates in anticipation for the integration ban.

edit: Meanwhile they are working on SDV to obsolete cable card devices.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=4323142
> 
> dt_dc is in the cable industry and if you do a search for his posts you'll see that he's much more knowledgeable on the subject then either me or you. If you choose not to believe his comments, then you're obviously not as smart as you think you are.
> 
> Dan


Have read his comments and his posts. Nowhere do I see him saying that there are not increased costs associated for the cablecos to implement cablecard across the board. To the contrary, in that specific thread he states the opposite. That there are in fact increased costs. A lot of money involved.

Two items of equal import that I didn't bring up before and you haven't mentioned are SDV (which also gets in the way), and the fact that you yourself questioned the differentiation between a cableco provided box and a TiVo assuming a universal platform such as OCAP. Or did I perhaps read it wrong?

The funny thing is that I don't think I'm all that smart . This to me seems like just plain common sense. Anyone with basic business understanding and a middling of technical grasp of these products ought to get it.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> When in fact, provided the FCC doesn't grant yet anotehr extension, on July 1st 2007 cable companies will no longer be able to deploy non-CableCARD equipment to any customer. That means that all the boxes in the field can stay in the field, but if they break or are upgraded for any reason, then they will be replaced by CableCARD equipment.


I think I'll hope, very hard, that my 3416 doesn't break after July 1, at least until until they have the new equipment pretty-much well under control.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Stormspace said:


> I don't disagree with your analysis, but from my point of view the consumer has been playing catch up with cable for a long time and eating the costs involved in each upgrade. Cable ready sets, to digital boxes, and now cable card. Each time the CEA introduced a device to recieve the channels the cable co's transmitted a new STB was introduced that made the technology obsolete. How many people purchased cable ready TV's only to have to rent a box when digital came out, or how many PIP sets were obsoleted? Cable Card is the answer to allowing us to actually use the features on our sets and recorders and I frankly don't mind if this one time cable companies are having to eat some costs if they really are. I bet we see rate increases over the next year as Cable Companies pass along costs for upgrading to us, if they haven't already increased rates in anticipation for the integration ban.


Ah, but there's the rub. YOU are paying because YOU buy a TiVo. The general DVR public does not pay because they just turn in the old device at no cost and get a replacement. Instituting cablecard does not eliminate those charges. It just moves them physically, while introducing some amount of complexity. So from my perspective, the consumer has not been eating any of these costs - but forcing the integration ban will change that. Just my perception.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

winpitt said:


> Ah, but there's the rub. YOU are paying because YOU buy a TiVo. The general DVR public does not pay because they just turn in the old device at no cost and get a replacement. Instituting cablecard does not eliminate those charges. It just moves them physically, while introducing some amount of complexity. So from my perspective, the consumer has not been eating any of these costs - but forcing the integration ban will change that. Just my perception.


Instituting Cable Card will allow consumers to use their devices, TV's and Recorders, without requiring a STB. If anything once the integration ban is put into place more devices should be available to let people buy their own CC device. Phone companies said the same thing back in the day and now you can buy phone handsets cheaply and with more features than ever. It's good for the economy and everyone when you get more than one entity working on technology. Besides I'm not convinced that it will cost the Cable Companies more to provide CC devices, it's not like they are going to replace them wholesale once the ban is in place. It will be a gradual shift as people buy their own boxes, TV's, and recorders or change their services with the cable co's.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

winpitt - me and you seem to be on a different page here. I never said it wouldn't cost more money. This whole argument started when I replied to this portion of your original post...



winpitt said:


> Also, demanding everyone to use cc and abandon anything else is just plain wrong - no matter what people think. *It won't happen. With no real 2-way cc standard, that would mean the loss of huge interactive based revenue for MSOs which nobody will tolerate - including the FCC.*


Specifically the bolded portion. You say that "it wont happen" because the MSOs wouls lose 2-way features. I was simply pointing out that forcing them to use CableCARDs does NOT cause them to lose 2-way features even if CableCARD 2.0 is not ready by the time the ban goes into effect. As the post I linked to shows, both Motorola and SA have STBs that use CableCARDs for authorization but maintain the current proprietary technology that allows 2-way features to exist.

I also maintain that even if this most basic of change was forced onto the MSOs their support for CableCARDs would get better for everyone, including TiVo users, because the backend portion which controls the CableCARD technology is universal and if they were forced to use it on their own STBs then they would learn the system and be better at installing them into all devices. Including TiVos.

Dan


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> Look, the bottom line here is that we here on the site really want inexpensive and reliable cablecard because we have a vested interest for the S3. Apart from a small handful of people who want cablecard so that they can hang their cc equipped plasma on a wall, nobody else cares.
> 
> What the FCC is interested in is getting the content to a pure digital (not pure HD) transport. That frees up capacity, reducing a problem for them.
> 
> ...


the only problem is the LAW that congress passed over 10 years ago instructed the FCC to ensure that 3rd party devices to tune cable would be readily availible in retial channels.

(Man- do the cable company's actually pay you to be on that franchise board?)

The FCC's plan to make that happen was the whole POD (eg cablecard). Then the FCC themselves decided that the way to make the cablecard thing work would be to force cable to use it themselves so that they would become widespread and therefore cheap and common enough to be reliable for all.

The law MANDATES that the FCC do something and this is the plan they came up with.

Doesn't mean they wont change their mind and issue all these waivers in the hope that cable gets OCAP next summer anyway. But that's the history of it.


----------



## nyjklein (Aug 8, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> I also maintain that even if this most basic of change was forced onto the MSOs their support for CableCARDs would get better for everyone, including TiVo users, because the backend portion which controls the CableCARD technology is universal and if they were forced to use it on their own STBs then they would learn the system and be better at installing them into all devices. Including TiVos.
> 
> Dan


And I'll add a related thought I've been having lately. It seems the two predominant manufacturers of the actual Cablecards are Scientific Atlanta and Motorola. They happen to also be the two dominant providers of cable STBs. Somehow, I think that when they're forced to depend on those Cablecards for the functionality of their own STBs, the quality of the Cablecard hardware and firmware will "mysteriously" improve.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> dt_dc is in the cable industry


Just to clarify something ...

I'm not in the cable industry ... just another software guy. Now, in the past, I have written software aimed at MVPDs (including middleware and iTV apps for STBs) ... but I currently have absolutely nothing to do with that space. I do keep an eye on the sector for various reasons. But now ... nope, I'm happily developing software that has no connection with the cable industry.


----------



## TechDreamer (Jan 27, 2002)

Not only should the Cable Companies not be allowed a waiver, they should be fined for the ten years they have been out of compliance with CableCard. The waiver would only be legitimate if the Cable Companies had shown a record of good faith regarding implementation. The high cost of any current implementation is their own damn fault.


----------



## sjcbulldog (Jul 13, 2004)

It seems that the basic point is that competition is necessary. While the cable companies have control on the box that allows me to view HD content, PPV, VOD, or even basic digital channels, that my only choices as a consumer is to switch from cable TV to satellite. While this provides for some choice, for most people switching between cable TV to satellite is very disruptive and effectively limits the choice available.

There are several arguments that are made for the STBs with respect to the cable companies. The strongest one is that boxes like the TiVo S3 eliminate the VOD/PPV revenue that the get today. It seems that if the cable companies had really wanted to address this issue that the standard could have been extended to support bi-directional communications. The path back to the cable companies form your set top box does not need encryption (at least not high performance encryption you would need for HD video, just enough encryption to make sure the information about VOD/PPV was valid and not intercepted). As far as that goes, the cable companies could define a standard for STB style boxes that use IP and a cable modem. This capability could be built into the box, or if your box (TiVo S3) does not include this, you get a cable modem that ties to a USB port on the TiVo and you have your reverse path to the cable companies. If you do not have high speed internet through your cable company, the modem can be tied directly to the TiVo and limited to the VOD/PPV application. If you do have high speed internet, your home network could be used.

The basic point is that technical solutions do exist to the problems that the cable companies are voicing. It seems that their complaints are not geniune and what they really want is to try and maintain their existing monopoly. As long as there is a monopoly at the STB we will continue to have boxes that look like the Comcast DVR boxes. It the cable companies want their STB as the DVR in people homes, build a better box. As much as I like my S3, I have to believe that if Comcast parternered with Motolorla to build a DVR that was as capable as the TiVo box, they would be sucessful (as long as both companies were truly committed to the project.) If the box I could get from Comcast out performed the box from TiVo, then my next box would be from comcast. Comcast would win by out performing TiVo, not by having some inherient monopoly.

So, given the stampede by the cable companies to support cable cards to date, I think that the FCC/Congress should grant zero waivers of any kind. All STBs should be required to use cable cards to insure the fundamental technology for competition is truly deployed. If CableCard 2.0 is released, cable companies should be required to continue compatibility with CableCard 1.0 as well to insure that competition is not squelched by a transition to new technology every 2 - 3 years effectively making third party boxed useless. Given an effectively level playing field, comcast can compete like most other companies have to do.

Note, I used the name comcast in here, but I really mean all of the cable companies.

just my $0.02 worth
sjcbulldog


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

sjcbulldog said:


> While this provides for some choice, for most people switching between cable TV to satellite is very disruptive and effectively limits the choice available.


"Disruptive" -- "Effectively limits" -- these things don't really matter much. The law doesn't mandate absolute competition without consideration of any other considerations. Read the judicial rulings -- the law requires just a measure of competition. The issue with STBs is very specific, and even if the regulations concerning this were recinded/struck down, it wouldn't result in a situation which would be anti-competitive. CableCard is not necessary to ensure there is competition in the subscription television service industry. There is enough competition between broadcast, cable and satellite to satisfy anti-trust laws.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Stormspace said:


> Instituting Cable Card will allow consumers to use their devices, TV's and Recorders, without requiring a STB. If anything once the integration ban is put into place more devices should be available to let people buy their own CC device. Phone companies said the same thing back in the day and now you can buy phone handsets cheaply and with more features than ever. It's good for the economy and everyone when you get more than one entity working on technology. Besides I'm not convinced that it will cost the Cable Companies more to provide CC devices, it's not like they are going to replace them wholesale once the ban is in place. It will be a gradual shift as people buy their own boxes, TV's, and recorders or change their services with the cable co's.


Look, it's not worth arguing about since the comment that "you're not convinced that it will cost the Cable...." shows that you either can't or don't want to deal with the reality. From an R&D and support perspective there is absolutely no possible way that it cannot cost more. Period. Agreed that there would be a gradual shift - which means supporting more of multiple systems at the same time.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> the only problem is the LAW that congress passed over 10 years ago instructed the FCC to ensure that 3rd party devices to tune cable would be readily availible in retial channels.
> 
> (Man- do the cable company's actually pay you to be on that franchise board?)
> 
> ...


Uh, NO - I don't get a darned thing from the cableco- and frankly an on the board because I do not trust them and feel they need scrutiny. But that does not mean that they should be penalized or treated differently than you would have your business treated either. It's a 2 way street. You want it to be one way.

There are LOTS of things that the FCC is supposed to do. For example, the 2004 ruling that local authorities cannot supervise broadband service when delivered via cable under a franchise agreement. Has the FCC ever done ANYTHING to oversee that service since then? No. Never. Not the service component.

My point continues to be that there is heavy and increased pressure to not force unilateral adoption of this technology, and that there has been (with the exclusion of those of us on this board having vested interests due to the S3) just about zero interest in cablecard from the consumer. My point is that those two factors will likely result in an unwillingness to enforce the integration ban.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

TechDreamer said:


> Not only should the Cable Companies not be allowed a waiver, they should be fined for the ten years they have been out of compliance with CableCard. The waiver would only be legitimate if the Cable Companies had shown a record of good faith regarding implementation. The high cost of any current implementation is their own damn fault.


That is a completely nonsensical statement without basis. I'd like to ask what kind of work you do. The reason is that anyone with a reasonable modicum of sense and understanding of the integration and hw/sw development process will understand that the non-integrated approach is more complex and has a higher base cost with more opportunities for failure. If you consider this from a Six-Sigma perspective, and conduct a FMEA you'll see this immediately within about a second.

While I desperately want cablecards to work flawlessly I can also see the other side of the coin. And that is that those of you wanting to hammer the cableco's for this are treating cable in a way that you would absolutely not tolerate your own business to be treated.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

bicker said:


> "Disruptive" -- "Effectively limits" -- these things don't really matter much. The law doesn't mandate absolute competition without consideration of any other considerations. Read the judicial rulings -- the law requires just a measure of competition. The issue with STBs is very specific, and even if the regulations concerning this were recinded/struck down, it wouldn't result in a situation which would be anti-competitive. CableCard is not necessary to ensure there is competition in the subscription television service industry. There is enough competition between broadcast, cable and satellite to satisfy anti-trust laws.


You are completely right. And to take this a step further I'll again point out that the integration ban effectively gives DirecTV and Dishnet a strategic advantage.

Actually, the whole "competition" thing is hogwash. Are people now going to tell the FCC to force Verizon to use SIM cards for cellular technology? Not having them is "disruptive" when compared to using SIMs on the Cingular network.

It's also similar (slightly) to the complete falsehood that elimination of local or state franchise agreements increases competition in the video delivery market. Franchise agreements have been non-exclusive by law since 1996.

Let's be honest. This issue is hot around here because we support the S3. If we didn't, we wouldn't give a crap about cablecards. The rest of the world doesn't.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

sjcbulldog said:


> It seems that if the cable companies had really wanted to address this issue that the standard could have been extended to support bi-directional communications. The path back to the cable companies form your set top box does not need encryption (at least not high performance encryption you would need for HD video, just enough encryption to make sure the information about VOD/PPV was valid and not intercepted). sjcbulldog


Since other communications are either now - or planned using the digital boxes (messaging, etc) encryption should be considered mandatory.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> You are completely right. And to take this a step further I'll again point out that the integration ban effectively gives DirecTV and Dishnet a strategic advantage.
> ....


I would actually disagree- if cable were to embrace cablecard and come up with a 2-way cablecard standard palletable to the CEA then basically every TV made would have a cablecard slot. To get pay tv from cable people would only need to call for a card (and if they were so widespread you could probably pick them up at the co and slap them in yourself). That's a HUGE advantage over DBS that would require STB's.

I've never seen the rational for the law that tells the FCC to ensure 3rd party boxes are availible at retail. For all we know some congressman's wife *****ed at him all the time that they had an ugle cable box connected to teh 3 grand tv that the lobbiest gave him. I am not sure it has anythign to do with competition in the pay tv market place.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> I would actually disagree- if cable were to embrace cablecard and come up with a 2-way cablecard standard palletable to the CEA then basically every TV made would have a cablecard slot. To get pay tv from cable people would only need to call for a card (and if they were so widespread you could probably pick them up at the co and slap them in yourself). That's a HUGE advantage over DBS that would require STB's.
> 
> I've never seen the rational for the law that tells the FCC to ensure 3rd party boxes are availible at retail. For all we know some congressman's wife *****ed at him all the time that they had an ugle cable box connected to teh 3 grand tv that the lobbiest gave him. I am not sure it has anythign to do with competition in the pay tv market place.


Well you're actually saying two things would have to happen. First, that the integration ban would need to be enforced, and second cableco's would have to not just support within the tenets of the law but actually embrace it. Since they'd still have to support all the currently deployed fleet, and since R&D for maintenance of existing will still need to happen.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

winpitt said:


> Let's be honest. This issue is hot around here because we support the S3. If we didn't, we wouldn't give a crap about cablecards. The rest of the world doesn't.


No, actually the cable industry's business practice of requiring the consumer to rent a box that poorly duplicates the functionality in their TV has bothered me for a long time. Slow adoption of cable card doesn't mean that consumers don't want the functionality it provides. It simply demonstrates that most of them don't understand that it's available or what it means and that the cable companies have done their best cripple it and discourage consumers. If you ask consumers if they would like to be able to just plug their TV into cable without a box and have it work the vast majority of them would say yes.

Catching up on this thread I see a pattern in your posts. They all seem to boil down to "I reject your reality and substitute my own." If you want to believe the cable company eyewash that's your purgative, I don't buy it.

The cable companies control the economics of CC deployment. As soon as it becomes in their best interest to make it economical, it will become economical. The claim that a simple plugin card costs them $75 is a perfect example. Comparable bits of CE gear can be purchased for $10.

Support costs? Cable companies are charging a service visit for what should be a 15 minute CC installation. Unless their installers are Doctors they shouldn't be losing any money on that.

Most of the problems that people have experienced have been related to cable company reluctance, lack of preparation, inexperience, or incompetence. The cable industry controls device certification, so if a device causes problems in the field, whose fault is it?


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

nrc said:


> No, actually the cable industry's business practice of requiring the consumer to rent a box that poorly duplicates the functionality in their TV has bothered me for a long time. Slow adoption of cable card doesn't mean that consumers don't want the functionality it provides. It simply demonstrates that most of them don't understand that it's available or what it means and that the cable companies have done their best cripple it and discourage consumers. If you ask consumers if they would like to be able to just plug their TV into cable without a box and have it work the vast majority of them would say yes.
> 
> Catching up on this thread I see a pattern in your posts. They all seem to boil down to "I reject your reality and substitute my own." If you want to believe the cable company eyewash that's your purgative, I don't buy it.
> 
> ...


Wow! Did YOU miss the point! I'm not a cable hack and really want an alternative. Support costs are just related to visits for initial installs? Wow! Unbelieveable!

3rd party devices are NOT certified by the MSOs. The cablecards are. NOT the 3rd party devices, such as TV's, and the S3.

It seems to me that your "boiling down" of my position is way off. I'm looking at actual reality. Not what people think the FCC "should" do. Not what people think is "fair". Not what just impacts "me" personally. Or you. Seems to me that you got it backward. I'm just recognizing the complexities and costs that some others don't seem willing to accept.


----------



## JohnBrowning (Jul 15, 2004)

nrc said:


> No, actually the cable industry's business practice of requiring the consumer to rent a box that poorly duplicates the functionality in their TV has bothered me for a long time. Slow adoption of cable card doesn't mean that consumers don't want the functionality it provides. It simply demonstrates that most of them don't understand that it's available or what it means and that the cable companies have done their best cripple it and discourage consumers. If you ask consumers if they would like to be able to just plug their TV into cable without a box and have it work the vast majority of them would say yes.


+1!!!


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

nrc said:


> If you ask consumers if they would like to be able to just plug their TV into cable without a box and have it work the vast majority of them would say yes.


And if you ask consumers further what would they prefer more,

1) Lower cost, more content and features with a cableco DVR and no TiVo
2) Higher cost, TiVo Service which has better features than cableco DVR
3) No DVR, higher cost and no STB at all

The vast majority of them would say (and have with their wallet)

1

That's just the economics. If at some point in utopia there was no additional cost by fully implementing CC then I agree that it becomes a moot point.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

winpitt said:


> And if you ask consumers further what would they prefer more,
> 
> 1) Lower cost, more content and features with a cableco DVR and no TiVo
> 2) Higher cost, TiVo Service which has better features than cableco DVR
> ...


First, there isn't one cable DVR with more features than a second or third generation TiVo. Second generation devices with the exception of HD provide a better experience and value than competing cable products for the vast majority of users. Third generation devices provide the same or a little more features over the cable DVR (Not enough to justify 800 bucks) however I'm cautiously pessimistic about features returning to the S3. 

Second, CC television sets were produced in mass as soon as the CC standard was approved, however these sets cost 200-300 more than competing products. Cost to the consumer is the primary reason for the slow adoption of the standard, not that they don't want it. Cable companies foot dragging is the sole reason for the high cost of CC capable sets. If the Cable Companies had pushed adoption through when they were supposed to then prices for these devices would be lower. This foot dragging is costing everyone money at present, so if the Cable Companies have to share the pain then so be it.


----------



## nyjklein (Aug 8, 2002)

winpitt said:


> You are completely right. And to take this a step further I'll again point out that the integration ban effectively gives DirecTV and Dishnet a strategic advantage.
> 
> Actually, the whole "competition" thing is hogwash. Are people now going to tell the FCC to force Verizon to use SIM cards for cellular technology? Not having them is "disruptive" when compared to using SIMs on the Cingular network.


I'm sorry, your profile doesn't say where you leave. In many metropolitan areas, a large portion of the population live in high rise apartment/condos where satellite is physically, not an option. Thus, the cable provider has an effective monopoly. So to argue that cablecards give DirecTV and Dishnet a strategic advantage is REALLY stretching it.

Further, your analogy to Verizon Wireless and SIM based phones is also faulty for two reasons. Verizon has effective competition in almost all of its markets from at least one and usually three or more providers. Secondly, the major providers that do use SIMs lock their handsets. For most people, they can't take a phone they bought for Cingular, put in a T-Mobile SIM and go merrily on they're way.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

nyjklein said:


> I'm sorry, your profile doesn't say where you leave. In many metropolitan areas, a large portion of the population live in high rise apartment/condos where satellite is physically, not an option. Thus, the cable provider has an effective monopoly. So to argue that cablecards give DirecTV and Dishnet a strategic advantage is REALLY stretching it.
> 
> Further, your analogy to Verizon Wireless and SIM based phones is also faulty for two reasons. Verizon has effective competition in almost all of it's markets from at least one and usually three or more providers. Secondly, the major providers that do use SIMs lock their handsets. For most people, they can't take a phone they bought for Cingular, put in a T-Mobile SIM and go merrily on they're way.


Whoa, I didn't say that there aren't constraints! Absolutely in some areas a significant portion of the population cannot use DBS. Actually, in a lot more than metro areas due to geographical and in some cases lease/coop restrictions. My point is that for those markets that already exist DBS would potentially have a strategic advantage with respect to price/support over cable. It is certainly not stretching it. By the same token, there are areas where cable is also not an option for geographic reasons and the same argument holds true there.

The analogy to Verizon was not completely inaccurate. My point was absolutely not that a SIM based product can move from one vendor to another (though by unlocking the phone this can be done and has been done. Note the introduction of the Treo 600/650 and how users were unlocking the phones and registering them on alternative networks). It was more that the SIM allows personalized content and authorization to move from unit to unit within a carrier. BTW, Verizon or anyone else who wishes can currently enter any video market to compete.


----------



## Gregor (Feb 18, 2002)

winpitt said:


> <snip>
> 3rd party devices are NOT certified by the MSOs. The cablecards are. NOT the 3rd party devices, such as TV's, and the S3.
> 
> <snip>


Most certainly 3rd party devices are certified by Cable Labs, which is owned and operated by the MSOs.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Stormspace said:


> First, there isn't one cable DVR with more features than a second or third generation TiVo. Second generation devices with the exception of HD provide a better experience and value than competing cable products for the vast majority of users. Third generation devices provide the same or a little more features over the cable DVR (Not enough to justify 800 bucks) however I'm cautiously pessimistic about features returning to the S3.
> 
> Second, CC television sets were produced in mass as soon as the CC standard was approved, however these sets cost 200-300 more than competing products. Cost to the consumer is the primary reason for the slow adoption of the standard, not that they don't want it. Cable companies foot dragging is the sole reason for the high cost of CC capable sets. If the Cable Companies had pushed adoption through when they were supposed to then prices for these devices would be lower. This foot dragging is costing everyone money at present, so if the Cable Companies have to share the pain then so be it.


Agreed with your first point completely. No argument. I never said that cableco DVRs were equal to TiVo with respect to features. But, the general public first and foremost wants basic DVR service at a low cost.

As for your second point, I strongly disagree. NOBODY is going out "looking" for cablecard compatible products to any extent. You hear NOTHING about it. That is NOT due to pricing. Pricing was an issue with HD adoption most certainly, but you heard a lot of noise about it - as well as SD. We are probably the largest consumer group that even knows cablecard exists because we want to use a device that requires it. Now, you could make the argument that nobody knows about it because the providers have dragged their feet I guess, but providers were dragging their feet with HD content also and you most DEFINITELY heard about that! Again, outside of a very very very very small population, the consumer base doesn't even know that cablecard exists.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

winpitt said:


> As for your second point, I strongly disagree. NOBODY is going out "looking" for cablecard compatible products to any extent. You hear NOTHING about it. That is NOT due to pricing. Pricing was an issue with HD adoption most certainly, but you heard a lot of noise about it - as well as SD. We are probably the largest consumer group that even knows cablecard exists because we want to use a device that requires it. Now, you could make the argument that nobody knows about it because the providers have dragged their feet I guess, but providers were dragging their feet with HD content also and you most DEFINITELY heard about that! Again, outside of a very very very very small population, the consumer base doesn't even know that cablecard exists.


If you look I think you'll see that most CC sets introduced in the past few years were HD sets. If there were SD sets with CC the 200-300 price difference over the 99.00 set would have killed them.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Gregor said:


> Most certainly 3rd party devices are certified by Cable Labs, which is owned and operated by the MSOs.


Cablelabs is not "owned and operated by the MSOs. MSO's are "members".

The certification process can be viewed at http://www.cablelabs.com/certqual/guidelines/certification.html

Again, it is understandably complicated (as noted by that page itself) by the interoperability requirements of multiple vendors.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Stormspace said:


> If you look I think you'll see that most CC sets introduced in the past few years were HD sets. If there were SD sets with CC the 200-300 price difference over the 99.00 set would have killed them.


You are establishing a correlation where there is none.

Nobody was even asking for a cc equipped DTV.

Frankly, almost nobody is using the cc slot in their such equipped HDTV (in terms of percentage).

You can only establish a correlation if you can show that purchases were made or not made specifically due to cc capability. The problem is that there is no research, marketing study or market analysis that shows this to be the case.

You can certainly make the argument that perhaps more people would use cc as an aside if more devices were capable of using them, I suppose. But you cannot show that pricing or availability was even a remote factor. By all accounts, it appears to be a non-factor.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> I've never seen the rational for the law that tells the FCC to ensure 3rd party boxes are availible at retail. For all we know some congressman's wife *****ed at him all the time that they had an ugle cable box connected to teh 3 grand tv that the lobbiest gave him. I am not sure it has anythign to do with competition in the pay tv market place.


Chuckle ...

The cynic in me would point out that one of the primary authors of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was Thomas Bliley, who as the Chairman of the House Commerce Committee had considerable influence on its content and passage. Bliley represented the 7th district of Virginia ... a district that includes the Circuit City corporate headquarters (not to mention a heck of alot of executives and employees, Circuit City was one of the top employers in the Richmond area at the time although they've been slipping lately).

"Consumer choice" and "competitive markets" sound nice ... but ... one of the biggest beneficiaries of "retail availiability of navigation devices from unaffiliated vendors" would seem to be electronics retailers (especially given the vagueness of anything else beyond that).

But ... that's just the cynic in me (and others):
http://www.cedmagazine.com/article/CA6261142.html
http://www.cedmagazine.com/article/CA6260410.html?industryid=43675
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0DIZ/is_48_12/ai_80191763/pg_2
etc.

Circuit City sure seemed appreciative of the "provision introduced by Rep. Tom Bliley":
http://www.opencable.com/downloads/clips-CCity.txt

For those who love a villian ... Bliley was also one of the main proponents of the DMCA.

Cable didn't seem to mind ... in 2006 the VCTA (Virginia Cable Telecommunications Association) inducted Bliley into the Virginia Cable Hall of Fame:
http://www.vcta.com/documents/2006 Virginia Cable Hall of Fame Press Release.doc


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

winpitt said:


> You are establishing a correlation where there is none.
> 
> Nobody was even asking for a cc equipped DTV.
> 
> ...


I'm not making that statement up. I did read somewhere that HDTV adoption was slow due in part to the additional cost of adding in CC support so HD manufacturers were offering non CC and tunerless sets to get the price down. It was either Cnet or Wired, I'll have to dig to find it.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

dt_dc said:


> Chuckle ...
> 
> The cynic in me would point out that one of the primary authors of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was Thomas Bliley, who as the Chairman of the House Commerce Committee had considerable influence on its content and passage. Bliley represented the 7th district of Virginia ... a district that includes the Circuit City corporate headquarters (not to mention a heck of alot of executives and employees, Circuit City was one of the top employers in the Richmond area at the time although they've been slipping lately).
> 
> ...


in this day and age- it's as likely as anything else.

I'm wondering how many plasma tv's he received as "gifts" from CC...


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

winpitt said:


> And if you ask consumers further what would they prefer more,
> 
> 1) Lower cost, more content and features with a cableco DVR and no TiVo
> 2) Higher cost, TiVo Service which has better features than cableco DVR
> ...


Absolutely correct.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

winpitt said:


> Cablelabs is not "owned and operated by the MSOs. MSO's are "members".


Heh. "I reject your reality and substitue my own." Cable Labs was founded by cable operators. Its members are cable operators. It is completely controlled by cable operators. The cable operators run it and they're responsible for the certification process. They have only themselves to blame if they certify devices that that cause support problems.

The extra cost of CC would be negligible if the cable companies weren't set against it. Aside from the physical hardware to plug it in (which amounts to very little on a mass production piece) there is nothing there that isn't needed by a cable box anyway.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

yeah- that is funny "they are only members"

from there own website here:

http://www.cablelabs.com/about/companies/



> To be a member of CableLabs, a company must be a cable television system operator (as defined by the Cable Act)CableLabs charter admits cable operators worldwide. A cable operator as defined by the Cable Act, is a person or persons who provide video programming using closed transmission paths and uses public-rights-of-way. This definition does not include open video systems, MMDS (multichannel multipoint distribution service), or DBS (direct broadcast satellite).


some more fun here:


> Founded in 1988 *by members of the cable television industry*, Cable Television Laboratories, Inc. (CableLabs®) is a nonprofit research and development consortium that is dedicated to pursuing new cable telecommunications technologies and to *helping its cable operator members * integrate those technical advancements into their *business objectives*.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

nrc said:


> The extra cost of CC would be negligible if ...


And those conditionals make the rest of the sentence meaningless to consumers facing the decision winpitt alluded to earlier:


> 1) Lower cost, more content and features with a cableco DVR and no TiVo
> 2) Higher cost, TiVo Service which has better features than cableco DVR
> 3) No DVR, higher cost and no STB at all
> The vast majority of them would say (and have with their wallet)
> 1


----------



## jfh3 (Apr 15, 2004)

winpitt said:


> Cablelabs is not "owned and operated by the MSOs. MSO's are "members".
> 
> The certification process can be viewed at http://www.cablelabs.com/certqual/guidelines/certification.html
> 
> Again, it is understandably complicated (as noted by that page itself) by the interoperability requirements of multiple vendors.


And just who do you think provides the funding for CableLabs? That's right, the "members".

Perhaps the MSO's don't technically own CableLabs, but in reality they do.


----------



## Gregor (Feb 18, 2002)

jfh3 said:


> And just who do you think provides the funding for CableLabs? That's right, the "members".
> 
> Perhaps the MSO's don't technically own CableLabs, but in reality they do.


Thank you. That was my point.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

nrc said:


> Cable Labs was founded by cable operators. Its members are cable operators. It is completely controlled by cable operators. The cable operators run it and they're responsible for the certification process. They have only themselves to blame if they certify devices that that cause support problems.


There isn't a single product that passes a certification process that also has at least one problem. Just ask Microsoft.

Testing minimizes risk somewhat. Limiting the products allowed with your service minimize risk more. It allows you to focus your testing and customer support on just those products.

The FCC is doing all this to allow others to make set-top boxes. But what if there is no profit to be made in this market? Tivo is losing money almost every quarter. It doesn't look profitable, so why would anyone enter this market? Why should the cable companies be forced to spend money to put in a technology that no one will use?

I like Tivo. But I can see the cable comapnie's point of view as well.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

BobCamp1 said:


> There isn't a single product that passes a certification process that also has at least one problem. Just ask Microsoft.
> 
> Testing minimizes risk somewhat. Limiting the products allowed with your service minimize risk more. It allows you to focus your testing and customer support on just those products.
> 
> ...


the LAW passed in 1996 actaully says not a darn thing about cablecards. It just says third party devices should be readily availible at retail. That basically means there should be one standard accorss cabel that all the tv and recorder people can built too. THere is no reason the standard needs to be more expensive.

I dont know as much about it as many here- but if i recall cable (as in the NCTA which IS cable) that cablelabs should be the one to develop the standard technology since they knew more than anyone else. Other gorups aregued that a neutral party like the IEEE should develop the standard. Cable talked the FCC into allowign cablelabs to be in charge.

I dont even know that anyone said it had to be a card- again if I recall correctly (and anyone feel free to jump in here and correct me)- cablelabs/ncta decided on cablecards so that they wouldn't need to make drastic changes to their headends.

They could have figured out downloadable security (something like OCAP) - 10 years ago but these are the choices that cable talked the FCC into.

If there is a market for cable boxes sold to the MSO's then there should be a market for cable boxes at retail. But the probelm is still there is no "final" (as in build it today and it will be future porrf for more than a couple years) standard to built on. (or the standard is just beginning to get mature to that point now with OCAP).

Myself- I think the rules should apply to DBS, FIOS, everyone. IF one standard accross all systems is desireable then so be it. Let it be like phones.

I dont see how making a universal standard for phones has created big issues for the telco's.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

bicker said:


> And those conditionals make the rest of the sentence meaningless to consumers facing the decision winpitt alluded to earlier:


The rest of the sentence is meaningless to you because you and he choose to believe the cable company rhetoric and assume the choices he's offering are the only viable ones. It's very likely that opening the STB market will ultimately result in lower costs and more features and services for consumers.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

BobCamp1 said:


> There isn't a single product that passes a certification process that also has at least one problem. Just ask Microsoft.


You don't need to eliminate all problems. You only need to limit them to the point where they're no greater than the problems that you'd have with any STB.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

nrc said:


> The rest of the sentence is meaningless because you and he choose to believe the cable company rhetoric and assume the choices he's offering are the only viable ones. It's very likely that opening the STB market will ultimately result in lower costs and more features and services for consumers.


exactly.

IN 1970 you coud get one of 2 phones from the local bell system telco. A black one or a white one. Both cost you a monthly rental fee.

then around 1976 the FCC said they had to make it so third party equipment could work. The third party equipment needs to meet certain criteria but the telco is not allowed refuse to play nice with it.

Today you can buy thousands of differnt models of phones with hundreds of differnt feature combinations. And they work on POTS, Cable, FIOS, or third party voip.

why is that a bad thing? Has it ruined the telephone companies?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

nrc said:


> The rest of the sentence is meaningless to you because you and he choose to believe the cable company rhetoric and assume the choices he's offering are the only viable ones.


No, it is meaningless to anyone, because you cannot watch television on "viable" choices.  You can only watch television on actual choices.



> It's very likely that opening the STB market will ultimately result in lower costs and more features and services for consumers


That is what you "choose to believe". Regardless of whether that is even true, again, you cannot watch television on options that will be available "ultimately" -- you can only watch television on options that are available now. That will govern the general public's perspective.

Until customer need fosters a *profitable* model for what you are dreaming of, expecting it to come about (given the current pro-business political climate, in both political parties) is irrational.



> You don't need to eliminate all problems. You only need to limit them to the point where they're no greater than the problems that you'd have with any STB.


This is absolutely true. Until the alternatives are better than the currently available options, the alternatives don't stand much of a chance.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

bicker said:


> No, it is meaningless to anyone, because you cannot watch television on "viable" choices.  You can only watch television on actual choices.


Feel free to read the discussion and join in. The point is whether there would be other options for consumers if cable companies would stop dragging their feet.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I actually am participating in the discussion. I'm not sure how, with your incredible insight and intelligence, that you missed that fact. 

"The point" is that there is no reason for cable companies to give you want you want unless it is comparable to the most profitable options available. You grumble about what options would be available -- you can have anything you want if enough people were willing to pay enough for it. If your aim (as is that of many CableCard enthusiasts) is to reduce your contribution to the cable companies' revenue, don't expect cable company management to work especially hard to serve your desires. Winpitt outlined the choices available: basically lower price and lesser service, or higher price and better service. To expect lower price and better service is unreasonable and an unfair restraint of business. You can try to get your government regulations enforced the way you want them, but it hasn't been working has it? Ask yourself "why". Ask yourself why we continually put people in to positions of power who are strictly pro-business.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> I actually am participating in the discussion. I'm not sure how, with your incredible insight and intelligence, that you missed that fact.
> 
> "The point" is that there is no reason for cable companies to give you want you want unless it is comparable to the most profitable options available. You grumble about what options would be available -- you can have anything you want if enough people were willing to pay enough for it. If your aim (as is that of many CableCard enthusiasts) is to reduce your contribution to the cable companies' revenue, don't expect cable company management to work especially hard to serve your desires. Winpitt outlined the choices available: basically lower price and lesser service, or higher price and better service. To expect lower price and better service is unreasonable and an unfair restraint of business. You can try to get your government regulations enforced the way you want them, but it hasn't been working has it? Ask yourself "why". Ask yourself why we continually put people in to positions of power who are strictly pro-business.


I would answer- of course it makes no sense for cable's profit motives. But that is NOT the driver. THe drive is the LAW.

And if the spirit of the law was achieved at some point- wouldn't it be a better place for the consumers instead of picking "black" or "white" to lease, they could buy a tv or box with any subset of a myriad of features at some point in the future?

I dont know that was the reason the law was made (sounds like there may have been other reasons for sure)- but that would sure be a positive that would come out of it if the FCC ever got around to seeing that the law was enacted.

Reality is for the vast majority of the country that cable is a government granted monopoly. I dont see a problem with the government stepping up and putting on some restrictions on such bueiness entities to make the consumer's life better in the end. I dont think the government needs to step in and destroy such businesses (like they did by destroying the former ATT for no real positives to the consumer telephone market). But putting a few rules in place that might cost the business a small bit of their profit so the consumers can have somethign better i think is fine- just like the FCC ruling that you could buy any phone you want did and the LAW passed by congress that people should be able to buy any TV or box they want and it should work with cable should and can do.

Some of the posts above frame this that it's a battle about set top boxes and that tivo is the only company that would care. That's not true- there should be NO set top boxes. TV's, vcr's, dvd recorders, DVR''s, DVHS, whatever should all be able to just hook to the cable and work as the consumer wants- just like I can buy a $3 phone, a nice $20, a one-2-3-4 line, a phone systems, an ansering machine, a football phone form sports illustrated- whatever - I can hook it all to my stupid Rj11/14 outlet on the telco network and it just works.

What's wrong with that?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> I would answer- of course it makes no sense for cable's profit motives. But that is NOT the driver. THe drive is the LAW.


The law is never the driver. The law is always a reflection of what society wants. And the law is not a static description of something on paper -- the law includes the enforcement, or lack thereof. As I said before, you can try to get your government regulations enforced the way you want them, but it hasn't been working has it? Ask yourself "why". Ask yourself why we continually put people in to positions of power who are strictly pro-business.



> And if the spirit of the law was achieved at some point- wouldn't it be a better place for the consumers instead of picking "black" or "white" to lease, they could buy a tv or box with any subset of a myriad of features at some point in the future?


I wouldn't look too closely for the "spirit of the law" -- you might be very disappointed. The spirit of the law was as likely as not to have been to pay not much more than lip-service.



> I dont see a problem with the government stepping up and putting on some restrictions on such bueiness entities to make the consumer's life better in the end.


I do. And for perhaps other reasons, a majority of people in this country want government doing as little as it has been doing. Accept that, or change it, but don't ignore it.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> The law is never the driver. The law is always a reflection of what society wants. ....


I doubt that in a major way- Laws today are more a reflection of what lobbyists for special interests want.



bicker said:


> The law is never the driver. The law is always a reflection of what society wants. And the law is not a static description of something on paper -- the law includes the enforcement, or lack thereof. As I said before, you can try to get your government regulations enforced the way you want them, but it hasn't been working has it? Ask yourself "why". Ask yourself why we continually put people in to positions of power who are strictly pro-business.
> ....


not sure what that has to do with it- But i'd say the reason pro-business works is that the vast majority of people work for or own a business. So they want their business to do well. No rocket science. But still the government at times steps in and creates laws to reign in business. There are tons and tons of restrictions on business- cant pollute so much, generally cant harm your workers, cant do this, cant do that.



bicker said:


> ...
> I wouldn't look too closely for the "spirit of the law" -- you might be very disappointed. The spirit of the law was as likely as not to have been to pay not much more than lip-service.
> ....


actually that's a very good point. I was speaken about my hope for what the spirit is. But you are 100% correct- who knows what it really was. As I posted above some congressman's wife might have been annoyed at the cablebox sitting on the big screen tv gift they got from a lobbyist. dt_dc posted that some might speculate it the spirit was to enrich retailers pockets (specifically circuit city). So you have a point there.



bicker said:


> ......I do. And for perhaps other reasons, a majority of people in this country want government doing as little as it has been doing. Accept that, or change it, but don't ignore it.


I can accept that you feel that way. I'm not sure a majority of the country believes that 100% of the time. For example a majority of the country likes to ***** that the free market doesn't work everytime the price of gas spikes. I think a majority dont want the goverment stepping in to do things that they dont like but have no beef when it's somethign they think is good. It's like everyone hates incumbents and then votes their own guy back in. Everyone want's someone else taxed untill they are the someone else. I would agree that most people would want less government- but very few want NO government.

Myself, as I said above I dont like the government getting involved for much at all- I think it's destructive and the government generally screws up everything they touch. I think they destroyed ATT and in the process destroyed bell labs, moved thousands and thousands of jobs out of the country, caused great upheaval in lives of many people. And all for what- so now instead of a monopoly we have a duooploy with the new ATT and verizon. Yeah that made sense.

IF it was my line of work i too wouldn't want to have the government step in and put some onerous requirment on my firm to make changes.

But honestly I think this isn't some instant change that can have devastating effects and when it is done, if done correctly can help consumers AND the cable business. Doing things instantly is disruptive to individual companies and can ruin people- things like instantly making on line gambling illegal after years of permitting it- that can have some terrible effects. But cable has been given 10 years to make this happen and essentially has been put in the driver's seat to make the change happen in a way that works for them. The FCC ordained cablelabs to create the system. They didn't put in some other biased group or even a neutral third party like the IEEE to come up with the system. Cable could have done whatever they want. Cable has squandered that oppurtunity. If there were a system someday (who knows if it will ever happen) where you could plug any approved device into cable and it would work as well as a cable company box it could certainly be beneficial to cable. DBS would have a huge hurdle if just plugging in your tv worked. There would be many more devices connected to the cable wires- and since they are starting to move to programming fees per box/outlet instead of per account there would be more revenue becasue of that.

People have posted other pluses for cable of such a system. They could get out of the money loosing business of hardware. I'd need to read a pile more regs but I think they are not even premitted to profit from equipment leases if that equipment can also get basic cable. Others have posted how if ever done this will break the grip of moto and SA over the cableco's and those 2 would have to compete based upon market forces with everyone else and not just becasue some cable company already spend 10 million on moto they are wed to them. That's actually already happeneing with Panasonic and others selling OCAP boxes to comcast and the other players. I'd bet that comcast got a better deal from panny then they have ever seen from moto or SA.

I dont see the harm in it, or any long term down negative. It seems all you can come up with is you hate government.

What downsides do you see to a system like phones where you could plug in any approved device into the coax?


----------



## sjcbulldog (Jul 13, 2004)

You know, I am just getting back to this thread since I posted back a few days and it seems to be really heating up. My previous comments were not intended to reflect that the law is, but rather what I would like as a consumer using the cable TV services. I did not make that clear so I will try to do that here.

I want exacly what MichaelK talked about in his earlier post. I want the ability to go to my local Fry's, Best Buy, Circuit City, etc and buy a box that plugs into the coax. The selection of boxes shoud be driven by tradeoffs of cost versus capability as dicticated by a market for boxes, not programming. The capabilities of the boxes should be driven by the market and should include (at the high end) everything the set top box from the cable company can do (including VOD/PPV).

I think CC as they exist today have adoption problems because there is no solution today that uses CCs that does not leave something on the table. Today it VOD/PPV. If you call comcast and tell them you want to give up your set top box for cable cards, they immediately have a script that they read that tells you about all the things your are going to miss. Specifically they talk about their guide as well as VOD/PPV.

The CC 2.0 specification is supposed to fix this. If this, as a solution provides true competition at the box level, then I will buy the Tivo Series 4 when it comes out to support CC 2.0. However, my (limited) reading of the CC 2.0 specification looks like another play by the cable companies to keep control of the box in their hands versus allowing for true competition. Much of the innovation that occurs today in consumer electronics is at the software/firmware level. Creating a platform that limits the ability for the box maker to innovate in this way by pushing the software back to the cable companies turns the box business into a manufacturing war and does not lead to market driven innovation. If the CC 2.0 specification means that TiVo supplies hardware, but the software/guide/DVR interaction all still comes from the cable company, that is a mistake.

Plain and simple, I want a standard where any consumer electronics company can decide to get into the business of building a piece of equipment based on the market and not have the market controlled by the service/programming providers.

Just my $0.02 worth
sjcbulldog


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> I doubt that in a major way- Laws today are more a reflection of what lobbyists for special interests want.


I don't buy into the argument that the vast majority of us are just sheep. I think we know who we're electing to office, who's going to be making and enforcing our laws, and though we may grumble when they do what we put them there to do, we have to acknowledge that we did it. Take responsibility for our actions, and even our inactions, as citizens, rather than hiding behind craven excuses like, "The lobbyists made me do it."



> not sure what that has to do with it-


Simple: So many people try to hang their hats on the rules that brought about CableCard, yet seem not to understand that the lack of enforcement of what they think those rules require is as much as statement of what our society wants (perhaps "today") as the original statement of rules were (perhaps "back then").



> But i'd say the reason pro-business works is that the vast majority of people work for or own a business.


And/or have their retirements savings invested in businesses.



> So they want their business to do well. No rocket science. But still the government at times steps in and creates laws to reign in business.


Or create laws that don't reign in business, as in this case. Without enforcement, the law is a suggestion, nothing more. And who gets to determine whether a law gets enforced? Well, it isn't one-sided. There are checks and balances. And when a law isn't enforced the way one side wants it to be, despite those checks and balances, then perhaps those folks' perspective on that law isn't an accurate account of how society views the importance of what they think should be happening.



> I can accept that you feel that way. I'm not sure a majority of the country believes that 100% of the time.


Regardless of what I believe, voters are not moving towards a consumer-focused legislature.


----------



## poppagene (Dec 29, 2001)

dt_dc said:


> CEA mentions TCF in FCC filing


What does the Council of Economic Advisors have to do with Twin Cities Federal and the FCC?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> I don't buy into the argument that the vast majority of us are just sheep. I think we know who we're electing to office, who's going to be making and enforcing our laws, and though we may grumble when they do what we put them there to do, we have to acknowledge that we did it. Take responsibility for our actions, and even our inactions, as citizens, rather than hiding behind craven excuses like, "The lobbyists made me do it."
> ....


you have better faith in the system and the voters than I do. How can everyone hate incumbants and then vote them all back in? There is a disconnect.

But that aside and not to drag this thread off topic-

I've asked a few times and besides going into your views on governement you still haven't said what would be so bad and anti-business about having a real system where I can buy any one of hundreds of boxes and plug it in to a coax and have it work?

Did it harm the phone company?

Obviously not always, but frequently innovation and new paradigms make businesses stronger. The movie studios wanted to keep their system closed but lost the betamax case. They were forced to allow those new devices and what happened? Their business boomed creating a second market for their product which in some cases dwarfs the take at the box office.

I would argue that an open system with vigorous competition might create some losers that cant handle the new competition but as a whole it grows those industries so the people that adapt well are much better off for it. I'd think that many economists would agree with that- no?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> you have better faith in the system and the voters than I do.


It's not faith -- it's trust.



> How can everyone hate incumbants and then vote them all back in? There is a disconnect.


When you see a scenario like that, people don't actually "hate incumbants" (or whatever), but rather are simply complaining. People don't necessarily have to believe what they say (i.e., complaining for the sake of expressing frustration, rather than expressing sufficient dissatisfaction to make a different choice), or what they're saying is not necessarily related to what you're interpreting it to mean (i.e., that because they "hate" something means that they don't support it as the best available option). That's the disconnect.



> I've asked a few times and besides going into your views on governement you still haven't said what would be so bad and anti-business about having a real system where I can buy any one of hundreds of boxes and plug it in to a coax and have it work?


Have you finally stopped beating your wife?

(I'm not going to answer your loaded questions. Ask the question without the baggage or move on.)



> I would argue that an open system with vigorous competition might create some losers that cant handle the new competition but as a whole it grows those industries so the people that adapt well are much better off for it. I'd think that many economists would agree with that- no?


Absolutely, but what's good for new entrants into an industry may be bad for those who have already made substantial investments, and unfair business regulation is, well, unfair. Who determines what is fair and unfair? See my earlier messages.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Stormspace said:


> I'm not making that statement up. I did read somewhere that HDTV adoption was slow due in part to the additional cost of adding in CC support so HD manufacturers were offering non CC and tunerless sets to get the price down. It was either Cnet or Wired, I'll have to dig to find it.


Please show where you read that HD adoption is even remotely related to CC availability. To be very frank, that would be the first and only time that it's ever appeared. It has been the conclusion of countless publications, market trend analysis and analysts that HD adoption was slow because of:

1) Price.
2) Lack of relevant content across broad markets.
3) Consumer confusion about what "HD" really means, and therefore a lack of perceived value (ie, people not satisfied because their analog content doesn't look "great" on that $5000 plasma.

http://www.clickz.com/showPage.html?page=3386931

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5366749.html

http://www.jupiterresearch.com/bin/item.pl/research:vision/1211/id=96705/

The list could go on and on and on.....


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Stormspace said:


> If you look I think you'll see that most CC sets introduced in the past few years were HD sets. If there were SD sets with CC the 200-300 price difference over the 99.00 set would have killed them.


Uh, that's too basic to even consider! Of COURSE! CC is DIGITAL. Were you expecting manufacturers to add that functionality to units where margins are narrower? When NOBODY was asking for it? Seems like the dumbest business plan in the world to me!


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

winpitt said:


> Please show where you read that HD adoption is even remotely related to CC availability. To be very frank, that would be the first and only time that it's ever appeared. It has been the conclusion of countless publications, market trend analysis and analysts that HD adoption was slow because of:
> 
> 1) Price.
> 2) Lack of relevant content across broad markets.
> ...


Well, if the article I read holds any water the 200-300 difference in CCHD and non CCHD would be a factor in #1 above.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

jfh3 said:


> And just who do you think provides the funding for CableLabs? That's right, the "members".
> 
> Perhaps the MSO's don't technically own CableLabs, but in reality they do.


Nope. There is a BIG distinction.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> exactly.
> 
> IN 1970 you coud get one of 2 phones from the local bell system telco. A black one or a white one. Both cost you a monthly rental fee.
> 
> ...


Actually, you are comparing something that is not relevant. Those devices are analog and not digital. They are based on an overly mature technology having decades of experience.

Then in the same paragraph you bring up VoIP, FiOS, etc - which are completely different technologies. However, those voice services rely on guess what? A VERY accepted, proven and experienced standard called TCP/IP. NOT a new, relatively immature and inexperienced product with different implementations.

If you truly want to compare, then you would have to have forced Ma Bell to go to a completely digital system and then adopt for example Lucent Definity switching infrastructure (as it was being developed) and at the same time allow for anyone to install a Definity switch and still have to support it.

We cannot make such high level generalizations to compare this issue to.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

nrc said:


> Heh. "I reject your reality and substitue my own." Cable Labs was founded by cable operators. Its members are cable operators. It is completely controlled by cable operators. The cable operators run it and they're responsible for the certification process. They have only themselves to blame if they certify devices that that cause support problems.
> 
> The extra cost of CC would be negligible if the cable companies weren't set against it. Aside from the physical hardware to plug it in (which amounts to very little on a mass production piece) there is nothing there that isn't needed by a cable box anyway.


Uh, can you please describe "negligible" costs? Can you explain how the cost of supporting two simultaneous platforms is "negligable"? Do you know their margins? And you somehow know that the cost on a hardware level is "very little"? Do you understand product development lifecycles?

No.

The truth is that we want this stuff, but many of us are unwilling to accept that there is non-reimbursed cost associated to this for the Cableco's. And that furthremore, the consumer would rather have lower costs or better/more content instead - or actually maybe just more HD content as an example.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

BobCamp1 said:


> There isn't a single product that passes a certification process that also has at least one problem. Just ask Microsoft.
> 
> Testing minimizes risk somewhat. Limiting the products allowed with your service minimize risk more. It allows you to focus your testing and customer support on just those products.
> 
> ...


Absofrigginlutely. That is completely my point. We all like TiVo. We "believe" there is a technical advantage to the open cablecard standard. There is no advantage for the MSOs in doing this. Consumers could give a rats behind about it.

Trying to impose our will on the cablecos in this situation has a name. It's called communism. It is CERTAINLY not called capitalism.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Stormspace said:


> Well, if the article I read holds any water the 200-300 difference in CCHD and non CCHD would be a factor in #1 above.


Again - show me ANY report that even remotely suggests that the lack of CC was a factor in HDTV adoption. Just one. Please.

And, BTW - my toshiba DLP had CC slot, OTA tuner, and media readers. The total price for all 3 of those items above the exact same model without those 3 was $200 - 2 years ago. That's $200 for CC, Compactflash, SD, OTA Tuner.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

winpitt said:


> Again - show me ANY report that even remotely suggests that the lack of CC was a factor in HDTV adoption. Just one. Please.


I'm still looking. 

However in my search I did find one that while it doesn't mention CC specifically it does mention sets with a tuner and it's an old article.

http://www.wired.com/news/holidays/0,1882,48765,00.html



> Edwards said that only about 10 percent of the people who buy a high-definition monitor without a tuning device also plunk down the $500 or so for a tuner to get broadcasts in HD format. Many put off buying them because they're concerned that the tuners will be outdated if the United States adopts a new standard for digital broadcasts or are waiting for broadcasters to offer more programs in high definition, he said.


I'm still looking for that other article, however since I read it back in January/February I may have some trouble finding it.

I'm done looking. The article specifically mentioned that CE manufacturers were removing CC support from HD sets to make them more competitive since there wasn't a demand for them anyway. Also, given the fact that I cannot find the article it was either a)A minority opinion b)An obscure source or c)An article written in plain english that is alluding my search. I'll keep my eyes open for it but I've spent all the time I'm going to for you. 

Another Article mentioning CC and it's affect on price.



> 3. CableCard-equipped sets are more expensive--for now.
> Do a little comparative shopping, and you can see that CableCard adds to your bill at the checkout counter. Take the Pioneer PDP-4340HD vs. the 4345HD, two identical plasmas except for the CableCard feature. The 4345HD costs almost $1,000 more. But as CableCards become standard DTV equipment (in 2005), the price differential may begin to shrink. Samsung's new DLP line, for instance, will transition from its current non-CableCard configuration (such as the 50-inch HLP5063W) to a CableCard-enabled version, the HLP5067W, without a likely price spike. And all Sony Grand WEGA LCD rear-projection TVs now come with CableCard. But don't think that you must use it just because you have it.


The inference here is that once CC become more mainstream prices will drop.

The balance of the Article goes on to expand on the issues with CC that can be directly related to the foot dragging of the cable companies.



> That should change with time, but for now you may actually know more about your problem than the customer support staff.


http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-8900_7-5581176-1.html

OK, found it.



> Although this is another spec-related issue, bear with us for a second. Many current HDTVs have a feature called DCR or Digital Cable Ready, which allows them to display digital cable and HDTV cable signals without having to plug into a cable box. You just plug the cable from the wall into the back of the TV and slide in the authorization card (a.k.a. CableCard)--suddenly you're watching standard- or high-def digital cable. Unfortunately, the current system has its share of problems. *CableCards can be scarce*, and getting one installed can be even more of a hassle than a run-of-the-mill cable install. Once it's in, the CableCard still doesn't let you utilize the cable company's EPG, nor does it let you order pay-per-view
> 
> These issues with CableCard are two reasons why we'll be hearing at least something about two-way CableCards, which will require new iDCR-compliant televisions, at CES 2006. iDCR, or Interactive Digital Cable Ready, will allow the TV to communicate upstream with the cable provider, enabling EPGs, PPV, and other less desirable features, such as the ability for the cable provider or the content owner to restrict delivery of HD content over copy-protected digital outputs and even shut off or downconvert the outputs of unprotected analog outputs. While cable companies and TV manufacturers work out the kinks,* the next generation of HDTVs will probably be built without iDCR compatibility*. Given the slow pace of the talks and the high stakes involved, we don't expect to see any iDCR HDTVs hit the market in 2006, although Samsung will probably have an iDCR HDTV on display at its booth anyway.


http://www.cnet.com/4520-11405_1-6398232-1.html


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Stormspace said:


> I'm still looking.
> 
> However in my search I did find one that while it doesn't mention CC specifically it does mention sets with a tuner and it's an old article.
> 
> ...


Appreciate you looking for it. I thought I might be going even more crazy. So what I read from it is that CC support is being dropped from the sets because there is really no demand while there is additional cost. It talks about confusion over the DTV mandate which clouds users perceptions. It talks about content. It talks about some of the technical background of 1 and 2 way CC.

It doesn't anywhere allude to the lack of CC being responsible for slow HDTV growth. As a matter of fact, it indicates that fewer HDTVs are sold equipped with CC slots - yet in fact HDTV adoption is increasing. Again, seems like there is a much stronger correlation between HDTV growth and content/price - not CC.

Again, I can count on one hand the number of regular people I've talked to that even knew what CCs were. There just really isn't consumer demand except for us.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

winpitt said:


> They are based on an overly mature technology having decades of experience.


You've really hit the nail on the head.



> If you truly want to compare, then you would have to have forced Ma Bell to go to a completely digital system and then adopt for example Lucent Definity switching infrastructure (as it was being developed) and at the same time allow for anyone to install a Definity switch and still have to support it.


Excellent point.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> ...
> 
> Have you finally stopped beating your wife?
> 
> ...


your a prick


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> ...
> 
> Absolutely, but what's good for new entrants into an industry may be bad for those who have already made substantial investments, and unfair business regulation is, well, unfair. Who determines what is fair and unfair? See my earlier messages.


BTW- this is a PERFECTLY valid point. And a fine answer to the question that you felt was worthy of insulting my relationship with my wife about.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> Actually, you are comparing something that is not relevant. Those devices are analog and not digital. They are based on an overly mature technology having decades of experience.
> 
> Then in the same paragraph you bring up VoIP, FiOS, etc - which are completely different technologies. However, those voice services rely on guess what? A VERY accepted, proven and experienced standard called TCP/IP. NOT a new, relatively immature and inexperienced product with different implementations.
> 
> ...


man you are grasping.

what the hell are you talking about.

You used to have to rent a phone from the phone company. THe FCC said people could hook up whatever they bought to the phone line, and now we have thousands of choices.

What the hell does analog, digital, or TCP/IP have anything to do with that? IN 1977 after the new rules came into place you couldn't buy a digital anything at reatil likely. First off you probably got to buy the same old phone but in 8 colors instead of the 2 rental choices.

My point to include VOIP et all in the post above was to show the the analog standard with the rj11/14 jack set in tjhe 1970's has allowed CABLE and others to walk in and hook people right to their competing phone system even though the network is vastly different. The consumer knows NOTHING about anything except there's a little square jack on their voip box and they plug their phone into it- just like hte little square jack the phone compnay can proivide. That's exactly how tv COULD be- buy a box/tv/dvr/whatever and all you know is it connects to a coax- you dont need to know who owns the coax to buy a compatiaable box or if the provider is even a cable company or a telco that connected your coax to their fiber or dsl in a box outside. To the consumer it would just work.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> Uh, can you please describe "negligible" costs? Can you explain how the cost of supporting two simultaneous platforms is "negligable"? Do you know their margins? And you somehow know that the cost on a hardware level is "very little"? Do you understand product development lifecycles?
> 
> No.
> 
> The truth is that we want this stuff, but many of us are unwilling to accept that there is non-reimbursed cost associated to this for the Cableco's. And that furthremore, the consumer would rather have lower costs or better/more content instead - or actually maybe just more HD content as an example.


you are 100% right that NOW there is a problem with supporting 2 differnt systems.

But that's CABLE's fault.

the law was passed in 1996. I doubt there was a single test system with digital cable at that point in time. Cable decided to make their new digital system in a manner that wasn't compatible with the law. THey could have came up with a system earlier that they could have used and thrid party people could have used.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> your a prick


I should be reading and not skimming.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> your a prick


Nice spelling you've got there.



> And a fine answer to the question that you felt was worthy of insulting my relationship with my wife about.


That line is a very common demonstrative of the protypical loaded question. I'm sorry you didn't understand the reference.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

bicker said:


> Nice spelling you've got there.
> 
> That line is a very common demonstrative of the protypical loaded question. I'm sorry you didn't understand the reference.


In Bickers defense, he is correct. It's a commonly used example of how a question can be worded so that there is no correct answer. I got it and didn't think anything about your relationships.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

winpitt said:


> Appreciate you looking for it. I thought I might be going even more crazy. So what I read from it is that CC support is being dropped from the sets because there is really no demand while there is additional cost. It talks about confusion over the DTV mandate which clouds users perceptions. It talks about content. It talks about some of the technical background of 1 and 2 way CC.
> 
> It doesn't anywhere allude to the lack of CC being responsible for slow HDTV growth. As a matter of fact, it indicates that fewer HDTVs are sold equipped with CC slots - yet in fact HDTV adoption is increasing. Again, seems like there is a much stronger correlation between HDTV growth and content/price - not CC.
> 
> Again, I can count on one hand the number of regular people I've talked to that even knew what CCs were. There just really isn't consumer demand except for us.


My contention was that HDTV adoption was slowed by the additional cost of CC.

"...HDTV adoption was slow due in part to the additional cost of adding in CC support so HD manufacturers were offering non CC and tunerless sets to get the price down."

If cable companies had not dragged their feet CC would be more widely in use and the costs associated with it lower. Instead they are fighting tooth and nail to keep their systems proprietary, going so far as to intentionally make their networks incompatible with mandated standards.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

How about tossing the entire CC idea and implementing a compressed version of the secure HDMI interface?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

HDTiVo said:


> How about tossing the entire CC idea and implementing a compressed version of the secure HDMI interface?


CCable )cablelabs or the NCTA or whoever) could have done that. They had years and years to make a plan. THe law was passed in 1996- I think they finally came out with the POD agreement with the CEA in what- 2003? They choose this Plan. Not the CEA (their nemesis), not the IEEE (a neutral third party) , not the FCC (the government). This is all cables decision coming back to bite them.

They seem to be now trying to come up with a better plan B in OCAP. And if its a nice open spec that allows others to hook into guide data and the like- that might be the perfect end result.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> CCable )cablelabs or the NCTA or whoever) could have done that. They had years and years to make a plan. THe law was passed in 1996- I think they finally came out with the POD agreement with the CEA in what- 2003? They choose this Plan. Not the CEA (their nemesis), not the IEEE (a neutral third party) , not the FCC (the government). This is all cables decision coming back to bite them.
> 
> They seem to be now trying to come up with a better plan B in OCAP. And if its a nice open spec that allows others to hook into guide data and the like- that might be the perfect end result.


To me the cable companies at this point have lost all credibility concerning a desire to integrate. I'd much prefer that they be stuck with one change instead of trying to move on to another standard which may or may not solve issues or be compatible.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Our local paper just had an article on HDTV in general.

The following data is for my local TWC:
# of cable subscribers -- approx. 345,000
# of HD boxes being rented -- 31,112 (9%, assuming one box per household)
# of CableCards being rented -- 600 (0.17%, assuming one card per household)

CableCards are almost non-existent. It is a Catch-22 situation, but so what? There have been plenty of similar situations where the technology did succeed. For each of these technologies, there was a sufficient demand from the consumers to break the cycle. But as long as TWC's set top boxes are inexpensive to obtain (they are free) and inexpensive to rent (they are) there will simply be no substantial demand for Cablecards. Without this demand, the Congress and FCC don't have the real power needed to force the issue.

And what's with the name calling? I reported those posts to the forum moderator.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

BobCamp1 said:


> And what's with the name calling? I reported those posts to the forum moderator.


I sent a post defending both people involved. It was a misunderstanding. There's no reason to chastise someone for reacting to a perceived defamatory remark.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> CCable )cablelabs or the NCTA or whoever) could have done that. They had years and years to make a plan. THe law was passed in 1996- I think they finally came out with the POD agreement with the CEA in what- 2003? They choose this Plan. Not the CEA (their nemesis), not the IEEE (a neutral third party) , not the FCC (the government). This is all cables decision coming back to bite them.


Umm ...

It was the FCC that guided the POD -> CableCard approach back in 1997 from their very first initiations of the Plug and Play preceedings (although you actually have to go back further as this was building on NCTA / CEMA discussions going back to 1992 / 1993). They saw the POD approach as a way to balance the Congressional mandate of CPE at retail without compromising security:


> http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=1783770001
> 
> FCC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
> February 20, 1997
> ...


An approach that they would formalize into federal regulation (for cable companies) in 1998.

CEMA (before they changed names to CEA) blessed and encouraged the approach:


> http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=1839670001
> 
> Comments of the Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association
> May 19, 1997
> ...


The NCTA agreed to follow the approach, although not without noting possible pitfalls:


> http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=1834890002
> 
> Comments of the National Cable Television Association
> May 16, 1997
> ...


The NCTA actually suggested something that might (in retrospect) have been a rather sensible approach ... which would have been to implement a timetable / performance / results based regulatory approach that would have been implementation-neutral instead of relying solely on this specific idea of seperating security and navigation:


> http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=1856440001
> 
> Comments of the National Cable Television Association
> June 23, 1997
> ...


Crying wolf is fun and all ... but not always accurate.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> That's exactly how tv COULD be- buy a box/tv/dvr/whatever and all you know is it connects to a coax- you dont need to know who owns the coax to buy a compatiaable box or if the provider is even a cable company or a telco that connected your coax to their fiber or dsl in a box outside. To the consumer it would just work.


 +1,000
this is what I want. I want any third party to be able to hook up to a standard connection in my house and be able to process and use the content being provided by the broadcaster. I am fine that the broadcaster gets to protect itself from people trying to steal the signal. I am fine that is should be in accordance with copyright as owned by the content owner. I am fine that the broadcaster has a way to sell their own specialized packaging of content. Ask any consumer that and they will know what that is about and like the free market of capitalism that that provides.

I could give a rats behind if it is cable card or cuneifrom read backswards that allows this. I do care that I get to choose which DVR I will use and not be forced to have just one vendor choice. I would like to be able to have this same scenario work for choosing between broadcasters and delivery methods of cable or sattellite so I can choose based on the core competency of what content the broadcaster is providing at what price.

seems like a simple end result to me as well. Everything else is just noise put out by the players in the game who have a lot of the marbles already and do not want to share them out.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

dt_dc said:


> although you actually have to go back further as this was building on NCTA / CEMA discussions going back to 1992 / 1993


Oh, and despite my snide comments above re: Rep Bliley and Circuit City ...

You can also trace the "navigation devices" section of the 1996 Act back to the 1992 Cable Policy Act which laid the foundation for alot of cable equipment rules, including analog "cable ready" devices and got NCTA / CEAM talking about digital cable ready devices ... and a realization by most parties involved that some sort of regulation would likely eventually be needed, although some uncertainty about exactly what or how that regulation would be needed ... hence the rather broad language in the 1996 Act.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> man you are grasping.
> 
> what the hell are you talking about.
> 
> ...


No, I'm not grasping at all. You are oversimplifying in order to try and justify an undefendable position. NOBODY gets VoIP through the product delivered by the Bell spin-offs (digital). They can move their PHONE NUMBER to a VoIP system, which is based on another well defined, globally accepted, mature technology. Your argument was that some sort of standardization allowed all kinds of phones to plug in. Guess what? All kind of TVs can plug into RG6. What happens BETWEEN the RG6/Component connection and your TV and the provider is what is important.

In other words, our TVs are analogous to a phone set. So, that's already standard. They work out of the box with analog service - not digital. Just like phones.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> +1,000
> this is what I want. I want any third party to be able to hook up to a standard connection in my house and be able to process and use the content being provided by the broadcaster. I am fine that the broadcaster gets to protect itself from people trying to steal the signal. I am fine that is should be in accordance with copyright as owned by the content owner. I am fine that the broadcaster has a way to sell their own specialized packaging of content. Ask any consumer that and they will know what that is about and like the free market of capitalism that that provides.
> 
> I could give a rats behind if it is cable card or cuneifrom read backswards that allows this. I do care that I get to choose which DVR I will use and not be forced to have just one vendor choice. I would like to be able to have this same scenario work for choosing between broadcasters and delivery methods of cable or sattellite so I can choose based on the core competency of what content the broadcaster is providing at what price.
> ...


Absolutely incorrect. It's not simple. If it were you could design and market the solution - or I could.

Oversimplification is a sign of a lack of understanding.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

dt_dc said:


> Umm ...
> 
> It was the FCC that guided the POD -> CableCard approach back in 1997 from their very first initiations of the Plug and Play preceedings (although you actually have to go back further as this was building on NCTA / CEMA discussions going back to 1992 / 1993). They saw the POD approach as a way to balance the Congressional mandate of CPE at retail without compromising security:An approach that they would formalize into federal regulation (for cable companies) in 1998.
> 
> CEMA (before they changed names to CEA) blessed and encouraged the approach:The NCTA agreed to follow the approach, although not without noting possible pitfalls:The NCTA actually suggested something that might (in retrospect) have been a rather sensible approach ... which would have been to implement a timetable / performance / results based regulatory approach that would have been implementation-neutral instead of relying solely on this specific idea of seperating security and navigation:Crying wolf is fun and all ... but not always accurate.


thank you for providing facts- it is hard to find them as a lay person.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> No, I'm not grasping at all. You are oversimplifying in order to try and justify an undefendable position. NOBODY gets VoIP through the product delivered by the Bell spin-offs (digital). They can move their PHONE NUMBER to a VoIP system, which is based on another well defined, globally accepted, mature technology. Your argument was that some sort of standardization allowed all kinds of phones to plug in. Guess what? All kind of TVs can plug into RG6. What happens BETWEEN the RG6/Component connection and your TV and the provider is what is important.
> 
> In other words, our TVs are analogous to a phone set. So, that's already standard. They work out of the box with analog service - not digital. Just like phones.


I really am not following your point about voip being digital vs POTS being analog. My point is the underlying technology doesn't matter to teh end user you plug you r phone in and it works no matter what the provider's technology.

But assuming that you are saying digital is some how differnt than analog, why cant their be a digital standard then for TV's so they are analogous to a phone set?

I'm not disagreeing that the current plan is a goofy mess. My point is there is no reason that the parties involved couldn't get together and come to an agreement that would make digital tv's equal to phone sets. Cable had and has much of the power- if as an industry they came up with some other more viable equipment plan then they probably could have gotten it done (in my humble opinion). Although dt_dc points out that they asked for a different route all together. And even if the current plan is STUPID- it's been in place for years and years with roots back maybe more then a decade- this wasn't spring on cable last week- they have had time to prepare so it would be painless but they didn't.

They are supposed to break even on equipment rental by law (or regulation). They have the headend systems in place to deal with cablecards. So why not already use cablecard boxes themselves- why this waiting till the last minute? WHat would the box cost go up for moto to include the slot plus a card when comcast buys them in hundred thoussand quantities? Would it be another $60 a box in a buig quanitiy like that? So they add 2 bucks a month to their rental on their DVR's to get it back. They would still maintain a healthy lead over third parties like tivo and ahead of the DBS competitors with their large upfront payments. It doesn't sound all that painfull to me.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> Absolutely incorrect. It's not simple. If it were you could design and market the solution - or I could.
> 
> Oversimplification is a sign of a lack of understanding.


winnpitt- I think you are arguing about the current implementation and many of us have moved on to be talking about the concept.

I dont work for cablelabs or the cbale companies or moto or SCIATL so of course I cant design the darn thing. But intelligent people working on the issue for 10-15 years should could have made such a thing. It's politics that have kept it from being.

Look- I've been guilty of it too- but there's no reason to be insulting. I apologize for my off handed comments earlier. SOmeone wise pointed out to me that threads that deviolve into political disagreements get heated just becasue...

I apparently some how inflamed bicker by asking what is wrong with the concept of a blug in tv that works. I'll give you guys that there are issues with the current plan. But beyond that I dont think that fundementally the concept of a tv that plugs in and works with any provider is a bad thing. I pointed out above how it could probably help the industry grow. If cable came up with it on their own they could get a huge competitive advantage to DBS.

I cant speak for the others but at this point in the conversation after having beat it to death for days- I'm basically throwing my hands up and saying the parties involved are all jerks and should have just made it work so i can plug a digital tv in and get digital cable and they didn't so I'm pissed.

How's that?


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> I really am not following your point about voip being digital vs POTS being analog. My point is the underlying technology doesn't matter to teh end user you plug you r phone in and it works no matter what the provider's technology.
> 
> But assuming that you are saying digital is some how differnt than analog, why cant their be a digital standard then for TV's so they are analogous to a phone set?
> 
> ...


Hey, first off - no insult intended. Seriously. My comment to you about oversimplification may have been stronger than intended.

A few things. I think we're starting to sort of agree about this, but....

1) The point that I'm trying to make about analog vs digital is this. Today - right this minute - you cannot hook up one of those phones you're talking about (the standardization of the plug, etc) to anything other than native POTS service. There is NO standardization of digital service today. You mentioned VoIP, etc. All of those require proprietary hardware from different sources to manipulate signals on a completely different system. Your comparison is really about TCP/IP, and the OSI model in general. However, even that standard is WAY older with an entirely different process of being developed - and huge adoption. AND - nobody was "forced" to implement it. The end user does NOT plug a vonage box into a POTS line. Only to a Broadband line. Using that already widely accepted, tested, and mature IP standard. One that existed WAY before any of those products were delivered. You want this new technology, with an exponentially smaller usage, to support a product in a niche market. I want it too, but understand that it's way more complex and a very different cost and value proposition.

2) Cable TV is not "supposed" to break even by law (with respect to infrastructure upgrades and R&D). They are "allowed" to do so. Being "allowed" to do it does not mean that they can practically do it. In reality the FCC will not allow for large step function price increases. Further, they are actually prevented by law from acting as a complete group to address prices of such improvements. It violates Anti-Trust laws. Therefore, each MSO would have to invest large sums on their own, hoping that everyone would release at the same time. Then, that the public would not then decide that DBS is just a better and less expensive deal. I can promise you that at the very least, the ROI would change.

3) DBS in most cases now has no large upfront costs. That has changed. I can speak personally to this point. It's changed in the last 18 months drastically, primarily because cable providers started leasing DVRs at very low cost which really impacted subs for DBS providers.

4) You're way oversimplifying the cost of moving to different STBs. First of all, there is R&D cost from SA and Moto. Then there's the cost of change - including the logistics. The far larger issue is the inventory and support cost of managing two systems simultaneously for an extended period - and it most certainly would be extended. That's now twice the number of SW versions out there, testing, etc. That would heavily increase COGS. It most certainly seems painful to me.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

winpitt said:


> Absolutely incorrect. It's not simple. If it were you could design and market the solution - or I could.
> 
> Oversimplification is a sign of a lack of understanding.


I said the end goal that benefitted consumers while allowing fair competition could be simply stated. Obviously getting there is not simple in a digital world, but if the players stopped hiding their marbles and figured out how to play together then the realiziation of what congress mandated to the FCC those many years ago could come about.

Take your argument about cost. What if the cable companies had competition out there and consumers could go out and buy their own box. then the cable companies could price their STBs and DVRs more along the lines of actual cost and stop having to keep those 500$ DVRs in staock that they only add 5$ onto the bill for. Maybe Digital would go down since they would not be subsidizing DVRs over everyone's digital bill.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

winpitt said:


> 1) The point that I'm trying to make about analog vs digital is this. Today - right this minute - you cannot hook up one of those phones you're talking about (the standardization of the plug, etc) to anything other than native POTS service. There is NO standardization of digital service today. You mentioned VoIP, etc.


Not to disagree or anything, but most VOIP systems allow for use of regular analog phones with an adapter at the broadband end of the system. So, those handsets that we've had for all these years just keep working. There are other services that do require specialized handsets like Skype and Vonage, but the trend lately has been to leverage the analog sets in the home and make the system seemless to the user.

Cable should be the same, but whether or not some other technology other than Cablecard might be best is pointless. Cablecard is what we have, is being supported by the CEA manufacturers, and is mandated by law. Cable companies should just suck it up and comply. This foot dragging and trying to change the systems every few years to maintain their proprietary networks is tiring and a burden to the US consumer.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Stormspace said:


> Not to disagree or anything, but most VOIP systems allow for use of regular analog phones with an adapter at the broadband end of the system. So, those handsets that we've had for all these years just keep working. There are other services that do require specialized handsets like Skype and Vonage, but the trend lately has been to leverage the analog sets in the home and make the system seemless to the user.
> 
> Cable should be the same, but whether or not some other technology other than Cablecard might be best is pointless. Cablecard is what we have, is being supported by the CEA manufacturers, and is mandated by law. Cable companies should just suck it up and comply. This foot dragging and trying to change the systems every few years to maintain their proprietary networks is tiring and a burden to the US consumer.


Again, have to disagree and this is a sticky point to me.

The issue is NOT the end "plug in" of the analog phone. The relevant issue is that something proprietary needs to be in-between. And that it is completely reliant on an OSI model and TCP/IP that was around for YEARS of reliable, mature, broad service before any of this.

As for cable and cc, it is fundamentally different. It was a poor decision and strategy, and the law has yet to be enforced. Further, we are pretty much the only ones who care about it. Finally, you indicate that MSOs deliberately change their systems every few years to maintain proprietary networks. I disagree. That is not their purpose whatsoever. Their purpose is to deliver content and services at the lowest possible price. And, it's really not a burden to US consumers. It's a burden to us - a very very small fraction of US consumers.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> I said the end goal that benefitted consumers while allowing fair competition could be simply stated. Obviously getting there is not simple in a digital world, but if the players stopped hiding their marbles and figured out how to play together then the realiziation of what congress mandated to the FCC those many years ago could come about.
> 
> Take your argument about cost. What if the cable companies had competition out there and consumers could go out and buy their own box. then the cable companies could price their STBs and DVRs more along the lines of actual cost and stop having to keep those 500$ DVRs in staock that they only add 5$ onto the bill for. Maybe Digital would go down since they would not be subsidizing DVRs over everyone's digital bill.


I don't get that argument at all. First, while it is the law it's not enforced - and may never be. The ban frankly is a poor strategy, though it does benefit us in theory.

Second, the cableco's already have competition. How can you say that by (for example) having STBs and DVRs that are essentially PnP but at an additional cost, Cable would then "increase" the cost of their own device? Why would they do that? That condition exists already and has for years. Pre-S3s for example needed no cc. Yet cable saw a huge market in getting DVRs out there at no purchase price, taking market away from TiVo. Why would they change that strategy? Frankly, they would be MORE likely to continue that same strategy.

Everybody keeps talking about the advantage of enforcing the ban, etc. But, the only real use for the CC is for something like the S3 in all practicality, or for MPCs. I sure don't see a lucrative market for non-DVR STBs. And unless somebody besides cable is willing to give them away, they won't compete on a large scale.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

winpitt said:


> I don't get that argument at all. First, while it is the law it's not enforced - and may never be. The ban frankly is a poor strategy, though it does benefit us in theory.
> 
> Second, the cableco's already have competition. How can you say that by (for example) having STBs and DVRs that are essentially PnP but at an additional cost, Cable would then "increase" the cost of their own device? Why would they do that? That condition exists already and has for years. Pre-S3s for example needed no cc. Yet cable saw a huge market in getting DVRs out there at no purchase price, taking market away from TiVo. Why would they change that strategy? Frankly, they would be MORE likely to continue that same strategy.


 they continue that strategy to make sure they can as easily as possible get customers to buy PPV adn VOD or else provide the free VOD to compete on features. I doubt the 300$ DVR boxes at 5$ a month is making them any money and they instead subsidize it through overall digital cable prices.


> Everybody keeps talking about the advantage of enforcing the ban, etc. But, the only real use for the CC is for something like the S3 in all practicality, or for MPCs. I sure don't see a lucrative market for non-DVR STBs. And unless somebody besides cable is willing to give them away, they won't compete on a large scale.


 to me the ban is about the fact that the only way universal access will work and be fair to all parties is if all parties have to use it. I think it would be great if I could hook up a TiVo - get HD, not worry about switched digital and be able to see what PPV or VOD my cable company provides adn buy it if I want. I think the cable company would think it great that I put my own upfront money down for the hardware and that hardware motivated me to upgrade to digital and HD packages.

The cable companies could then stop providing/leasing the boxes and let them be bought at best buy instead or use then as enticements for new customers - much like DirectTV did.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Sorry to digress- but can someone explain to me why more complex cablecards are needed and there isn't a simplier system of cheaper smart cards? many cable boxes already have the slots and some even use them- directv and DISH seem to have stopped the mass pirating with that system and new versions can be rolled out over time to fix issues.

Is it that the smart card slots in moto and SA devices work differnetly so the issue is that the duopoly providers dont have compatiable systems so we need to go a new route with the whole cablecard mess?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> ...
> 
> Everybody keeps talking about the advantage of enforcing the ban, etc. But, the only real use for the CC is for something like the S3 in all practicality, or for MPCs. I sure don't see a lucrative market for non-DVR STBs. And unless somebody besides cable is willing to give them away, they won't compete on a large scale.


are you forgetting TV's?

Most people dont want any STB- they just want to plug their TV in and have it work with the TV's remote.

I would agree 1,000% non DVR STB's with cablecard at retail is silly. But if all tv's have a CC slot then plain STB's die a quick death (benifitting consumers and the cablecompanies both)

The point of the ban, by my understanding (I'm sure dt-dc will pop in to correct me -LOL) - is to force the cable compnaies to support cablecards as well as they do their own boxes while at the same time driving down the cost of the cablecard components (cards, readers, etc) so that the compnoents can be cheap enough that devices such as TV's can add cablecard support without adding 100-300 dollars like they do now.

I think allowing the cable companies to continue to use their old stuff while compelling them to buy new advanced boxes (in my head HD and DVR's) only with cablecard would achieve those ends without killing the industry. THey could add one or two dollars to the costs of HD and DVR's in their systems (cc or not) to cover the cost. They would still be very competitive with DBS and only their more afflent subs with money to spend would pay the extra buck or 2 per advanced box.

I can see how the FCC comes to the comcusion that doing so would at least get everyone to a point where 1-way cablecards are in much more wide spread use, easily supported almost everywhere, and hopefully drive down CC component costs to benefit all.

I dont know how you get from there to 2-way or OCAP but it's a start (and seems the FCC feels the same way) And once you drive down the manufacturing costs and support costs then more advanced things like 2-way on that foundation become more realistic.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> In Bickers defense, he is correct. It's a commonly used example of how a question can be worded so that there is no correct answer. I got it and didn't think anything about your relationships.


In furtherance of my own defense, there is even a Latin word for it: "plurium interrogationum". It is a type of logical fallacy. That was my point -- MichaelK's question was an example of plurium interrogationum.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> I cant speak for the others but at this point in the conversation after having beat it to death for days- I'm basically throwing my hands up and saying the parties involved are all jerks and should have just made it work so i can plug a digital tv in and get digital cable and they didn't so I'm pissed. How's that?


I think this is a critical point: So often people see something, don't like it, and conclude that its "wrong". That's the problem. Sometimes things just are -- and in this case, a reflection of what our nation, as a whole, is willing to do with regard to this issue.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> In furtherance of my own defense, there is even a Latin word for it: "plurium interrogationum". It is a type of logical fallacy. That was my point -- MichaelK's question was an example of plurium interrogationum.


I wasn't attempting a no-win question. I was asking an honest question asking for your opinion to try and understand if your beef was with the whole concept or just the stupid way it's been implemented.

I think at the time you were arguing the specifics of the current implementation and I was looking at the big picture (as I posted above). So I can understand how you might have though i was baiting you or something.

That said- talking smack about my wife is just plain inappropriate on a family friendly message board- no matter what point you were trying to make. There would have been about a million different examples you could have used that would be harmless.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> I think this is a critical point: So often people see something, don't like it, and conclude that its "wrong". That's the problem. Sometimes things just are -- and in this case, a reflection of what our nation, as a whole, is willing to do with regard to this issue.


we could go round and round for days. I've plenty of points of why it's wrong and they aren't all "i'm a big baby and dont like it".

I simply believe it would be BETTER for the consumer and the cable companies to have an open system. Consumers would get more and better options of equipment. The pay TV indsutry would likely grow. And cable would get a big advantage of DBS.

I think the only point you have made to dispute that is it might not be fair to some of the pay tv companies. I guess the issue then becomes does that out weigh the benefits.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Again, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is the protoypically example of plurium interrogationum.

With this link you can see how common the example is in common usage.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> are you forgetting TV's?
> 
> Most people dont want any STB- they just want to plug their TV in and have it work with the TV's remote.
> 
> ...


We'll just have to agree to disagree. First, more and more people are selecting the low cost cable provided DVR as opposed to just plain STBs. In particular, those who can afford sets which would theoretically have CC in the short term (regardless of the ban or not) are far more likely to have a DVR. That eliminates just plugging into the TV. Toshiba for one has (or maybe had - it didn't go anywhere) a DVR that integrated into their HD sets - my DLP has that option were I interested in it. Nobody else was.

As for what the FCC thinks, well frankly I believe with good reason that the FCC is one of the most poorly managed and ill intended organizations in existence. Though I really want CC to work, I have a great deal of heartburn with the FCC demanding that private business does something when the public at large really doesn't care, and when there is no fundamental resource issue at stake. It would benefit you and I (and TiVo) but very little else. TV manufacturers really don't care - the lack of it actually makes their lives easier. And they made the correct decision to get OUT of the time-shifting business as they saw the writing on the wall. As for having CC slots in TVs and eliminating STBs benefiting cablecos, well that's just plain crazy. It eliminates a STB which they can completely control quality, test, code, etc. Then it introduces a 3rd party device with firmware and compatibility issue potential which they would be forced to provide Tier 1 support for. I don't see the advantage for them.

Further, the cablecos (can't believe I'm defending them) get no support in "driving the cost down". They are forced theoretically to spend considerable resources to deliver something that will give them zero benefit. There is no public safety or limited resource at stake. So, to me it's just wrong from a financial perspective.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> Sorry to digress- but can someone explain to me why more complex cablecards are needed and there isn't a simplier system of cheaper smart cards? many cable boxes already have the slots and some even use them- directv and DISH seem to have stopped the mass pirating with that system and new versions can be rolled out over time to fix issues.
> 
> Is it that the smart card slots in moto and SA devices work differnetly so the issue is that the duopoly providers dont have compatiable systems so we need to go a new route with the whole cablecard mess?


It's simple. Direct and Dish have closed, proprietary systems. They control 100% of their system once content is provided to them.

Cable does not in reality have a single system even within providers. Comcast for example has a bunch of different systems running different software and different service portals. Cox is different from Comcast. TW is different from Cox. And so on.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> Most people dont want any STB- they just want to plug their TV in and have it work with the TV's remote.


How do you explain that about 1% of CC Slot equiped TVs actually use CCs, even though the CC is cheaper than the STB?


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> So why not already use cablecard boxes themselves- why this waiting till the last minute? WHat would the box cost go up for moto to include the slot plus a card when comcast buys them in hundred thoussand quantities? Would it be another $60 a box in a buig quanitiy like that? So they add 2 bucks a month to their rental on their DVR's to get it back.


I know you're talking about DVRs here ...

But apply this to a "regular" low-end STB.

People already complain (loudly) when some cable company moves The Golf Channel over to digital and they have to pay $5 extra to get a digital box to keep watching The Golf Channel. Cable rip-off ... I should move to dbs ... etc. So instead of $5 we make it $7 ...

Heck, moto wouldn't have to make the box. Cable has said many many times (whether or not you believe them is another story, but anyway) ... "someone make us a somewhat competitively priced seperable security box where the price differential can start to make sense ... and we'll buy it". Panasonic, Samsung, Sony ... whoever. Anyone could make such a box to sell to the cable company. No one is doing so ... the economcs just don't make sense. Panasonic, Sony, Pace and others have all made integrated security boxes to sell to the cable company. Economics for those make sense (in part because cable insists moto and sa reaonably license their CA). But no one is stepping forward and giving cable any options in seperable security boxes ...


----------



## jfh3 (Apr 15, 2004)

HDTiVo said:


> How do you explain that about 1% of CC Slot equiped TVs actually use CCs, even though the CC is cheaper than the STB?


This one's pretty easy - anyone spending what it takes to buy a TV with a CC slot probably wants to use a DVR anyway, so putting a CC in the TV for "live" TV is pretty much pointless.

For those that don't want the DVR, it's probably an education thing - they don't know what a CableCARD is, what it can provide or where to get it.

I watched a clerk in BB tell a customer looking for a CableCARD for his new TV that "we are out of stock" before I went over and corrected him and told the customer to contact his cable company.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

jfh3 said:


> This one's pretty easy - anyone spending what it takes to buy a TV with a CC slot probably wants to use a DVR anyway, so putting a CC in the TV for "live" TV is pretty much pointless.
> 
> For those that don't want the DVR, it's probably an education thing - they don't know what a CableCARD is, what it can provide or where to get it.
> 
> I watched a clerk in BB tell a customer looking for a CableCARD for his new TV that "we are out of stock" before I went over and corrected him and told the customer to contact his cable company.


I think you got it right the first time. That DVR growth (in particular HD) is huge, and that most people are starting to want a DVR in any case on digital sets. I do also agree about the education thing. But, that also goes to how little interest there really is. Nobody is really advertising the whole DVR thing to begin with, but growth is huge.

Other than with people like us here, there just isn't interest.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

jfh3 said:


> This one's pretty easy - anyone spending what it takes to buy a TV with a CC slot probably wants to use a DVR anyway, so putting a CC in the TV for "live" TV is pretty much pointless.
> 
> For those that don't want the DVR, it's probably an education thing - they don't know what a CableCARD is, what it can provide or where to get it.
> 
> I watched a clerk in BB tell a customer looking for a CableCARD for his new TV that "we are out of stock" before I went over and corrected him and told the customer to contact his cable company.


So you agree that people do want an STB - really the DVR which is also an STB.

People have no interest in CCs per se. Michael's comment that "_Most people dont want any STB- they just want to plug their TV in and have it work with the TV's remote. _ " is not correct, which is what I was pointing out.

People wanting an S3, which happens to be a DVR & STB that uses CCs, order CCs as just a byproduct.

That's what winpitt is saying.


----------



## jfh3 (Apr 15, 2004)

HDTiVo said:


> People have no interest in CCs per se.


This is what I agree with. I'm going to have to have some type of set top box; I just don't want my only choices to be what my cable company offers.

But the issue I was addressing is why CC use was so low until now - most people didn't care because there were no types of CC-enabled devices they were interested in. The Series 3 changed that.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

jfh3 said:


> This is what I agree with. I'm going to have to have some type of set top box; I just don't want my only choices to be what my cable company offers.
> 
> But the issue I was addressing is why CC use was so low until now - most people didn't care because there were no types of CC-enabled devices they were interested in. The Series 3 changed that.


I wonder how well DVRs embedded in TVs will do.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

HDTiVo said:


> I wonder how well DVRs embedded in TVs will do.


They haven't done well yet. Toshiba has had one for more than a year. Can't remember the name but it integrates directly into my series of DLP. I couldn't find anyone who would carry it, and nobody who bought it.

On another note with respect to CC - as promised Comcast arrived yesterday at around 3pm to install the CC in my DLP as my first test of CC prior to taking the plunge for the s3. The Comcast guy was well prepared and seemed to know his way around. Unfortunately, it appears as though the version of firmware and bootstrap for my Toshiba DLP is at least 5 versions to old. Comcast called Toshiba, who is going to send new firmware. Apparently they'll send it on a SD or some other removable media card (my unit has multimedia readers) and users can flash the units. Then Comcast will be back out to try again. It works partially at the moment but I can't get the full channel lineup and not sure what other issues Comcast felt there would be. I wasn't home - my wife was.

What it does illustrate is two things. First, that there's at least one person in my local Comcast area that kinows his way around Cablecards. Second, that this is a perfect example of how 3rd party devices increase costs to Comcast as a result of something beyond the control of Comcast. I talked to the engineer on the phone while he was at my home and he was pretty good to deal with.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

HDTiVo said:


> People have no interest in CCs per se. Michael's comment that "_Most people dont want any STB- they just want to plug their TV in and have it work with the TV's remote. _ " is not correct, which is what I was pointing out.
> 
> People wanting an S3, which happens to be a DVR & STB that uses CCs, order CCs as just a byproduct.
> 
> That's what winpitt is saying.


that iswhat I was saying as well but people do want to just plug in the STB and have it work. I further that and want choices in my STB(DVR) so I can pick out a nice 3rd party one like the S3 or the DT S2 like I have now. Not everyone will care about features and some would rather just order it all from teh cable company for assumed simplicity. People do want one remote though


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> that iswhat I was saying as well but people do want to just plug in the STB and have it work. I further that and want choices in my STB(DVR) so I can pick out a nice 3rd party one like the S3 or the DT S2 like I have now. Not everyone will care about features and some would rather just order it all from teh cable company for assumed simplicity. People do want one remote though


Would you agree that the average consumer has no interest in picking out a 3rd party STB? I agree that people want to just plug it in and use it.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

winpitt said:


> Would you agree that the average consumer has no interest in picking out a 3rd party STB? I agree that people want to just plug it in and use it.


I did say in my post that some people will just get the DVR and all fronm the cable company for assumed simplicity.

This falls under the heading of how do you get people to understand the benefits of a DVR. I started with a 40 hour and was happy. Now I am recording on 4 tuners at a time some nights and have a main S2DT with 500 hours storage. I recorded the Marx brother's main movies because my kids had not seen them. Got some Halloween shows and movies as well. I know they will not knock off other stuff. But will the average consumer understand that being able to own the DVR and thus add in big hard drives makes a good thing even better?

It will get easier to put out such messages once people have DVRs. Right now I only know of one neighbor who has a DVR because I got them a deal on a TiVo. I still get lots of "what's a DVR do for you?"


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

HDTiVo said:


> How do you explain that about 1% of CC Slot equiped TVs actually use CCs, even though the CC is cheaper than the STB?


I agree that clealy it's not a motivation for everyone. But obviously all these problems, arm bending from cable, and lack of 2-way features all has an effect on that.

I would argue that the fact that 99% of the people with cc slots in their tv's dont use them tell's alot about the situation. Obviously one way cards and all the current problems are not worth the effort for many people.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

dt_dc said:


> I know you're talking about DVRs here ...
> 
> But apply this to a "regular" low-end STB.
> 
> ...


I have no problem with waivers for the low end boxes at all. I just think they need to draw a line someplace and go cablecard at that point. I'd draw the line july1 and make it apply to advanced boxes defined as dvr's and hd boxes. The ecomnomics effects would be limited to the high end subs as a result.

related to that- do you have any idea how much cost premium is involved in that CC replacement from Moto that you pointed to in earlier threads? Is it hundreds or tens of dollars?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

HDTiVo said:


> So you agree that people do want an STB - really the DVR which is also an STB.
> 
> People have no interest in CCs per se. Michael's comment that "_Most people dont want any STB- they just want to plug their TV in and have it work with the TV's remote. _ " is not correct, which is what I was pointing out.
> 
> ...


I dont really beleive that- why do most people have no STB? Surely some of it is they are happy with what they can get with analog cable and for that price but as dt_dc points out people get nutty when the golf channel gets removed from the analog tier and they need to start adding boxes to everything.

I guess we can agree to disagree.

Myself I hate STB's that have no purpose besides tuning channels (DVR is a whole differnt can of beans). But I guess some people enjoy them for whatever reason.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> They haven't done well yet. Toshiba has had one for more than a year. Can't remember the name but it integrates directly into my series of DLP. I couldn't find anyone who would carry it, and nobody who bought it.
> 
> On another note with respect to CC - as promised Comcast arrived yesterday at around 3pm to install the CC in my DLP as my first test of CC prior to taking the plunge for the s3. The Comcast guy was well prepared and seemed to know his way around. Unfortunately, it appears as though the version of firmware and bootstrap for my Toshiba DLP is at least 5 versions to old. Comcast called Toshiba, who is going to send new firmware. Apparently they'll send it on a SD or some other removable media card (my unit has multimedia readers) and users can flash the units. Then Comcast will be back out to try again. It works partially at the moment but I can't get the full channel lineup and not sure what other issues Comcast felt there would be. I wasn't home - my wife was.
> 
> What it does illustrate is two things. First, that there's at least one person in my local Comcast area that kinows his way around Cablecards. Second, that this is a perfect example of how 3rd party devices increase costs to Comcast as a result of something beyond the control of Comcast. I talked to the engineer on the phone while he was at my home and he was pretty good to deal with.


there certainly are issues with the CE devices. But there is no reason that it needs to be a HUGE cost to the cablecompany. My little independant local cablecompany (31 towns with I think 800,000 total subs) is smart enough to ask you for the model number of the device you intend to use the card in. They keep a spreadsheet or database that lists all the devices and what probelms or firmware they need. My friend called to get a CC for his panny plasma and they flagged his model number immediately. They new from their own list what firmware version he needed and told him to call panny and get the update and to call back once it was done. He called panny- the fedex'd him an SD card that he used to update his tv. Cablecard install went fine from there.

There is no reason that the largest pay tv company in the WORLD, comcast, doesn't do the same. Have an issue with a tv in tampa and share the information with all the comcast offices. IT would save them tons of time and effort. dt_dc or someone else might know but I think the number of cablecard devices is like less then 500. Chances are that a comcast office someplace has seen each and everyone of those 500 possibiliites and could report to the mothership what the status is with those devices.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> It's simple. Direct and Dish have closed, proprietary systems. They control 100% of their system once content is provided to them.
> 
> Cable does not in reality have a single system even within providers. Comcast for example has a bunch of different systems running different software and different service portals. Cox is different from Comcast. TW is different from Cox. And so on.


back to smart cards.

Seriously isn't the proprietary system boil down to 2 choices? Moto's or SA's? Maybe it would have been wiser to just agree those 2 are the official choices and have every tv/box whatever have 2 slots- one for a mota smartcard or one for the SA smart card?


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> I dont really beleive that- why do most people have no STB? Surely some of it is they are happy with what they can get with analog cable and for that price but as dt_dc points out people get nutty when the golf channel gets removed from the analog tier and they need to start adding boxes to everything.
> 
> I guess we can agree to disagree.
> 
> Myself I hate STB's that have no purpose besides tuning channels (DVR is a whole differnt can of beans). But I guess some people enjoy them for whatever reason.


I was only talking about DVRs and in the context of people who had bought expensive TVs. Only about 1% of the CC equipped units are using CCs; a much higher % are using ordinary STBs (20%, 30%, 40%???), and the rest are using DVR STBs.

People choosing an S3 over a Cable DVR will get CCs only because they are necessary to the function of the S3 for getting the content they want. Just like most people only get ordinary STBs with cable when there is content they want that necessitates the STB, or they need to know the time.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> there certainly are issues with the CE devices. But there is no reason that it needs to be a HUGE cost to the cablecompany. My little independant local cablecompany (31 towns with I think 800,000 total subs) is smart enough to ask you for the model number of the device you intend to use the card in. They keep a spreadsheet or database that lists all the devices and what probelms or firmware they need. My friend called to get a CC for his panny plasma and they flagged his model number immediately. They new from their own list what firmware version he needed and told him to call panny and get the update and to call back once it was done. He called panny- the fedex'd him an SD card that he used to update his tv. Cablecard install went fine from there.
> 
> There is no reason that the largest pay tv company in the WORLD, comcast, doesn't do the same. Have an issue with a tv in tampa and share the information with all the comcast offices. IT would save them tons of time and effort. dt_dc or someone else might know but I think the number of cablecard devices is like less then 500. Chances are that a comcast office someplace has seen each and everyone of those 500 possibiliites and could report to the mothership what the status is with those devices.


LOTS of problems there. First of all, let's say you have a Toshiba DLP and you call in. It may or may not have the right FW. Some Tier 1 low trained low cost service rep then needs to be smart enough to talk some non-technical customer how to figure out what FW level is currently on their device. Problem? Yup. Big time. EXACTLY like in the PC world. Takes lots of time, meaning needs more reps in order to handle call volume. In other words, more cost.

Then, new features/functions are rolled out on EITHER the CC or the Toshiba device. Same problem can happen again because there is NO way to test every new update between the different devices. Will it be a problem? Maybe. Can it be? Absolutely.

Next problem? The MSO has to live with the blame and service costs for ANY issue. In other words, they inherit the problems created by the 3rd party vendors. To put it plainly - that's just wrong. If the MSOs are going to be required to support such devices, then they should be able to charge back either the consumer or the 3rd party vendor for that extra support. Do I want to pay for it? No. But they should absolutely not be legislated to eat those costs with no remedy.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> I did say in my post that some people will just get the DVR and all fronm the cable company for assumed simplicity.
> 
> This falls under the heading of how do you get people to understand the benefits of a DVR. I started with a 40 hour and was happy. Now I am recording on 4 tuners at a time some nights and have a main S2DT with 500 hours storage. I recorded the Marx brother's main movies because my kids had not seen them. Got some Halloween shows and movies as well. I know they will not knock off other stuff. But will the average consumer understand that being able to own the DVR and thus add in big hard drives makes a good thing even better?
> 
> It will get easier to put out such messages once people have DVRs. Right now I only know of one neighbor who has a DVR because I got them a deal on a TiVo. I still get lots of "what's a DVR do for you?"


No, what you're talking about is how do you get people to understand the benefits of a TiVo - not a DVR. They don't need a 3rd party device for DVR functionality at all. If they're not sold on DVR yet it is far more likely that they'll embrace the lower cost proposition of the MSO provided unit so that they can try before they buy - as opposed to TiVo where you need to commit up front. There is a difference.

And that difference is really why I think TiVo has a problem here and that not many other people give a darn about CC. The market in general seems to agree with the perception. The market cap for TiVo is quite small - really small. And nobody else wants in the market. Actually, everyone else has gotten out for the most part.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> back to smart cards.
> 
> Seriously isn't the proprietary system boil down to 2 choices? Moto's or SA's? Maybe it would have been wiser to just agree those 2 are the official choices and have every tv/box whatever have 2 slots- one for a mota smartcard or one for the SA smart card?


Not really that simple. Here's the comparison:

Dish: 1 version of software across their entire enterprise, sitting on one technology platform.

Cable: Two major technology platforms. Each of those platforms having several versions of system software. Each of those versions having been further modified by different regions of different cable providers. Then on top of that, each region of each MSO potentially having different versions of different service portals.

It's basically comparing a fully closed system to one with lots and lots of different combinations as well as custom development outside of Moto or SA.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> related to that- do you have any idea how much cost premium is involved in that CC replacement from Moto that you pointed to in earlier threads? Is it hundreds or tens of dollars?


The estimates from the cable companies are based on quotes from their vendors (Motorola, SciAtl). Looking at the specific examples of the (integrated) Motorola DCT-700 vs. (CableCard based) Motorola DCH-100 ...

The DCT-700 is available to cable companies for around $80.

The estimates for the DCH-100 add somewhere between $70 - $110 more depending on the quote / source. The box isn't even in production and of course volume / existing business relationships / etc. is going to make the estimate a little fuzzy ...

These boxes are the very basic digital-only SD boxes. Ie, basically what a (previously) analog customer might be moved to when switching to digital on a digital-simulcast system.

However, I think these estimates include both the box and the card.

Motorola said in one of its filings (although this were aimed at the Verizon request) that adding CableCard to their boxes (for the MVPD) is about $25 additional for the CableCard interface on the box and then $50 - $70 for the CableCard itself.

I think the MVPDs quote the 'combined' cost increase ... since ... from their stand-point they'd be leasing the customer the box and the card compared to just an integrated box.

So ... something like ...

DCT-700: $80

vs.

DCH-100: $100 + $60 for CableCard = $160

And of course, these are cable / Motorola provided estimates so take them for what you will. CEA (of course) says no, no, no ... those estimates are inflated ... difference should not be that much ... etc.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

dt_dc,

What are your thoughts about the complexities of MSOs supporting 3rd party devices? I believe you used to work in the industry so I'm curious. Since I'm in the tech sector (but not in any way the cable/dbs or entertainment market) this seems pretty difficult to me from a pure support perspective. 

I'm thinking that if everything moves to CC and MSOs are forced to support them, then it really means that they'll need an entirely new support area to be developed. Today they only need to support their own customized SW and firmware. The introduction of 3rd party devices which would sit on their network would in practice mean that somebody at each MSO would have to "try" to track all the different devices that could potentially use CC on their network. Then, they'd need to become familiar with firmware revisions (remember, cablelabs doens't certify new firmware - only new devices. Once a device is certified it's done). That means more customer service calls - or at least more time on the phone per service call for new devices, meaning more reps required. Then, how do you deal with the cost involved with truck rolls when customers claim that firmware is up to date but it really isn't - or a corrupted firmware? What this seems like to me is that rates would have to go up so that we minority customers could get CC, but everyone would have to pay for it. In the computer arena, we're already living this nightmare (not talking about consumer electronics, but rather Enterprise networks and datacenters). And this is while we have clear standards in terms of the OSI model, and globally accepted protocols that have been around for years. I can't see much growth potential for the distribution of a CC standard or protocol outside of this industry, so there's little opportunity to recoup those early costs.

Another thought would be that since the FCC is mandating this, then the federal government should subsidize it and pay those costs. 

If the FCC told Cisco that they needed to do something like this, Cisco would tell them to take a flying leap as they're smart enough to realize the possible impact. 

What are your thoughts with respect to cost allocation?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> Not really that simple. Here's the comparison:
> 
> Dish: 1 version of software across their entire enterprise, sitting on one technology platform.
> 
> ...


there's no changing your mind or getting you to even try to see the other side of the issue about the big picture.

But about smartcards I think you are wrong, I'd love to get dt_dc's explanation if he happens to know about them. But I just dont see your point- you think all the moto and SA boxes out their have differnt versions of smart card readers and software? Sure the headends might have differnet versions, but then they would issue the smart cards that work with that version of their software. The hardware for it in the STB's wouldn't change- would it? EVen assuming they would need to get all the SA headends on the same smart card version and all the Moto head ends on there's, wouldn't it be easiery to update a few thousand headends running one platform of the other then dealing with thousands of different CE versions in hundreds of millions of TV's (if this ever gets ubiqitous)


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

HDTiVo said:


> I was only talking about DVRs and in the context of people who had bought expensive TVs. Only about 1% of the CC equipped units are using CCs; a much higher % are using ordinary STBs (20%, 30%, 40%???), and the rest are using DVR STBs.
> 
> People choosing an S3 over a Cable DVR will get CCs only because they are necessary to the function of the S3 for getting the content they want. Just like most people only get ordinary STBs with cable when there is content they want that necessitates the STB, or they need to know the time.


to be clear - i totally agree with everyone who makes the point that at the current time this is basically for S3's and not much more.

But Ithe FCC regs and the law say nothign about CC only for high end devices and leaving behing the "normal" people (eg not us) who dont want a dvr and just want plain TV. It's so those folks dont need to get STB's (unless of course they need to know the time! ) More and more stuff is moving to digital- some of the players are talkign about going all digital (that's their excuse for not wanting cablecards in all devices). That makes tens of millions of people that dont have STB's now needing to migrate to STB's or TV's that can be plug and play.

I dont see this as being done for us with a couple car payments to buy tivo's. I think if it gets rolled out to the point that it reaches critical mass and therefore most tv's came with it, then it benefits consumers AND cable too.

anyway- i think everyone here is basically entrenched and there's not much point in trying to sway anyone's thoughts. I guess time will tell what the real story will have been.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> there's no changing your mind or getting you to even try to see the other side of the issue about the big picture.
> 
> But about smartcards I think you are wrong, I'd love to get dt_dc's explanation if he happens to know about them. But I just dont see your point- you think all the moto and SA boxes out their have differnt versions of smart card readers and software? Sure the headends might have differnet versions, but then they would issue the smart cards that work with that version of their software. The hardware for it in the STB's wouldn't change- would it? EVen assuming they would need to get all the SA headends on the same smart card version and all the Moto head ends on there's, wouldn't it be easiery to update a few thousand headends running one platform of the other then dealing with thousands of different CE versions in hundreds of millions of TV's (if this ever gets ubiqitous)


No - you are not representing what I said correctly. In the post you quoted I did not say any system had an advantage or was better. I answered the question as to why adopting smartcards is far easier for DBS than for cable. Nothing more. It has to do with the potential power of an ASIC based card.

In other words, no matter how you slice it DBS has it easier because they own the entire system and have complete control. Even not considering the integration ban, cable has a far more complex landscape.

There is absolutely no way you'll end up with all the headends running the same version of software. Not anytime in the reasonable future, and not without a great deal of problems. The problem is all the custom development that MSOs have done by region. There is quite a bit there.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> to be clear - i totally agree with everyone who makes the point that at the current time this is basically for S3's and not much more.
> 
> But Ithe FCC regs and the law say nothign about CC only for high end devices and leaving behing the "normal" people (eg not us) who dont want a dvr and just want plain TV. It's so those folks dont need to get STB's (unless of course they need to know the time! ) More and more stuff is moving to digital- some of the players are talkign about going all digital (that's their excuse for not wanting cablecards in all devices). That makes tens of millions of people that dont have STB's now needing to migrate to STB's or TV's that can be plug and play.
> 
> ...


Well, OK there's some agreement there. But what is more cost effective? Forcing EVERYONE to adopt a new, relatively narrow niche technology? Or people wanting more content to get STBs? I'd bet a whole lot of money that John Q Public is more than happy with the STB if it gives him equal value at a lower cost. Which I think it still does.

Doesn't mean I don't want CC. After my CC install this past Thursday, the channels that DO come in on my CC are fine as far as I can tell. But I still am not getting them all yet.

As for the FCC, they don't have the capacity to enforce much of anything. Personally I think that there isn't much appetite for the fight, and that everyone involved except us and TiVo wishes the ban were never thought of.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> there's no changing your mind or getting you to even try to see the other side of the issue about the big picture.


A bit OT: Expecting to change the mind of someone advocating a perspectivce opposite of yours is pretty unreasonable. These discussions are typically for the benefit, mostly, of those who aren't sure in their positions, the "studio audience" if you will.



> But Ithe FCC regs and the law say nothign about CC only for high end devices and leaving behing the "normal" people (eg not us) who dont want a dvr and just want plain TV.


 And that sounded good on paper, but it didn't happen. Samsung has deliberately removed CableCard as a feature from its mainstream line of HDTVs, reserving it as a "special feature" of its high-end, super-premium sets only.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> No - you are not representing what I said correctly. In the post you quoted I did not say any system had an advantage or was better. I answered the question as to why adopting smartcards is far easier for DBS than for cable. Nothing more. It has to do with the potential power of an ASIC based card.
> 
> In other words, no matter how you slice it DBS has it easier because they own the entire system and have complete control. Even not considering the integration ban, cable has a far more complex landscape.
> 
> There is absolutely no way you'll end up with all the headends running the same version of software. Not anytime in the reasonable future, and not without a great deal of problems. The problem is all the custom development that MSOs have done by region. There is quite a bit there.


I dont understand your point- sorry- maybe we're talking 2 differnet things - as usual...

Cable uses smartcards. Cablevision is one of the big 6 providers and they use smart cards in all their boxes in at least some (if not all of) their systems. So I dont think it's some impossible dream that you can control access to cable with smart cards. FOr some reason Moto iand SA includes the slots on MANY of the boxes they sell.

I dont think every headend needs the same software- just a version compatible with whatever smart cards they are handing out on that system. Just like now all the ehad ends aren't using the same software- they just have the software that is compatiable with the version of cablecards they hand out.

ignore everything I've said-

how 'about this-

why is the current standaard for a PCMCIA sized device that apparently has some computing power and not just a standard for a smartcard type device with little computing power?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> A bit OT: Expecting to change the mind of someone advocating a perspectivce opposite of yours is pretty unreasonable. These discussions are typically for the benefit, mostly, of those who aren't sure in their positions, the "studio audience" if you will.
> 
> ....


perhaps some think these forums are the debate club, I personally dont mind learning a thing or two from what others post and enjoy learning other's point of view so maybe I can understand the world around me a little better.

For example- some time ago after insulting my family life, you mentioned that you were concerned about fairness with a government mandated system perhaps effecting new vs old players differently. Sounds like a valid point to me, and does make me think that when i form my opinions that maybe I should take that into account.

At a minimum, I like to understand the opposing point of view and do my best not to imply that the opposite view of mine is stupid or wrong but rather just different.



bicker said:


> ....
> 
> And that sounded good on paper, but it didn't happen. Samsung has deliberately removed CableCard as a feature from its mainstream line of HDTVs, reserving it as a "special feature" of its high-end, super-premium sets only.


and why is that?

but anyway- where ever we are now doesn't really matter- I think just about everyone agees there's a mess right now . Point is how do we get to the place that's best for everyone involved.

My personal opinion as stated a few times above is to enforce the ban on the high end devices- add maybe a buck a month to every advanced recei ver out there to cover the inital start up costs and then let that head start help the proice of the technology drop so that it can become ubiqitious and help both cable and the consumers.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> and why is that?


Because sets with cable card cost 200-300 dollars more than other sets. Once sets don't need analog tuners any more CC shouldn't make that much difference. In the mean time CC hasn't been getting much press and MSO's have been spreading FUD about it to discourage use while filing for extension after extension. Also instead of working within the system they approved MSO's developed technology that's incompatible with CC so that CC features are lacking, ala VOD and PPV.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Stormspace said:


> Because sets with cable card cost 200-300 dollars more than other sets. Once sets don't need analog tuners any more CC shouldn't make that much difference. In the mean time CC hasn't been getting much press and MSO's have been spreading FUD about it to discourage use while filing for extension after extension. Also instead of working within the system they approved MSO's developed technology that's incompatible with CC so that CC features are lacking, ala VOD and PPV.


it was a rhetorical question- but i'll take your answer.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> it was a rhetorical question- but i'll take your answer.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> For example- some time ago after insulting my family life


I never did so. You made a mistake in understanding what someone wrote in reply to you. It wasn't your fault -- you didn't know better. Learn from your mistake and get over it.



> Point is how do we get to the place that's best for everyone involved.


Indeed, that includes consumers and businesses, not just consumers.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Stormspace said:


> Because sets with cable card cost 200-300 dollars more than other sets. Once sets don't need analog tuners any more CC shouldn't make that much difference. In the mean time CC hasn't been getting much press and MSO's have been spreading FUD about it to discourage use while filing for extension after extension. Also instead of working within the system they approved MSO's developed technology that's incompatible with CC so that CC features are lacking, ala VOD and PPV.


Sets with cablecard that cost $200-300 more also include other additional features at that price point. It's not just CC that does it.

More to the point, the reason that manufacturer support is being withdrawn is because even those customers who purchase CC ready products are largely not using them. Therefore, from a supplier perspective, why add cost and features that the consumer does not want? I mean, besides us.

As for MSOs spreading FUD, well that's nuts. The truth is that they're not spreading ANYTHING about CC. Neither good nor bad. Nobody even knows it exists in general. And the reason is that there is really no supporting lobby besides us to do that. That's really the foundation of the problem.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> perhaps some think these forums are the debate club, I personally dont mind learning a thing or two from what others post and enjoy learning other's point of view so maybe I can understand the world around me a little better.
> 
> For example- some time ago after insulting my family life, you mentioned that you were concerned about fairness with a government mandated system perhaps effecting new vs old players differently. Sounds like a valid point to me, and does make me think that when i form my opinions that maybe I should take that into account.
> 
> ...


It would take a heck of a lot more than $1 per every advanced receiver to even remotely cover intial costs. That's not even a beginning.

Would you support the government paying for the costs since the government is mandating it?


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

winpitt said:


> Would you support the government paying for the costs since the government is mandating it?


You keep "feeling sorry" for the poor cable companies that are so burdened by government mandates. This theme is in just about every other post of yours. I'm not arguing for or against this particular example, but your general attitude.

Well I don't feel sorry for the cable companies at all. It's the business they're in. They're "natural monopolies".

It's crazy to have two companies running electricity to your house. It's crazy to have two companies running water to your house. Etc. It's just as crazy to have two companies running coax cable to your house to give you TV service. It's idiotic.

The natural monopolies were regulated when I was growing up. They were given a reasonable rate of return on their invested capital. We got reliable electricity or phone service at a reasonable price.

That was the deal. The natural monopolies understood the deal. They understood that they were monopolists, not pigopolists. They understood that they were limited in the rates they could charge. They accepted those limitations. Of course, we didn't get innovation, since there was no incentive for that.

The natural monopolies built their infrastructure using free right of way, with government protection as statutory monopolies. But then, under pressure from wall street, they changed the rules of the game. The monopolists became pigopolists. They bought off politicians and changed the laws so that they could rape their customers with unregulated rates.

They've been very successful at their new game. And wall street has rewarded them quite handsomely for it (when viewed over the last 20 years or so, not just the last few years).

And yet they, or their apologists like you, continue to cry copious quantities of giant crocodile tears whenever they are asked to do the slightest little thing for the public good.

Well, I'm tired of hearing about it from you.

And for anyone else who wants to know a little about what a "natural monopoly" is, here is a wikipedia link. The article tries to provide a little bit of history and also tries to be relatively balanced:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

> Well, I'm tired of hearing about it from you.


Your attitude is pretty tiring as well. Calling people "apologists" because they disagree with you is a pretty craven way to conduct a discussion. If you want things to change, get people to elect different leaders, enact different laws, and enforce the existing laws differently. Until then, recognize and acknowledge that your frustration with how cable companies operate is your problem, not theirs. You want control over them. They want control over themselves. Our society sides with them, not you, through both words and actions.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> You keep "feeling sorry" for the poor cable companies that are so burdened by government mandates. This theme is in just about every other post of yours. I'm not arguing for or against this particular example, but your general attitude.
> 
> Well I don't feel sorry for the cable companies at all. It's the business they're in. They're "natural monopolies".
> 
> ...


Pal, I'm not feeling sorry for the cable companies. There are very few businesses that I have more issues with. That doesn't mean that I believe that "my personal interests" outweigh what's right for business, and what's right for the general consumer.

Your post is idiotic, and totally misrepresents what I've said. Please find a single post where I said that I feel sorry for the MSOs, or that I'm siding with them. I just happen to believe that as a business their interests need to be considered also. Not because I give a darn about them - but because your solution will have a negative impact on the general cable customer.

You happen to believe that no matter the cost, as long as you get what you want then the h3ll with everyone else. There are lots of places (well, not that many left) that would agree with you. Like North Korea, China, and a few other locals.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

winpitt said:


> You happen to believe that no matter the cost, as long as you get what you want then the h3ll with everyone else.


No I'm not saying that.

I'm saying that the natural monopolies should, in return for their privileged position, be held to different (higher) standards than ordinary companies. My post attempted to explain a bit of the history of how these natural monopolies got to where they are today.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> It would take a heck of a lot more than $1 per every advanced receiver to even remotely cover intial costs. That's not even a beginning.
> 
> Would you support the government paying for the costs since the government is mandating it?


dt_dc who knows a hell of a lot more then you or I about the issue posted above with several soureces that peg the incremental cost to added cable card at perhaps as low as $70 a box just a few posts above.

Assuming a 3 year life for the boxes- would get you to around $2 extra a month per box. But as i have said above (and I belvie the regulation allows) I wouldn't force them to throw out all their deployed boxes to date- just add the CC slot to the new ADVANCED boxes. By doing that you can add a buck a month to ALL the ADVANCED boxes deployed, new or old, and easily cover the new cablecard models. By applying the buck to all subs (and I'm not sure they would be permitted otherwise under the current systems) they would easily cover the cost of new cablecard equipment untill they get to the point that they double their current non-CC advanced box deployemnt. I'd guess the current cable deployed HD and DVR numbers are into the low millions for sure. So adding a buck a box would get a few million CC boxes deployed.

Hopefully once a few million CC boxes are deployed then the price for the componenets drops a bit and the incremental cost is much less then $70 per box.

There is essentially no cost for the STB to the cable company so I dont know why you think they would get damaged. They would make back any additonal capital outlay fees in the increased costs just as the law /regulations allow/stipulate.

I dont even think that's some crazy plan - if I follow the regulations already the cable companies are supposed to aggregate their equipment costs in a basket anyhow and then divide that up evenly. So this is exactly basically how it WILL work if the ban holds up.

Now if you want to debate if it's worth it to charge the early adopting high end subs an extra dollar a month per advanced box to force a change in the techology of the whole system then I'm not sure I could have much to say. Personally I think it would be worth it and I'd be willing to kick in the few bucks each month. But I see how people could feel otherwise and I wouldnt' say they are wrong.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> No I'm not saying that.
> 
> I'm saying that the natural monopolies should, in return for their privileged position, be held to different (higher) standards than ordinary companies. ....


And I would totally agree. And the government (at differnent levels) does just that all the time. They mandate the amount of investment in infrasturcture that utilities must spend to maintain reliable systems. They mandate the appointment windows that cable can give. They mandate when cable has to give service refunds. They mandate at what density cable must service a street. There are all kinds of rules for cable and other real or defacto monopolies.

Beyond monopolies, sometimes the government just steps in when it thinks it will serve the greater good. They forced the cell phone companies to add location ability for 911 calls to their handsets and networks. They wont let the cell phone compnaies shut off their costly duplicative analog networks when they want becasue the government doesn't think it's in the best interests of the public.

All that said though, I'm not sure what the big cost to cable is . The cable companies are supposed to pass on their equipment costs to the consumer. If I read the regulations and law correctly they may not make unreasonable profits on equipment and they aren't even allowed to subsidize it. Essentially they are to break even on equipment. So adding CC slots to the STB's will cost cable not a single dime out of pocket. They probably need to train their people and set up back end systems to handle CC's but since they have been mandated to have CC support for some time now that's mostly a sunk cost.

So there's not a major out of pocket that I see that hasn't already been made. Why not move forward as intended?

You can make an argument that adding a dollar a month to the cost of advanced boxes will be a competitive disadvantage. (And I think the law allows cable to claim an exemption if they have "effective competition"). But apparently the telco's need to follow the regs too. So that only gives an advantage to DBS. But if cable played it's cards right and cooperated to come up with the real end game then in short time all but the very bottom end TV's, VCR's, DVR's, DVD-R,s would all come "cable ready" it would be a significant advantage to cable compared to DBS if such a thing ever was to occur. And by the time you get to that point the CC component costs are so small that there wouldn't even be a significant cost disadvantage to offset the huge advantage of convenience that being cable ready would give.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> dt_dc who knows a hell of a lot more then you or I about the issue posted above with several soureces that peg the incremental cost to added cable card at perhaps as low as $70 a box just a few posts above.
> 
> Assuming a 3 year life for the boxes- would get you to around $2 extra a month per box. But as i have said above (and I belvie the regulation allows) I wouldn't force them to throw out all their deployed boxes to date- just add the CC slot to the new ADVANCED boxes. By doing that you can add a buck a month to ALL the ADVANCED boxes deployed, new or old, and easily cover the new cablecard models. By applying the buck to all subs (and I'm not sure they would be permitted otherwise under the current systems) they would easily cover the cost of new cablecard equipment untill they get to the point that they double their current non-CC advanced box deployemnt. I'd guess the current cable deployed HD and DVR numbers are into the low millions for sure. So adding a buck a box would get a few million CC boxes deployed.
> 
> ...


You've got errors all over the place here.

First of all, you (as well as a number of others) continue to blatantly ignore the SERVICE, SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE costs associated with multiple systems. If as in your post you indicate that it wouldn't be a "big bang" then that is exactly what would happen. And of course you're right that it could not be a "big bang" total replacement. Can't happen. You fail to acknowledge the differences in existing and new technology requiring multiple support processes, code versions, duplicate hardware, etc. Is it impossible? Of course not! Is it more expensive? Absolutely with no question whatsoever.

Second, you take the absolute lowest estimate for hardware PURCHASE costs as your variable for depreciation or cost allocation. Again - a mistake. "Maybe" it will be that low. Likely it will be higher. If you're going to use DT_DC's post, use the whole post and not just the very lowest number so it makes your argument look better.

Third, you are again mistaken on how providers cover costs. They are "permitted" by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to allocate those costs directly to subscribers. Unfortunately for them, they ARE in a competitive landscape and must compete with DBS (and FiOS).

Fourth, there is absolutely cost for the STBs. I have no idea where you get this notion.

Fifth, none of this even gets to the heart of this, which is 3rd party hardware using CC on MSO networks. You do not in any way reference the costs associated with this. As mentioned in previous posts, there are most certainly costs associated with that. As an example, I have still not received the firmware update for my Toshiba 46HM94 which will allow CC to work properly. It will require yet another truck roll - assuming the FW is correct - from Toshiba - who the MSO has no control over. Please don't even get into the CableLabs certification. The device only needs to be certified ONCE. After that, any firmware update is not certified by them.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> And I would totally agree. And the government (at differnent levels) does just that all the time. They mandate the amount of investment in infrasturcture that utilities must spend to maintain reliable systems. They mandate the appointment windows that cable can give. They mandate when cable has to give service refunds. They mandate at what density cable must service a street. There are all kinds of rules for cable and other real or defacto monopolies.
> 
> Beyond monopolies, sometimes the government just steps in when it thinks it will serve the greater good. They forced the cell phone companies to add location ability for 911 calls to their handsets and networks. They wont let the cell phone compnaies shut off their costly duplicative analog networks when they want becasue the government doesn't think it's in the best interests of the public.
> 
> ...


Actually you are quite incorrect in a number of statements above. I'll point out a few....

1) CableCos have NO mandate on cable density per street. Does not exist. Period. As a matter of fact, any proposed legislation which would move to state or federal franchise agreements totally eliminates ANY requirement for cable density or coverage - period.

2) For services related to SAFETY or BASIC SERVICES (ie, not entertainment) the government has in fact stepped in. If you want to make the argument that Cable TV is a "safety" or "basic" service, you have a tough road ahead of you. Such arguments do not apply. All that about cell phones and telecom, 911, is safety related. Just like air bags and seat belts. Not like HBO.

3) Service and support a "sunk" cost? Are you kidding?

4) Not allowed to "subsidize"? Also patently incorrect. They are "allowed" but not "required" to pass along costs. When the BUD turned into Dish and DTV, margins began to narrow. They can no longer pass along all costs of improvement - and they have not.

This thread has made me curious about something. No disrespect intended, but how many here have actually read the Telecommunications Act? I'm getting the impression that there are a lot of people operating under assumptions based on what they heard from somebody else.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

BTW, just an aside here since I know that people here will strongly disagree with my posts above. I just want to clarify something.

I'm most certainly not a big supporter of cableco's at all. I'm strongly opposed to changes in the legislation which would reduce requirements to Cablecos and telecom providers in delivering entertainment. That's because the effects will likely have a negative effect on reasonable services for a broad cross-section of the US. It could either delay or deny general services for many people.

On the other hand, I try to be fair and I don't believe honestly that there's a good business or legal case for imposing the integration ban whatsoever without some sort of compensation for the cableco's - and not by consumers. That same broad cross-section has demonstrated already that they really don't give a hoot about CC and (though this is just my opinion) they would not be excited about paying for something that they'll likely not use. There IS competition - in the form of DBS (though certainly not for everybody, it's big enough that it's most certainly direct competition that impacts SAC, EPS and Revenue for the MSOs). That's not even including FiOS. People here who are either ignoring or downplaying the support costs of implementing and then maintaining two systems are obviously unfamiliar with the basic concepts of Enterprise Technology. Not an insult - just an observation. Nobody with any real experience in this area in a very large enterprise could possibly ignore this. I'll chalk it up to a lack of experience.

Yes, the FCC/Government created the ban. Yet, they've yet to enforce it. And the only people even remotely interested in doing so are TiVo - and us. Even SA and Moto - who by EVERYONE's admission would theoretically profit by it, are not interested. The general public sure isn't. TV manufacturers aren't. 

Is it just possible that the folks here who are so strongly in favor of enforcing the ban are quite a bit biased? Just asking - not insulting.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

winpitt said:


> I'm most certainly not a big supporter of cableco's at all. I'm strongly opposed to changes in the legislation which would reduce requirements to Cablecos and telecom providers in delivering entertainment.


 I get the impression of a very strong bias on your part leaning toward what is better for cable companies. I also wonder why you have lasted so long in posting and replying here. Someone who just felt strongly on a topic but with no other motivation would most likely not keep the debtae going so long. I have kept some threads alive myself past the useful information stage but I doubt I would go this far with it. So what motivates you to keep posting in thios thread?


> Is it just possible that the folks here who are so strongly in favor of enforcing the ban are quite a bit biased? Just asking - not insulting.


Yes, certainly a pro-TiVo bias present that wants to see them get fair access to the cable stram we paid for so we can choose what to use to legally and fairly make the best use of the entertainment streamed in. So some have that pro-TiVo bias to keep them going and still I wonder what motivates you to keep posting.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Yes, certainly a pro-TiVo bias present that wants to see them get fair access to the cable stram we paid for so we can choose what to use to legally and fairly make the best use of the entertainment streamed in. So some have that pro-TiVo bias to keep them going and still I wonder what motivates you to keep posting.


I guess I'm in the minority.  I don't like being locked out of features on TV's that may be better than those offered by the STB. I also really like the idea of a cable ready set and always have. Historically cable ready sets have sold better than non cable ready sets, just in this case the addition of a Cable Card introduces a bit of uncertainty into the equation since it hasn't gotten a lot of press from the mainstream media like the cable ready sets in the past did.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> I get the impression of a very strong bias on your part leaning toward what is better for cable companies. I also wonder why you have lasted so long in posting and replying here. Someone who just felt strongly on a topic but with no other motivation would most likely not keep the debtae going so long. I have kept some threads alive myself past the useful information stage but I doubt I would go this far with it. So what motivates you to keep posting in thios thread?
> 
> Yes, certainly a pro-TiVo bias present that wants to see them get fair access to the cable stram we paid for so we can choose what to use to legally and fairly make the best use of the entertainment streamed in. So some have that pro-TiVo bias to keep them going and still I wonder what motivates you to keep posting.


Well, I'd like to clear one thing up. I have no bias toward cable companies - and frankly if anything am biased against them. In fact, depending on the outcome of my current CC testing in my Toshiba DLP, I will either try an S3 or move to DirecTV. I agreed to serve on our Franchise Authority specifically because I DON'T care much for the MSOs, and wanted to at least participate in trying to oversee the quality process. Adelphia/Comcast would most certainly concur that I'm not biased toward them  I would further take exception to some extent about the description of "fair access" and what "we paid for". We (the consumer) did NOT pay for all the investment in cable infrastucture. No more than we paid for the trucks delivering your local newspapers, or the cellular towers providing cell phone connectivity. Private Business paid for it.

I also am biased toward wanting CC to work, and most certainly wanting TiVo and the S3 to be successful. I'm frankly not encouraged that TiVo has a long term viable business case on the hardware side, and see them as really needing to aggressively focus on the software/service side.

More the the point, I try not to be hypocritical and would prefer to separate what "I want" from what is rational or beneficial to the general consumer. Please note that I've never slammed CC as a technology, nor have I ever said I don't want it to be successful. I've just tried to show that this isn't some sort of easy slam dunk.

What motivates me is the discussion and education of people. I've learned here some of the specific issues around CC, as well as potential issues found with the general product line. I've also "heard" what people feed that the TiVo strategy is - though I admit it's nothing more than hearsay. it's also to try and discuss the possibility that if the FCC forces what we want, it could very easily result in something that the general public would be very ticked off at.

In other words, if only one side of a discussion is presented, it's a pretty lopsided, irrational and inaccurate discussion.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

dt_dc said:


> So ... something like ...
> 
> DCT-700: $80
> 
> ...


Another data point on prices ...

RCN says that the DCT-700 casts them $84 and the new DCT-100 will cost them $232:
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518539072

My estimates above were a bit of an amalgamation ...

You can go here:
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi

And search for Proceeding 97-80 for lots of other (widely varying) estimates.

Another interesting quote from the filing above:


> RCN understands that our larger competitors are ordering millions of the DCT-700 low end boxes for deployment prior to the ban


Not surprising, of course, but anyway.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

winpitt said:


> I would further take exception to some extent about the description of "fair access" and what "we paid for". We (the consumer) did NOT pay for all the investment in cable infrastucture. No more than we paid for the trucks delivering your local newspapers, or the cellular towers providing cell phone connectivity. Private Business paid for it.


 well I would tweak that furtehr and say that private business invested in that to make a profit off the customer. So as a customer I pay for the cable entertainmnet coming into my house. The cable company gets access granted from a franchise agreement to provide me service so we had some order to the cable build out.

so given that I can not choose among TWC, Comcast or Cox or whomever based on their services I instead would like to be able to pick the DVR I use rather than just have to accept what the cable company gives me. Sat. providers have made the cable companies compete better on services but for me that is not enough.

and yes I also do not care if it is Cable Card that lets me do that - but that is what everyone is working with adn until the cable companies are told they have to do the same of course they are going to balk and having to do *anything* extra. And of course the average consumer is not going to think much about 3rd party access, DVRs are barely making inroads as it is. It is the age old busines problem of until the market is actually there it is hard to explain the market.

I see a day though when all kinds of services can be had via the living room entertainment system. VOD and what TiVo is doing and what Apple is doing with the mini are just the pale beginings. One thing I know for sure is I do not want to rely on the monopoly of one provider (cable or Sat. companies) having the upper hand all to themselves.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> well I would tweak that furtehr and say that private business invested in that to make a profit off the customer. So as a customer I pay for the cable entertainmnet coming into my house. The cable company gets access granted from a franchise agreement to provide me service so we had some order to the cable build out.
> 
> so given that I can not choose among TWC, Comcast or Cox or whomever based on their services I instead would like to be able to pick the DVR I use rather than just have to accept what the cable company gives me. Sat. providers have made the cable companies compete better on services but for me that is not enough.
> 
> ...


Some agreement here - except in large part that "DVRs are barely making inroads as it is". Not true whatsoever. DVR service is one of the largest growth markets in both DBS and cable markets.

What's more important, however, is the phrase "what I do not want", "for me that is not enough" and "I instead would like to...". I don't disagree with what you'd like or not want at all. I share those same viewpoints. What I don't agree with is that we should force a business to a) Invest significantly, b) with no expectation of any return on investment, for c) something that the average consumer doesn't care about - or frankly would likely disagree that we should demand if it's going to increase costs.

In other words - for you and I those desires are fine, but I cannot at all see that we have any right to demand (via our government) that we get it. Franchise Agreements are non-exclusive. So long as those Franchise Agreements are not moved to a state or federal level, other competitors (such as Verizon FiOS) will also build out in each area. Then there would be actual competition above and beyond what exists as a result of DBS at the moment. If at that point there is demand for the product, capitalistic competition will drive it into the market. To force this issue legally is a slippery slope and it appears that not even the FCC has any appetite for this one. Consumers sure don't.

You do pay for deliver of cable. You also pay for delivery of your newspaper. Do you believe you have a right to demand how it's delivered, making it mandated by law? How about package delivery, such as UPS, DHL or Fedex? Do you think you have the right to mandate that? Comparisons to telephone service, electricity or water do not apply. Cable service is not essential to daily life. Nobody will die (most likely  ) as a result of not getting their cable.

One other minor point I should probably mention. Has anyone actually looked at the EPS and revenue numbers for the providers? Sure doesn't look like a cash cow to me.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> You've got errors all over the place here.
> 
> First of all, you (as well as a number of others) continue to blatantly ignore the SERVICE, SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE costs associated with multiple systems. If as in your post you indicate that it wouldn't be a "big bang" then that is exactly what would happen. And of course you're right that it could not be a "big bang" total replacement. Can't happen. You fail to acknowledge the differences in existing and new technology requiring multiple support processes, code versions, duplicate hardware, etc. Is it impossible? Of course not! Is it more expensive? Absolutely with no question whatsoever.
> 
> ...


I totally disagree with you. I believe it is you with teh error here. I guess that's how it is- we just disagree. You thinkg it's so huge major NEW undertaking and I think they aleady are basically there MOSTLY just need to get new equipment (there will be other costs I'm sure but I dont think they are major as you seem to believe. They already SERVICE AND SUPPROT AND MAINTAIN (i can yell too-LOL) cablecards they've done so for a while no since they have been required to for some time. So they already need to know how to do it and have to have their headend upgraded to handle it.



winpitt said:


> ...
> 
> ...
> Second, you take the absolute lowest estimate for hardware PURCHASE costs as your variable for depreciation or cost allocation. Again - a mistake. "Maybe" it will be that low. Likely it will be higher. If you're going to use DT_DC's post, use the whole post and not just the very lowest number so it makes your argument look better.
> ...


no quibble there- feel free to quote the whole post from the big guy. I chose my words carefully (went back and edited to be clear like 5 minutes after i first posted and said *"perhaps as low as"* Like anything else if you were arguing against it you would be sure to use the HIGHEST number you could find to support your position that it's a waste of money. I think the fact that at least one of them has said the cost would be AS LOW AS $70 means that that is an easily achievable price and where the TOP end would likely be in the real world. We have no idea what the real proces are, but I can assure you that no cabel compnay put in the best case pricing in their filings. Once comcast puts in the order for a million CC DVR's then I'm sure the pricing will drop for them. Also, like everythign else I think the price will quickly drop as they become main stream- once MILLIONS and MILLIONS of devices are deployed the economies of scale kick in and the price will only drop.



winpitt said:


> ...
> 
> Third, you are again mistaken on how providers cover costs. They are "permitted" by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to allocate those costs directly to subscribers. Unfortunately for them, they ARE in a competitive landscape and must compete with DBS (and FiOS).
> 
> ....


If I'm wrong I would really like to know with the facts. As I said above I'd like to learn what the real world situation is. Maybe you could ask the lawyer for your franchise board to exaplin it in english and post back here exactly what the deal it. But the way I read the law is they MAY NOT SUBSIDIZE the cost of hardware with other revenues.

Also, I said that the real world is adding a dollar to people's bills to cover it makes them less competitvie with DBS (but not FIOS since VZ is apparently playing by the cabelcard rules too) . Hoever if you kept reading I said that I think it is there best interest to be a little less competitive now (or discoutn their programming costs by that buck) so that they can cokmpletely get a huige competetive advantage over DBS in the future. HAving most every TV, VCR, DVR, DVD-R, etc come of the line with the hardware already in it for cable. That's a huge competitive advantage in my mind.



winpitt said:


> ..
> ...
> Fourth, there is absolutely cost for the STBs. I have no idea where you get this notion.
> ..
> .


Of couse STBs' have a cost- I'm not sure what point you are tryign here. I never intended to say STB's are free



winpitt said:


> ..
> 
> Fifth, none of this even gets to the heart of this, which is 3rd party hardware using CC on MSO networks. You do not in any way reference the costs associated with this. As mentioned in previous posts, there are most certainly costs associated with that. As an example, I have still not received the firmware update for my Toshiba 46HM94 which will allow CC to work properly. It will require yet another truck roll - assuming the FW is correct - from Toshiba - who the MSO has no control over. Please don't even get into the CableLabs certification. The device only needs to be certified ONCE. After that, any firmware update is not certified by them.


That's a very valid point- now I am seeing where you are going (I think?)- your beef is that cablecard is bad and should never have been done. But the reality is the system is in place now and they have all these third party problems already. That argument should have been made 3 or 4 years agao.

THe FCC filings above are about if the integration ban should hold- should cable start buying their own CC boxes. That's what my post was about- how much cost will goign ahead with the integration ban actually cost to cable compared to sitting with the status quo now. They already have the systems in place to deal with CC- so it's basically a matter if they replace the handfull of models they have now without CC and if they add CC to those few models.

Are you arguing that none of that matters and that we should kill off cablecard entirely even though it's already out there? I'm not totally following you.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

winpitt said:


> What's more important, however, is the phrase "what I do not want", "for me that is not enough" and "I instead would like to...". I don't disagree with what you'd like or not want at all. I share those same viewpoints. What I don't agree with is that we should force a business to a) Invest significantly, b) with no expectation of any return on investment, for c) something that the average consumer doesn't care about - or frankly would likely disagree that we should demand if it's going to increase costs.


 the act of the matter as others have siad is that Cable cards are here adn in place. The major MSOs have to be able to provide, provision and support a cable card if the customer asks for one. Also you ignore the other side of having cable cards everywhere. If the TV set manufacturers knew for a fact that having a cable card slot meant they had a digital cable ready set - much like a "cable" ready set of today adn that the these cable cards were in widespread use - I bet we would watch the cable companies go all digital far ahead of any schedule without such a simple device. Loosing the analog bandwidth would be a boon for everyone, consumers and MSOs and 3rd parties alike.

my comment on DVRs niot amking much inroad yet - was more aligned to the consumers mindset - yes DVRs are a growth item for MSOs but I can name on one hand the people O know with a DVR currently. Many consumers have that mindset of "just a bigger VCR. I dont use a VCR, don't need to pay for a DVR." Now a cable card is not enabling specific added features to the user so I get your point on many consumers say why am I paying more, but at the end of the day your argument looses steam around the simple fact that today, currently I can call my Cable Company and get a cable card for my TV or a S3. They already are in service adn the integration ban is really just about making sure enough get in use to drive down costs and let 3 rd parties - and specifically TV makers feel comfortable having cable card as the way to hook up the TV with no more hassle than used no to hook the coax to the TV for the first 99 channels.

CC cost is already being dealt with by the MSOs.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> Actually you are quite incorrect in a number of statements above. I'll point out a few....
> 
> 1) CableCos have NO mandate on cable density per street. Does not exist. Period. As a matter of fact, any proposed legislation which would move to state or federal franchise agreements totally eliminates ANY requirement for cable density or coverage - period.
> ....


I belive again that you are incorrect. There are several levels of government in the US. I didn't limit what I said to the federal level.

Are you really on the franchise board in your town- or was that a joke earlier? That's a government entity-no? Does your towns franchise agreement not stipulate coverage levels for cable? Maybe all towns don't but mine sure does. Also here in NJ they just recently passed statewide franchises and the all the proposed State laws were chock full of build out requirements- if someone decides to get a statewide franchise there are certain build out benchmarks they must reach. I honestly have not read the final version that was signed into law but I'd be plenty surprised if there was none. Even if they removed all traces they were certainly debating adding them. So it's impossible to say that no place are their built out requirements. It would just be untrue.



winpitt said:


> ..
> 2) For services related to SAFETY or BASIC SERVICES (ie, not entertainment) the government has in fact stepped in. If you want to make the argument that Cable TV is a "safety" or "basic" service, you have a tough road ahead of you. Such arguments do not apply. All that about cell phones and telecom, 911, is safety related. Just like air bags and seat belts. Not like HBO.
> ....


I personally wouldn't argue that cable is a safety or basic service myself but the fact that cable IS regulated by the government at many levels shows that some people think it is somethign of a necessity. Frankly if they want to charge $300 a month for my locals it's up to me to decide if I want to pay, If they dont want to service me then I can get DBS, if I dont like that they cant give me a 4 hour service window then I can go elsewhere. But all those things are regulated (at least in some jurisdictions)



winpitt said:


> ..
> ...
> 3) Service and support a "sunk" cost? Are you kidding?
> 
> ... .


Sorry I wasn't clear. There sure are service and support costs for cablecard just like there are for proprietary cable boxes. I dont think supporting 5 versions of proprietary boxes should cost any more then supporting 5 versions of CC boxes. There are initial start up costs to implement the systems and training to handle CC's but those costs are already sunk TODAY. The cable companies have been forced to support cablecards for some time now.

(But I would certainly agree with your point above that supporting 500 CE devices costs more then 5 proprietary STB's- but that ship has sailed- they already have to support anything that gets cablelabs approved like it or not by the current regulations)



winpitt said:


> ..
> ...
> 
> 4) Not allowed to "subsidize"? Also patently incorrect. They are "allowed" but not "required" to pass along costs. When the BUD turned into Dish and DTV, margins began to narrow. They can no longer pass along all costs of improvement - and they have not.
> ...


The rules about subsidizing are a little fuzzy to me- so you may be correct- but could you please explain to me how:

47CFR76.923 which is the rules for what they can charge for equipment that is used to get basic (even if other channels are also purchased) talks about promotional pricing for equipment and how it may not be abused to move the cost of equipment from one group top another.

But more specifically the 1996 cable act says that the FCC shall assure that converter boxes should be commerically available to consumers and that


> such regulations shall not prohibit any MVPD from also offering converter boxes, interactive communications equipment, and other equipment used by consumers to access multichannel video programming and other services over multichannel video programming systesm, to consumers, if the the suystems operator's charges to consumers, for such devices are separately stated *and not subsidized by the charges for any such service*


as found on page 85 of the acrobat version available here:
http://www.fcc.gov/telecom.html

So doesn't the law say that there needs to be devices we can all buy (what has come to be cable card host devices) but that cable can also rent their own devices but that they may not subsidize the cost of those boxes with any service revenues?

Is that NOT what that is saying? Was there a ruling or something that overturned that section of the 1996 law. I'm looking for help understanding- not picking a brawl.

Considering the telecommunications act of 1996 is 128 pages and the updated communications act is 320 pages with the 1992, and 1996 revisions included there's a lot to read. I think there's only about 20-30 pages dealing with cable in the 1996 law but the problem is there are likely many many many multiples of that in enabling regulations and rulings, I'm thinking most people even if they had read it all would have difficulty remembering it all unless they dealt with it every day in the course of their profession. Have you read all of 49CFR76 yourself? I'd guess there's 1 to 3 THOUSAND pages right there. IF so do you really remember it all? Again as yourself not looking to insult or start i fight- I'm curious if anyone that's not a lawyer can really keep up with it all. Myself I deal with OSHA and EPA regulations daily for work- I have a grasp of basically all the regulations those agencies have but to be honest there is very little i can spit out of the top of my head- I know exactly where to get th einfo in a matter of minutes or ever seconds but it's tought to memorize it all. So I'm farily well versed at searching CFR's and interpreting them- but as I've posted many times before the FCC ones just really seem to be tough for me to search and find the real bit I need.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> BTW, just an aside here since I know that people here will strongly disagree with my posts above. I just want to clarify something.
> 
> I'm most certainly not a big supporter of cableco's at all. I'm strongly opposed to changes in the legislation which would reduce requirements to Cablecos and telecom providers in delivering entertainment. That's because the effects will likely have a negative effect on reasonable services for a broad cross-section of the US. It could either delay or deny general services for many people.
> 
> ...


I'm no cable company basher- I just disagree with some of your opinions.

I dont think it will cost significantly more (your point about delaing with hundreds or thousands of devices as opposed to 5 in house models is WELL taken- that's somethign of an issue for sure) to maintain a cablcard centric system anymore then maintianing a proprietary one. There is no reason to do both- ditch the proprietary system. I think it was short sited of cable to even set up the proprietary DIGITAL systems. THose in the know have said the cabelcard stuff has roots even before 1996. The law in 1996 just made it a fact that they better do it. So why did cable spend millions and millions over hte past 10 years implementing systems that are proprietary?

Also, I stongly disagree theat the CE companies are disenterested. If anything they have much much much more to gain then SA and Moto. STB's can be made by anyone now, not just those 2 duopolists.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> ... What I don't agree with is that we should force a business to a) Invest significantly, b) with no expectation of any return on investment, for c) something that the average consumer doesn't care about - or frankly would likely disagree that we should demand if it's going to increase costs....


and I guess there's the 2 issues.

Some of us thing that it would be better for consumers (even if people aren't currently aware).

And some have no problem asking a compnay with limited competition that is given a franchise to give something back in exchange.

By your logic what right do towns have to ask for public access channels? it costs the cabel compnay something with no return and the average comsumer doesn't care for it and would probably want them removed if they realized it was adding costs. The precedent is there that if the government thinks it's best then they can ask for it from cable


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> Actually you are quite incorrect in a number of statements above. I'll point out a few....
> 
> 1) CableCos have NO mandate on cable density per street. Does not exist. Period. As a matter of fact, any proposed legislation which would move to state or federal franchise agreements totally eliminates ANY requirement for cable density or coverage - period.
> ....


as I posted above- I'm sure many towns absolutely have build out mandates for specific densities per street in their current franchise agreements.

I had read that all the proposed versions of the statewide law in NJ had different build out mandates but hadn't seen what the final version was- your aboslute statement above piqued my interest and got me to bother to find exactly what the law said that was passed in NJ.

I found that there are in fact a handful of build out requirements in the NJ statewide law.

There are 2 rules about which towns must be covered by a telco and when:

1) They must provide service to every county seat within 3 years of the start of their statewide franchise.

2) Within 3 years of gettign a statewide franchise they must provide service to every municipality with a density of more than 7,111 persons per square mile.

Once anyone begins offering service in a municipality under statewide franchises there are 2 rules that apply to the entire municipality:

a) They must offer service to any house or business within 150 feet of their EXISTING plant by aerial means or within 100 feet of their existing plant by underground means in any town they service.

b) The law also sets a minimum coverage density of 35 homes per square mile in any municipality that is served.

You can find the text of the bill here:
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bills/AL06/83_.HTM

If I have time and the inclination I'll see if I cant dig up the Texas statewide law.

But as I think about it- it would be totally moronic and reckless to propose statewide or federal franchises without some protection against redlining. If you pass a statewide franchise without any build out restrictions then there's nothing to stop the phone compnay from coming in and picking the densist streets in the wealthiest towns and ignoring everyone else.

I need to read the whole law over again to see for myself but I have read several newspaper articles that stated the cable companies here can also abandon their current plethora of municiple franchises and get a statewide one to replace them all. Again, without any buildout rules like A&B above theres nothing to stop comcast from abandoning the 'poor side of the tracks' in any one town and deciding only to service the more affluent and profitable areas.

So I guess again certain statements of absolute facts are a little off..

_edit:- I cant find the TX law right yet, but i discoverd that CA just passed a statewide franchise bill too. Just reviewed if quickly but looks like they DONT have subs/mile restictions. They go about stoppign redlining totally differnently then NJ. THe CA approach mandates percentages of footprint buildout for telco's. 25-35% coverage in 2 years, 40-50% coverage in 5 years. To keep them from cherry picking only rich towns to make up those percentages they have to also agree that of the homes they cover at 2 years 25% have to be low income and at 5 years 30% have to be low income- i just scanned it but it looks like there are no provisions to help the rural cusomters though. So looks like there rare other ways to prevent redlining but they may not help the less populated areas get service._


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

dt_dc said:


> ...
> 
> You can go here:
> http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi
> ...


thanks for that link-

I've been trying the regular FCC search page and I can never find what I want. The link you provided is way better.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

found this link from the search page dt_dc's great search link:

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518523135

it's a letter from Americans for Prosperity, The institute for Liberty, REASON, AMericans for Tax reform, Citizens against government waste, & the NAtional Taxpayers union. AS one would expect, these groups have similar feelings to some in this thread that the government shouldn't mandate anything that will cost consumers something more without much benefit and as such they support waivers for the integration ban.

THeir estimate pins the cost of cable deploying STB's with CC is $2 a month. Seems in the ballpark of what I figured above- $2 more per box, but since all boxes wont have CC's immediately it would equal a buck a box until the point when CC STB's begin to outnumber the non-CC STB's. So estimates of $1-2 a month per box seem reasonable.

With those numbers, I too would give the waivers for non-HD, non-DVR boxes. But I MYSELF feel that that's a fair price to impose on the more affluent people ordering the advanced boxes so that everyone's costs can come down in the future. If others have differing opinions if that's fari, right, acceptable, whatever- that's fine. Just sharing my opinion. But I do think it's important to have some realisitc numbers so peopel can make their own informed opnions- and it seems like a buck or 2 a month is a decent ballpark number.

BTW- Tivo used their comments to question all the cable estimates as being high and baseless- made me chuckle. One of the NCTA's comments jsut reinforced my opinion that anything higher then $70 or $80 a box is BS- they point out how their standards have made cablemodems only $50 a retail. If you can make a whole cable modem and sell if for $50 at retail it makes me think the 2 duopoly equipment providers selling boxes in million unit wholesale orders can figure out how to make a cablecard slot and card for something around there.

I'm like half way through the first 100 comments and there are some interesting points in this whole mess. THere's a lot of comments about OCAP, and 2-way, and just a bunch nasty comments about Cablelabs, Cablecards, and OCAP restrictions. (NCTA responds that non of that matters in regard to these waivers- and they strictly are correct ) But all the comments makes it even more clear to me that this whole mess is a lot bigger then the current integration ban and one way cablecards and the current picture. Maybe the FCC should ditch the ban and come up with a ironclad end game for where things should be in a couple years so that all these interim things can go away and we can get to one system that works for all the parties involved. Problem is the FCC is so darned passive that doesnt seem likely...


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

league of rural voters estimates $2-$3 a box monthly:

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518523120


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

black leadership forum (and also the antitax groups above) peg the annual cost at $600 million.

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518523112

devide by 12 months is 50 million a month. Divided by like 60-65 million cable subs comes to less then a buck a month A SUB (not a box )- so again someplace in the 1-2 dollar a month per box is reasonable estimate even by the standards of the people opposed to it.

edit:
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518523114

Hispanic federation- also opposed is quoting the 600 million annual cost with $2-3 a month per box.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

my favorite quote so far from verizon:



> NCTA's rading of the statute ... leads to absurd results...


too much fun.

Some intesting comments for OCAP- before picking through these comments, I was under the impression that OCAP as presently constituted was stupid- it made no sense to me that anyone would want to download cable's crappy guide or DVR software to their STB or TV. I'd think it makes much more sense to make somethign like a hook or interface for the STB or TV maker to get the guide databased from the cable company and then use the data in their own UI. But some of the comments got me to thinking- being able to download the cableco's software is a good idea for low end tv's - people could buy 13inch, 19 inch , whatever cheapo tv's that will download the cable company's software. THe people will get an IPG or whatever but the crappy TV maker doesn't need to spend a dime on programming a UI- once they figure out an OCAP interface or whatever they just drop that in all their models and away they go with cheap tv's that connect directly to the cable coming out of the wall without any STB needed for high end services.

I dont think i should only be limited to the cable companies offering- 3rd parties should be able to access to the data or whatnot, but it does make a lot of sense for the cable compnay to download thier junk for low end tv's.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

from the ncta webpage with integration ban FAQ's (found here:

http://www.ncta.com/IssueBrief.aspx?contentId=3553&view=3) :



> *Is there a cost associated with implementing the integration ban?*
> 
> Yes. Consumers will suffer an estimated $600 million per year in additional costs if the integration ban is maintained. Based on FCC filings, the price for set-top boxes will jump $72-$93 per box, which translates into a $2-$3 per box per month charge at FCC-regulated rates. By contrast, filings at the FCC show that some integrated digital cable boxes can cost as little as $70-$80, meaning a CableCARD and associated interface can cost more than an entire cable box.


later on they figure 8 million STB's a year which puts the cost at $75/box (addtional).

consider the source...


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

one really good point the CEA makes is that the true cost to add cablecard to boxes is impossible to tell based on moto's pricing. Moto has a vested interest to highball their Cablecard pricing to make it look like their current non CC low end boxes like the DCT-700 are the best thing to do. 

I think that's a very valid point- if Moto can manipulate the FCC to grant waivers by inflating their pricing then moto gets a huge windfall be bineg able to continue to sell their proprietary STB's. If the cableco's are forced to buy boxes based on open systems like OCAP and CC then moto and SA aren't the only players. Human, panasonic, samsung, etc, etc all become competition..

So motorolla and SA very well might be manipulating everyone here for their own gains.


None of the motorolla comments (and there are several) talk costs. They dimply defer to everyone else's costs estimates in other filings....

Got somethign to hide?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

last bit- (thanks again dt_dc for the great link)

seems NCTA filed for the waiver on 8/16. 

If I recall there is a 90 day time limit on the proceedings? Is that correct (too lazy right now to troll the cfr's and look for that bit..)

so I guess we'll all know the answer to the requests in a couple weeks..


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> as I posted above- I'm sure many towns absolutely have build out mandates for specific densities per street in their current franchise agreements.
> 
> I had read that all the proposed versions of the statewide law in NJ had different build out mandates but hadn't seen what the final version was- your aboslute statement above piqued my interest and got me to bother to find exactly what the law said that was passed in NJ.
> 
> ...


Look at HR5252 and SB2628. The federal legislation completely eliminates any build-out requirements. The only restriction is that (on the surface) they cannot discriminate for reasons of "affluency", or generally protected classes. It is impossible to oversee and by all admissions allows complete discretion by providers as to where/when they build out.

Even your examples of earlier legislation in your area would completely eliminate many existing customers - being retroactive to existing providers as well. 150 feet from the existing infrastructure is meaningless for a provider having no infrastructure in that area to begin with. Further, 150 feet to the actual structure is LONG way. As well as 35 homes per square mile. Supporting the county seat is frankly meaningless - especially in 3 years.

The bottom line here is that there is plenty of data to prove the following:

1) Prior to enacting build-out requirements, MANY groups of customers had no access. They were given access when Build-Out requirements forced the providers to do so.

2) All of the proposed new legislation essentially eliminates that build-out requirement. There may be some weak vestiges of it remaining, but it is nowhere near the existing requirement.

3) When providers are not forced to provide access in those areas they have not done so - consistently.

Summary: 1+2+3=new legislaton will disenfranchise a large group of customers. It will provide absolutely no additional "competition" in the market - none. Actually, if build-out requirements are maintained, you can be assured that the providers will still enter the market. Then, there would be true competition as they would be forced to compete equally.

Further, in those communities where this change has already taken place, there has been no cost reduction as a result of competition.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> and I guess there's the 2 issues.
> 
> Some of us thing that it would be better for consumers (even if people aren't currently aware).
> 
> ...


My logic is because those PEG channels are used for public education - not entertainment. And, they do not add to costs. For example, we (our municipality has 2 channels) pay for our own equipment and feed. It actually provides an advantage to cable over DBS.

Further, even in those areas where the franchise authority somehow gets free equipment for a channel or two, the actual cost of that is unbelieveably small. No comparison whatsoever for the (in relative terms) exponential increased cost of mandating the ban for all devices.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> found this link from the search page dt_dc's great search link:
> 
> http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518523135
> 
> ...


Well, I'm still saying that the cost is more than $1-2 per month because of additional support costs. In particular because of the derived additional support required to support 3rd party devices having potential quality/compliance issues (remember, I've got one of those  ).

Beyond that, I'd say that the analogy about cable modems does not apply. Cable modems are based completely on pre-existing standards that were universally accepted well before the introduction of such devices. Specifically, that DHCP, MAC addresses, NAT, and TCP/IP were not remotely developed either by force of government will nor specifically for the purposes of an integration ban or other cable related directive. They were technologies having been deployed massively across the world well prior to cable ever getting involved. The integration ban is completely the opposite. It's essentially a virtually non-existent technology being developed for and only for the cable industry to support a very small niche market.

Beyond that I would take incredible exception to saying that the increases would only affect the more affluent people. Some folks here seem to be under a very grave misconception that the only people leasing DVRs from the cableco's are "affluent" when in fact that is not true. Specifically because of the very low incremental cost, DVRs are mainstream now for the general public - not the affluent. The S3 is certainly priced toward the affluent side of the market - which by everyone's admission here keeps it from being a direct competitor for the cableco DVRs.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> I belive again that you are incorrect. There are several levels of government in the US. I didn't limit what I said to the federal level.
> 
> Are you really on the franchise board in your town- or was that a joke earlier? That's a government entity-no? Does your towns franchise agreement not stipulate coverage levels for cable? Maybe all towns don't but mine sure does. Also here in NJ they just recently passed statewide franchises and the all the proposed State laws were chock full of build out requirements- if someone decides to get a statewide franchise there are certain build out benchmarks they must reach. I honestly have not read the final version that was signed into law but I'd be plenty surprised if there was none. Even if they removed all traces they were certainly debating adding them. So it's impossible to say that no place are their built out requirements. It would just be untrue.
> 
> ...


OK, a few things.

1) Yes, I am a member of our Franchise Authority. Yes, it is a non-paid local government entity. We get not a single cent of compensation of any type whatsoever. Yes, we have build-out requirements. Those build-out requirements immediately go away when our current agreement expires (they all expire and must be renewed obviously) if either State or Federal legislation is passed. If a municipality has no standing agreement at the time state or federal leglistion is passed they are immediately subject to the new law. No, in BOTH proposed federal legistions there are no provisions for Build-out requirements". None. No, the existing state-enacted franchise agreements (in other states) do not provide any real semblance of existing build-out requirements. Furthermore, such legislation (either state or federal) provides not a single penny for oversight or management of such agreements. Meaning no enforcement. Also, as for the going to DBS if costs get too high, many do not have that capability. Geographic constraints as well as legal constraints prevent DBS from being a viable option for many consumers. Certainly more do than do not, which has made DBS a viable competitor, but that doesn't mean that it will ALWAYS be an option for the general public. Additionally, DBS has no effective means to deliver broadband for those areas not supported by DSL because they are too far from the nearest equipped CO (at least within 18000 feet). True Sat delivered broadband is both expensive and has very high latency.

2) Cablecos must meet certain service levels today. That is far less difficult with proprietary and limited numbers of devices deployed by them. They support very few 3rd party devices at this time. They don't like having to support CC and I don't blame them for that. As an IT Executive, I would fight tooth and nail to not support devices/systems across my enterprise because of the high increased cost levels and the loss of control. In IT that's simply a global best practice, learned over lears of pain by the entire industry. At the heart, this is an IT discussion when approached by pure fact and not emotion.

3) What the legislation means about not "moving" costs is that they cannot for example move the cost of subsidizing high end DVRs by pushing those costs to low end STBs. It does not mean that they cannot justify subsidizing ALL products. This is actually an intersting point, as if you start to allow 3rd party devices it could have the result of forcing the cableco's to increase costs on ALL of their devices because they would not be able to legally do otherwise. I'll need to think about that one - never thought of it before.

4) I certainly haven't read all the legislation (and more importantly, the pertinent FCC findings). The FCC also has a nasty habit of publishing a "finding" which isn't technically a "law" or "act" but does govern as a pratical outcome how things work. An example is the 2001/2002 findings that removed cable delivered broadband from under the provisions of the Franchise Agreement. It further removed oversight and enforcement to the FCC - who has never since ever enforced or reviewed service related issues. Nice. I do have the advantage to continuous access to our retained consel who works with us to translate such findings so that we can try to digest it. My earlier point is that while there is certainly room for discussion of the finer points of this area, there seem to be extremely large gaps where a large number of people (here and elsewhere) have completely inaccurate understandings of communications law, franchise agreements, etc. Unfortunately, that is EXACTLY what is allowing this momentum to create state and/or federal agreements that will without a doubt disenfranchise a large number of Americans. It's an uneducated (specifically about this subject only) perception that allows providers to get their way.

But, good discussion all around on this thread.


----------



## PPC1 (Sep 16, 2006)

First off, I am very impressed with the knowledge of those posting on this thread. I *am* a lawyer, but do not practice in this area. Unless a lawyer practices in this area, there is no way they would know anything about the appliacable statutes, regulation, and regulatory orders. Since I don't practice in this area, I know substantially less about the applicable law than those others here.

Second, (despite my admitted ignorance) it seems the point here is that the MSOs have government protected monopolies, and they are using their monopoly power to squeeze out the competition for DVRs, in particular, and anything that would serve or require the functionality of a STB, in general. (I am sure a large portion of this is to maintain their revenue stream for PPV, rather than DVRs, but the effect is the same.) That is the rational of the integration ban in the FCC order-- to curb that monopoly power. To say that there will be future costs to the MSO to comply with the order is beside the point. Of course there will be costs. If the system worked now as intended, cable cards (the solution offered up by the MSOs some time ago) would work pretty effortlessly for the consumer. But they don't work effortlessly. That is because the cable companies haven't sunk the resources into making them work effortlessly. The integration ban in effect requires the MSOs to now sink money into the problem (when they have for years chosen not to do so) because the problems only experienced by a few CC equiped t.v. owners and S3 owners now becomes the cable companies problem too.

While it is only a small minority of subscribers that use CCs, if they are made to work as intended, there is no telling what products will be made available in the future to consumers.

I am certainly a free market supporter, and generally abhor government intervention. But let's face it, the government is already in the picture. Unless the governemnt is completely removed from this equation, let's not kid ourselves about the evils of government intervention, and a knee jerk reaction that less regulation is better. We have giovernent intervention in this arena. So the question is, "Can we make obviously bad government regulation less worse?"

I think the answer to that is yes, and the answer is (in this current environment we find ourselves in) by forcing the MSOs to spend the resources that they promised to do when they were granted continued government protection of their monopolies. If you want to try to curb their ability to pass that cost on to the customer, fine. (But good luck doing it.)


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> Look at HR5252 and SB2628. The federal legislation completely eliminates any build-out requirements. The only restriction is that (on the surface) they cannot discriminate for reasons of "affluency", or generally protected classes. It is impossible to oversee and by all admissions allows complete discretion by providers as to where/when they build out.
> 
> Even your examples of earlier legislation in your area would completely eliminate many existing customers - being retroactive to existing providers as well. 150 feet from the existing infrastructure is meaningless for a provider having no infrastructure in that area to begin with. Further, 150 feet to the actual structure is LONG way. As well as 35 homes per square mile. Supporting the county seat is frankly meaningless - especially in 3 years.
> 
> ...


we're drifting off topic, but i was just replying to your post:



winpitt said:


> Actually you are quite incorrect in a number of statements above. I'll point out a few....
> 
> 1) CableCos have NO mandate on cable density per street. Does not exist. Period. As a matter of fact, any proposed legislation which would move to state or federal franchise agreements totally eliminates ANY requirement for cable density or coverage - period.
> ....


where you said that they do not currenty exist and that any state franchises would totally eliminate them - obvioulsy you were mistaken.

interesting that the federal laws as proposed have none. Thanks for the pointers.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> My logic is because those PEG channels are used for public education - not entertainment. And, they do not add to costs. For example, we (our municipality has 2 channels) pay for our own equipment and feed. It actually provides an advantage to cable over DBS.
> 
> Further, even in those areas where the franchise authority somehow gets free equipment for a channel or two, the actual cost of that is unbelieveably small. No comparison whatsoever for the (in relative terms) exponential increased cost of mandating the ban for all devices.


again- if you want to get into a disagreemnt about what the definition of the word is, is , then so be it. Dont think it matters to the big picture though...


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> Well, I'm still saying that the cost is more than $1-2 per month because of additional support costs. In particular because of the derived additional support required to support 3rd party devices having potential quality/compliance issues (remember, I've got one of those  ).
> ....


The CEA filings are related to the costs or forcing the integration ban. So the costs are predominantly just for STB's. But I'm sure there are other costs in there too as you pointed out.

But you figure you know better then the NCTA, the cable compnaies themselves, and the various lobying groups that peg it at 600 million a year and 1-4 bucks a box?

I guess it's possible that everyone at the NCTA and the cable companies are idiots, but I'd think if they had any smarts at all they would include those other costs in their esitmates.

Again- the mandate for them to alrady support 3rd party devices is over and done with, they are already saddled with those costs. THe current debate goign on between the parties is if cable should have the costs of providing cablecard boxes themselves.



winpitt said:


> ...
> 
> Beyond that, I'd say that the analogy about cable modems does not apply. Cable modems are based completely on pre-existing standards that were universally accepted well before the introduction of such devices. Specifically, that DHCP, MAC addresses, NAT, and TCP/IP were not remotely developed either by force of government will nor specifically for the purposes of an integration ban or other cable related directive. They were technologies having been deployed massively across the world well prior to cable ever getting involved. The integration ban is completely the opposite. It's essentially a virtually non-existent technology being developed for and only for the cable industry to support a very small niche market.
> ....


I dont follow how you figure that doscis modems are millions of years old but that cablecards are some thing invented yesterday. Both are relatively new. Even assumign it's some new terrible thing- the government didn't make it- it's a product of cable themselves. They made the standard. I actually think cable got screwed over by SA and MOTO but it wasn't the government that invented cablecard and said use it. The governement told cable come up with an open standard and this is what cable created.

A "very small niche"? there's 100 million tv receiving households in the US, Probably twice that many tv's. This is not about 3rd pary DVR's. The integration ban is about forcing cablecards on everyone. All 85 million cable TV households.



winpitt said:


> ...
> Beyond that I would take incredible exception to saying that the increases would only affect the more affluent people. Some folks here seem to be under a very grave misconception that the only people leasing DVRs from the cableco's are "affluent" when in fact that is not true. Specifically because of the very low incremental cost, DVRs are mainstream now for the general public - not the affluent. The S3 is certainly priced toward the affluent side of the market - which by everyone's admission here keeps it from being a direct competitor for the cableco DVRs.


that could be true- but I think you actually way way over estimate the DVR penetration. You keep saying everyone has them yada yada. That's not the case. We are the looney tune fringe here. Lets say tivo has 5 million, Dish another 5 million, Comcast another 5 million, and10 million for the rest of everyone - that's still just 25 million boxes. (And those are all geneous estimates. Seeing as how there are likley 200 million TV's in the country- it's someplace like 10% of the TV's and less then 25% of the homes. That's significant for sure but not universal.

something like 50% of cable only gets analog cable. I'd say that as a whole the 50% who have digital cable are wealthier then the 50% without.

But all that aside- I'm not sure it's anyone's right to have a low cost HD or DVR receiver. As I've said time and time again, I think that it benefits consumers long term to have an open standard. So I'm not sure that paying a 2 dollar "tax" per box now is a bad investiment if it means that in 3 years STB's would die and people could for the rest of thier lives never have to pay a fee for a plain STB again.

At this point- with ocap and all it's a big convaluted mess, and I dont really know what to do. But If the integration ban would get us all (consumers and cable) to the end gmae faster for a small current cost then I do honestly think it benefits everyone goign forward for the future.

I guess in your view plain STB's die anyway when everyone gets a DVR- and that might be a valid point. I'd need to think about it.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> OK, a few things.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


I honestly don't KNOW - but i think you are still reading that wrong. again it says:



> such regulations shall not prohibit any MVPD from also offering converter boxes, interactive communications equipment, and other equipment used by consumers to access multichannel video programming and other services over multichannel video programming systesm, to consumers, if the the systems operator's charges to consumers, for such devices are separately stated and not subsidized by the charges for any such service


subsidized by charges for any such *service* . I'd think that includes multichannel video programming and other services delivered over the MPVD system. I dont see how that's limited to just subsidizing from other equipment. Unless there's a regulation, ruling, or "finding" (that's special- thanks for that pointer) that says otherwise that I havne't stumbled upon.

I'm not sure they need to spread the cost to everyone if they only used CC boxes for HD and DVR's. 
BUT....
THis is were I get lost.

I think the 'basket' that all the reqs talk about allow them to compartmentalize things if they choose. But again I cant follow it totally. I think the basic jist is the line item for equipment rental at the end of the year should be break even- sub items of that can be profits or losses but the entire 'basket' has to be break even.

Actually I think the whole basket thing does exactly what you are sayign they cant do. That is they can use the low end STB fees to subsidize the DVR boxes if they decide to?

but I really dont know and would like to understand the whole equipment rental pricing thing better as I think it has a huge implication to what makes sense here goign forward.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> I totally disagree with you. I believe it is you with teh error here. I guess that's how it is- we just disagree. You thinkg it's so huge major NEW undertaking and I think they aleady are basically there MOSTLY just need to get new equipment (there will be other costs I'm sure but I dont think they are major as you seem to believe. They already SERVICE AND SUPPROT AND MAINTAIN (i can yell too-LOL) cablecards they've done so for a while no since they have been required to for some time. So they already need to know how to do it and have to have their headend upgraded to handle it.
> 
> no quibble there- feel free to quote the whole post from the big guy. I chose my words carefully (went back and edited to be clear like 5 minutes after i first posted and said *"perhaps as low as"* Like anything else if you were arguing against it you would be sure to use the HIGHEST number you could find to support your position that it's a waste of money. I think the fact that at least one of them has said the cost would be AS LOW AS $70 means that that is an easily achievable price and where the TOP end would likely be in the real world. We have no idea what the real proces are, but I can assure you that no cabel compnay put in the best case pricing in their filings. Once comcast puts in the order for a million CC DVR's then I'm sure the pricing will drop for them. Also, like everythign else I think the price will quickly drop as they become main stream- once MILLIONS and MILLIONS of devices are deployed the economies of scale kick in and the price will only drop.
> 
> ...


First of all, cableco's are NOT currently supporting or maintaining CC to any real extent. Look all around this board and you see this. Specifically, they are not dedicating much resource at all to this function - which people are obviously complaining about. The vast majority (overwhelming actually) is being devoted to non CC devices. Changing this has an impact and that impact is not small.

Second, I'm arguing that frankly the ban is ridiculous and that it's very possible that the FCC could simply continue to delay. That it's possible that a more appropriate technology could/should be found. Or, that in actuality it just doesn't make sens to begin with. If we were talking about nothing more than them having to support their own boxes with CC that's one thing. The issue for me is forcing them to support everyone else's product.

Also, I take exception with your description that I'd use the "high" numbers. I'm not using any number because I have little faith. However, were I to do so I would use the entire quoted range and not specify a model using only the very lowest (which were actually corrected by DT_DC as not being fully inclusive) number.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

PPC1 said:


> First off, I am very impressed with the knowledge of those posting on this thread. I *am* a lawyer, but do not practice in this area. Unless a lawyer practices in this area, there is no way they would know anything about the appliacable statutes, regulation, and regulatory orders. Since I don't practice in this area, I know substantially less about the applicable law than those others here.
> 
> Second, (despite my admitted ignorance) it seems the point here is that the MSOs have government protected monopolies, and they are using their monopoly power to squeeze out the competition for DVRs, in particular, and anything that would serve or require the functionality of a STB, in general. (I am sure a large portion of this is to maintain their revenue stream for PPV, rather than DVRs, but the effect is the same.) That is the rational of the integration ban in the FCC order-- to curb that monopoly power. To say that there will be future costs to the MSO to comply with the order is beside the point. Of course there will be costs. If the system worked now as intended, cable cards (the solution offered up by the MSOs some time ago) would work pretty effortlessly for the consumer. But they don't work effortlessly. That is because the cable companies haven't sunk the resources into making them work effortlessly. The integration ban in effect requires the MSOs to now sink money into the problem (when they have for years chosen not to do so) because the problems only experienced by a few CC equiped t.v. owners and S3 owners now becomes the cable companies problem too.
> 
> ...


You are quite wrong. Cablecos do NOT have government protected monopolies. By law, every franchise agreement is non-exclusive. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever preventing anyone who wants to from entering any market. Except financial logic of course. Not to be disrespectful, but your entire foundation for your argument is based on that monopoly idea, and the fact that it's blatently incorrect destroys the rest of your point.

Example: Our franchise has been actively seeking Verizon business, but they have refrained because they think they can get a better deal if some new legislation is passed. That is in fact the opposite of the government mandating a monopoly or protecting one. It's business - pure and simple.

Additionally, it is quite obvious that your area of legal expertise is also not in the technology field. The reason that CC is difficult is not in fact because MSOs have not done any work - though that is clearly part of it. It is that it introduces additional variables in the form of firmware, hardware and versioning that create the potential for failure and conflict - and which cannot under any circumstances be controlled or managed by the MSOs.

Further, this is not an issue of the MSOs delivering on what "they promised". this is an issue of the MSOs delivering on what an ineffective government mandate having little serious thought behind it forced them into.

There are far more areas where the MSOs should be held accountable. This is not one of them.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> we're drifting off topic, but i was just replying to your post:
> 
> where you said that they do not currenty exist and that any state franchises would totally eliminate them - obvioulsy you were mistaken.
> 
> interesting that the federal laws as proposed have none. Thanks for the pointers.


Uh, no. There are no effective build-out requirements in any of the new state-wide francise agreements. I was not wrong. The requirements you mention have so many holes that you could drive a dozen trains through them. They have no value.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> The CEA filings are related to the costs or forcing the integration ban. So the costs are predominantly just for STB's. But I'm sure there are other costs in there too as you pointed out.
> 
> But you figure you know better then the NCTA, the cable compnaies themselves, and the various lobying groups that peg it at 600 million a year and 1-4 bucks a box?
> 
> ...


Cable modems are based on previously accepted technolgy standards developed for other non-entertainment purposes having been tested and deployed for several years and was not forced by law on anyone. CC is completely different in every respect. That is quite self-evident to anyone familiar with the technology field.

The average consumer doesn't give a hoot about the ban and would be strongly opposed to paying extra for something that they do not use. We're forcing legislation for the benefit of a small minority - period. I challenge you to find a single consumer market study that shows consumers feel CC deployment is more important to cost containment and content delivery for entertainment services.

They are not currently delivering effectively on supporting 3rd party devices - and I can most certainly understand why.

MSOs are already not cash cows and everyone here is pretending they're the best investment in the world - expecting them to foot the cost for us - the minority.

I'm not overestimating DVR penetration. I'm talking about DVR growth. Those are two very different discussions.

I have difficulty believing you actually said that you're "not sure it's anyone's right to have a low cost HD or DVR receiver". So you're in effect saying it's in the consumers best interest to pay a higher price for something they aren't asking for, but that they should perhaps have to pay a premium for DVR service even though they don't now? I'm sorry, but to me it sounds like a "it's better for me, so it must be better for everyone no matter the cost" justification. No insult, but I really don't get that at all.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

BTW: What exactly does the ban get the consumer? The ONLY two things I see are;

CC for that extremely small percentage of TVs equipped with a slot who do not want DVR or interactive service.

TiVo S3.

So exactly why is this so important that it should be forced on everyone? I'd personally rather have pre-emptively cashed HD MOD as an example. I think that more consumers would feel the same way. Except of course that I'd like the S3 to work personally. But even though I want it to work, I'd frankly prefer if TiVo would simply partner with all the players, stop delivering their own hardware, and get the hardware from the MSO. That would be my strong preference.


----------



## acvthree (Jan 17, 2004)

winpitt said:


> But even though I want it to work, I'd frankly prefer if TiVo would simply partner with all the players, stop delivering their own hardware, and get the hardware from the MSO. That would be my strong preference.


Even at the cost of significantly reduced functionality? That is what we have seen everytime the Tivo software comes under control of the MSOs (DirectTV, Comcast).

Al


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Clearly, the best arrangement would be the stability and sound footing of deploying the technology through MSOs, *along with* the entire range of desired functionality. I'm sure that is what winpitt was saying.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

winpitt said:


> So exactly why is this so important that it should be forced on everyone? I'd personally rather have pre-emptively cashed HD MOD as an example. I think that more consumers would feel the same way. Except of course that I'd like the S3 to work personally. But even though I want it to work, I'd frankly prefer if TiVo would simply partner with all the players, stop delivering their own hardware, and get the hardware from the MSO. That would be my strong preference.


first off - if TV sets could be sold that with the CC would be digital ready while protecting the MSOs revenue generating interests - that would buy all consumers the ability to finally go all digital while still having cheap TV sets and give up the analog spectrum. I think this was the intent behind the law in the first place. Find an open standard all digital delivery mechanism that would not put TV set makers out of business. After that the idea of 3rd party use to come up with even more products was just a bonus.

So yes, we agree that consumers should not foot an extra cost just for DVR enthusiasts - but the integration ban was about a lot more than that from the start. Here in this forum it just tends to get that slant of being for DVRs. 

-------------
as for TiVo giving up the hardware - that is fine and choice should be available. But my choice is to have a DVR I own so that I can upgrade the size of storage or make other mods if I so choose. Also if I move I want my shows and settings to move with me and not have to start all over.

Currently I have one cable provider I can use at my house, currently they offer me one choice in a DVR and I do not even get a say in the size of the hard drive. It is utterly absurd to say that being limited to that one choice is best for the consumers. Lets not even get started on the UI and season passes, etc..


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> first off - if TV sets could be sold that with the CC would be digital ready while protecting the MSOs revenue generating interests - that would buy all consumers the ability to finally go all digital while still having cheap TV sets and give up the analog spectrum. I think this was the intent behind the law in the first place. Find an open standard all digital delivery mechanism that would not put TV set makers out of business. After that the idea of 3rd party use to come up with even more products was just a bonus.
> 
> So yes, we agree that consumers should not foot an extra cost just for DVR enthusiasts - but the integration ban was about a lot more than that from the start. Here in this forum it just tends to get that slant of being for DVRs.
> 
> ...


*
+1*


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> Uh, no. There are no effective build-out requirements in any of the new state-wide francise agreements. I was not wrong. The requirements you mention have so many holes that you could drive a dozen trains through them. They have no value.


oh- ok so the definition of the word "are" requires you to use the word effective as an adjective now. ..

You stated an absolute and I pointed out how your absoulte was incorrect.

If you want to quailfy it go right ahead.

You seem to see everythign in black and white...

anyway- there is no point to this...

on with the show


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> First of all, cableco's are NOT currently supporting or maintaining CC to any real extent. Look all around this board and you see this. Specifically, they are not dedicating much resource at all to this function - which people are obviously complaining about. The vast majority (overwhelming actually) is being devoted to non CC devices. Changing this has an impact and that impact is not small.
> 
> Second, I'm arguing that frankly the ban is ridiculous and that it's very possible that the FCC could simply continue to delay. That it's possible that a more appropriate technology could/should be found. Or, that in actuality it just doesn't make sens to begin with. If we were talking about nothing more than them having to support their own boxes with CC that's one thing. The issue for me is forcing them to support everyone else's product.
> ....


interesting- so your beef is with the descisions that have already been made that they have to support third party devices. And you dont have much probelm with the current debate about if they should be forced to support CC in their own boxes.

I guess you'd need to go back in time to change that regulation.

I wouldn't dispute for a single second that maybe this technology is crappy or that a better one could be found. But this is the choice that cable made- the government told them to come up with an open system and this is what they decided on.

I just think an open system is best for everyone- cable MCO's, consumers, the economy, etc, etc. The only people it MIGHT hurt would be moto and SA by killing off their duopoly. But maybe forcing them to compete would make them learn to be more efficient and make them thrive even more.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> Cable modems are based on previously accepted technolgy standards developed for other non-entertainment purposes having been tested and deployed for several years and was not forced by law on anyone. CC is completely different in every respect. That is quite self-evident to anyone familiar with the technology field....


alrighty- I'll say that cable modems are vastly different- it's really not that relavent.

Clearly having an OPEN standard has helped cable in regards to deployment of broadband. As you point out they CHOOSE an open model. So clearly they so an advantage to it.

let's put the cable card technology aside- would you agree that an open system for video would be best for just about everyone invovled? Curious what you think about that.



winpitt said:


> ... ...I have difficulty believing you actually said that you're "not sure it's anyone's right to have a low cost HD or DVR receiver". So you're in effect saying it's in the consumers best interest to pay a higher price for something they aren't asking for, but that they should perhaps have to pay a premium for DVR service even though they don't now? I'm sorry, but to me it sounds like a "it's better for me, so it must be better for everyone no matter the cost" justification. No insult, but I really don't get that at all.


what dont you beleive. I also am not sure it's anyone's right to even be able to buy pay tv either. I'm not sure anyone has a right to buy vanilla ice cream, etc, etc....

For the umpteen time I am not being selfish- this is not about me- or even about just dvr users like some try to frame this. I've said like - what 30 times- that I BELIEVE that it would be best for everyone long term for their to be an open standard. I've said many times in this thread that I'm not sure cablecards are the best way to get there, that the thing is a whole big mess right now. And unless someone can point to a better plan to go forward I dont think the old plan should be abandoned.

Let me spell out the logic that I alluded to above. I think it's generally in the publics best interest to pay $2 more a month for the next 3 years (36 x 2 or 72 dollars) IF that got us to a system that killed off cable boxes so no one ever again had to spend a dime renting them. Millions of people now pay rental fees for cable boxes that are NOT DVR's. I think it MIGHT BE in everyones best interest to bite the bullet and pay a little more for a few years so that no plain STB's are ever needed again. 72 dollars today or a lifetime of rental fees for boxes? I think it's better to bite the bullet now.

If anything my argument is advanced box users such as myself should be the ones to bear that cost. If anything I'm willing to spend more MYSELF to help the greater good. That's far from selfish.

You can argue that you dont believe the math would work out for my "plan" but that's what I personally believe. I think you're estimated of the costs are way high. But everyone is entitled to an opinion. Time will tell who was closer i suppose


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> BTW: What exactly does the ban get the consumer? The ONLY two things I see are;
> 
> CC for that extremely small percentage of TVs equipped with a slot who do not want DVR or interactive service.
> 
> ...


it's about the FUTURE. The FCC's logic is that forcing the integration ban will creat a FUTURE affordable market for CC ready devices for the consumer.

That's a future where there is no such thing as renting a STB just to get plain tv functions.

the issue isn't about this week or this month. It's about how do we get to a system where third party open standard devices are readily availible for purchase by consumers.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> first off - if TV sets could be sold that with the CC would be digital ready while protecting the MSOs revenue generating interests - that would buy all consumers the ability to finally go all digital while still having cheap TV sets and give up the analog spectrum. I think this was the intent behind the law in the first place. Find an open standard all digital delivery mechanism that would not put TV set makers out of business. After that the idea of 3rd party use to come up with even more products was just a bonus.
> 
> So yes, we agree that consumers should not foot an extra cost just for DVR enthusiasts - but the integration ban was about a lot more than that from the start. Here in this forum it just tends to get that slant of being for DVRs.
> 
> ...


 :up:

*+2*


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

here's an interesting take from the courts from an early suit about the ban.

http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2000/98-1420.html

good points on both sides.

Seems some of the commissioners thought the requirment to get 3rd party devices availible was one of the most consumer friendly things in the whole bill. But others make the argument that the integration ban might cost consumers more and therefore be unfriendly.

Seems the FCC commisioners had the same debate that is going on in this thread about if the integration ban is a good or a bad thing for consumers.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> Seems the FCC commisioners had the same debate that is going on in this thread about if the integration ban is a good or a bad thing for consumers.


Yes, they did. And (former) Commissioner Powell was one of the more vocal opponents of the ban.


MichaelK said:


> here's an interesting take from the courts from an early suit about the ban.
> 
> http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2000/98-1420.html


That was the first integration ban court case. The second one (which again upheld it) is here:
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200608/05-1237a.pdf


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Let's also keep in mind that "best for consumers" is barely one-half of the objective that the FCC needs to achieve. They have to find a solution that is good for consumers, good for business, inherently fair (i.e., not imposing an unfunded government mandate), and enhances the utilization of the public assets.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> Let's also keep in mind that "best for consumers" is barely one-half of the objective that the FCC needs to achieve. They have to find a solution that is good for consumers, good for business, inherently fair (i.e., not imposing an unfunded government mandate), and enhances the utilization of the public assets.


while I generally agree with ALL of that. I do personally make a distinction that "unfunded government mandates" can be good for everyone involved if they are well thought out. I'm not so sure this one is. But there can be times where it makes sense.

also I would argue that in almost all cases (unles things run completely amock- which might be the case here) what is good for the consumer is generally what is good for business, and is therefore the best way to utilize the public assets.

fairness is a tough issue to get one's teeth around...

_edit: thought about it more- and I think the above are just goals and common sense.

Unfortunatley tHe FCC's objective is spelled out in the law pretty clearly. They are to "adopt regulations that assure commerical availibility of ...converter boxes..." Says nothing about being wise, efficient, fair, intelligent, or anything like that. The law just says they need to do what they can to make boxes availible at retail.

And they decided that perrmitting integrated boxes was an impedement to that. _


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

dt_dc said:


> ... That was the first integration ban court case. The second one (which again upheld it) is here:
> http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200608/05-1237a.pdf


thanks for the link.

Looks like Winnpitt might work for the NCTA after all. 

The second case (like the first) is a lot about parsing words. The NCTA's newest argument is that STB's are not "converter boxes" but rather "other equipment ... used to access video programming"

They say that apparently they meant to bring it up 5 years earlier when they were arguing that "converter boxes " had a completely different meaning then "converter boxes"

How's that for parsing words?

Funny though- maybe STB's are "other equipment" cause the court refused to bother with the argument as they said the NCTA should have brought it up 5 years earlier when they argued grammar the first time.

I wonder if converter boxes are not "effective" at receiving video programming so this other equipment is needed? (ducks and runs)

Anyway the court found that the FCC's actions 'aren't arbitrary or capricious' and that there is a 'satisfactory explanation' of their actions and a 'rational connection between the facts involved and the decisions made'.

Here's a great couple of quotes from the FCC explaining their logic for the ban

_"at the heart of a robust retail market for navigation devices is the reliance of cable operators on the same security technology and conditional access interface that consumer electronics manufacturer's must rely on in developing competitive navigation devices"_

If cable operators _must take steps to support their own compliant equipment, it seems far more likely that they will continue *to support and take into account the need to support services that will work with independently supplied and purchased equipment*._

(the bold bit is particularly ugly for cable- if the FCC continues with that logic then anything proprietary is evil and you could make an argument cable will need to work with 2-way cable cards like everyone else and that a more 'neutral' version of OCAP will need to be implemented.)

Part of that reasoning apparently stemmed from their belief that cable doesn't adequately support cablcards as is. The FCC apparently though part of the reason that so many cablecard tv's exist that don't even use cablecards is related to cable putting up road blocks and not consumer indifference as some have posted here (I'm not sure my opinion- but it's clear what the FCC thinks) .

That got me to thinking- it looks like this is almost an enforcement action or punishment for not properly supporting cablecards in the first place. I think there's something of a pattern in cable history with cable pushing the line and then the government overreacting the opposite way. Same sort of thing happened over the course of retransmission consent over the years. In that case cable pushed a little too hard over the course of like 20-30 years and now the broadcasters are in complete control of that relationship- getting to pick either retransmission consent (with some quid pro quo from cable) or demanding must carry. Makes you almost wonder that if in another 10 years the CEA wont be in complete control of the CEA-CABLE relationship.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> BTW: What exactly does the ban get the consumer? The ONLY two things I see are;
> 
> CC for that extremely small percentage of TVs equipped with a slot who do not want DVR or interactive service.
> 
> ...


you should read dt-dc's links to the court cases. You will get the FCC's reasoning at least. Maybe you disagree but it's interesting to see their logic.

The second case cable brought up costs and says that the FCC hasn't justified them. They even used some words that sound like you typed them right here in this thread . Stuff like the costs are "enormous" and will be passed onto consumers who will see "absolutely no benefit. The court disagreed.

The FCC first says theres a big disagreement between cable and the CEA on what the real world cost will be. THe FCC acknowledges there will additional costs in the short term but argues that they will drop over time as the NCTA is likely quoting low volume and first generation pricing.

The FCC argues that the costs "_should be counterbalanced to a significant extent by the benefits likely to flow from a more competitive and open supply market" those benefits included the "potential savings to consumers from greater choice among navigation devices: as well as the spurring of technological innovations. And of course there was the fact that Congress regarded the commercial availability of navigation devices from independent sources as a benefit in and of itself. _

oh and by the way- the BAN gets comsumers neither of the 2 things you said above. THe earlier ruling that cable has to support cacablecards already does those 2 things.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> ...
> 
> Here's a great couple of quotes from the FCC explaining their logic for the ban
> 
> ...


and since this is the tivo forum- Just want to point out that the FCC actually uses the lack of m-cards for TiVo Series 3's as a an example of the issue behing the bolded section.

So maybe tivo can get cablelabs to come up with an approval for m-cards in unidirectional devices afterall....


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> Stuff like the costs are "enormous" and will be passed onto consumers who will see "absolutely no benefit. The court disagreed.


The court didn't necessarily disagree. They just found it irrelevant.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

acvthree said:


> Even at the cost of significantly reduced functionality? That is what we have seen everytime the Tivo software comes under control of the MSOs (DirectTV, Comcast).
> 
> Al


That's the current implementation - possibly because TiVo is a competitor in addition to a partner. Isn't it possible that more full features solutions could be delivered? I think so.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

bicker said:


> Clearly, the best arrangement would be the stability and sound footing of deploying the technology through MSOs, *along with* the entire range of desired functionality. I'm sure that is what winpitt was saying.


That is exactly what I'm saying. If TiVo wasn't distracted by trying to produce, sell and support hardware solutions perhaps the value proposition of delivering full functionality via an MSO would be more likely.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> first off - if TV sets could be sold that with the CC would be digital ready while protecting the MSOs revenue generating interests - that would buy all consumers the ability to finally go all digital while still having cheap TV sets and give up the analog spectrum. I think this was the intent behind the law in the first place. Find an open standard all digital delivery mechanism that would not put TV set makers out of business. After that the idea of 3rd party use to come up with even more products was just a bonus.
> 
> So yes, we agree that consumers should not foot an extra cost just for DVR enthusiasts - but the integration ban was about a lot more than that from the start. Here in this forum it just tends to get that slant of being for DVRs.
> 
> ...


And again, your argument comes down completely to one thing. What YOU want. I don't believe choice is a fundamental freedom of the consumer in this case, and that the entire thing is a misrepresentation of our market.

The integration ban as it applies to non-DVR products is a sham and not even the FCC has the stomach for it.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> oh- ok so the definition of the word "are" requires you to use the word effective as an adjective now. ..
> 
> You stated an absolute and I pointed out how your absoulte was incorrect.
> 
> ...


No, this is not semantics. There are no build-out requirements in the new legislation. Build out requirements refer to mandatory service delivery to the entire market - not to segments. Your examples are singular rather than complete requirements.

In this case it is black and white.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> interesting- so your beef is with the descisions that have already been made that they have to support third party devices. And you dont have much probelm with the current debate about if they should be forced to support CC in their own boxes.
> 
> I guess you'd need to go back in time to change that regulation.
> 
> ...


And again you completely disregard the cost of service by the MSO to support issues caused by 3rd party vendors. That is the very largest problem I see with this, and it doesn't affect SA or MOTO. It affects the MSOs - which really ultimately means it negatively affects the general consumer.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> Unfortunatley tHe FCC's objective is spelled out in the law pretty clearly. They are to "adopt regulations that assure commerical availibility of ...converter boxes..." Says nothing about being wise, efficient, fair, intelligent, or anything like that. The law just says they need to do what they can to make boxes availible at retail.


The law doesn't say that the converter boxes actually have to work as well as the cable company boxes, or provide the same features, or even carry all the same channels. An argument can be made that the intention should be to support commercially available converter boxes solely for the must-carry service.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

winpitt said:


> And again you completely disregard the cost of service by the MSO to support issues caused by 3rd party vendors. That is the very largest problem I see with this, and it doesn't affect SA or MOTO. It affects the MSOs - which really ultimately means it negatively affects the general consumer.


This is a great point. It is unreasonable to expect one company to provide support for a flaky consumer electronics product that they don't explicitly sanction use of in their system, and don't have full control over (i.e., prohibiting modifications thereto). Try getting Microsoft to provide you technical support for Mozilla.... even though it is running on their operating system, it isn't their software, so problems with it shouldn't be their problem.


----------



## DCIFRTHS (Jan 6, 2000)

nrc said:


> Cable companies complain that CC are too expensive for deployment in "low end" boxes when it's that kind of mass deployment that is needed to bring the cost of CC down. As soon as cable providers are forced to use CC they'll force the cost issue with suppliers and CC boxes won't cost substanitally more than a normal box now.
> 
> It's all smoke and mirrors to keep competition locked out. The FCC needs to cram it down their throats and make them stop their foot dragging.


Amen! They need to cram something larger than a foot down their mouths.

There should be no exception to the ruling by the FCC. All devices made after the cut off going date should be required to use CC. I hope the the FCC has the stones to stop its coddling of the the cable providers. Additionally, if Verizon wants to compete, then there should be no exception for them either.


----------



## DCIFRTHS (Jan 6, 2000)

winpitt said:


> And again you completely disregard the cost of service by the MSO to support issues caused by 3rd party vendors. That is the very largest problem I see with this, and it doesn't affect SA or MOTO. It affects the MSOs - which really ultimately means it negatively affects the general consumer.


That's what Cablelabs is for? They certify equipment for use on the MSO's systems. They put standards in place for the industry to follow. I have no problem with the CC requiring only certified devices to be used on their network.

For all we know, the MSO's aren't in compliance with the latest Cablelab specs, and then the third party CE manufacturer has to pay for the technical support that the local cable provider should be paying for.

I'd be willing to bet that if you asked the engineering teams at TiVo, Samsung, SONY, Toshiba and any other manufacturer that makes a CableCARD deivce, if they had to program around bugs for specific MSOs, the answer would be yes.


----------



## DCIFRTHS (Jan 6, 2000)

MichaelK said:


> If cable operators _must take steps to support their own compliant equipment, it seems far more likely that they will continue *to support and take into account the need to support services that will work with independently supplied and purchased equipment*._
> 
> (the bold bit is particularly ugly for cable- if the FCC continues with that logic then anything proprietary is evil and you could make an argument cable will need to work with 2-way cable cards like everyone else and that a more 'neutral' version of OCAP will need to be implemented.)


You think this is a bad thing? If so, why? I see it as a good thing. A more "neutral" version is good for the consumer. Why would anyone buy a box that displays the same interface as the cable company box? There would be no value added to the third party box, no market for it, and therefore no incentive to build it.



> Part of that reasoning apparently stemmed from their belief that cable doesn't adequately support cablcards as is. The FCC apparently though part of the reason that so many cablecard tv's exist that don't even use cablecards is related to cable putting up road blocks and not consumer indifference as some have posted here (I'm not sure my opinion- but it's clear what the FCC thinks) .


From my own experience, and from what others have said, many do make it hard to get a CableCARD. I had a salesman tell me that the S3 wasn't worth purchasing because it used CableCARDS. "Too much of a hassle to deal with all of that, and they usually don't work." he said. Let's face it, at the very least, the use of CableCARDS is discouraged.



> That got me to thinking- it looks like this is almost an enforcement action or punishment for not properly supporting cablecards in the first place. I think there's something of a pattern in cable history with cable pushing the line and then the government overreacting the opposite way.


Sometimes it's best to keep both feet behind the line because when that one toe crosses over, you can't complain that your foot gets blown off. Maybe a good spankin' is what the cable companies need


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

DCIFRTHS said:


> That's what Cablelabs is for? They certify equipment for use on the MSO's systems. They put standards in place for the industry to follow. I have no problem with the CC requiring only certified devices to be used on their network.
> 
> For all we know, the MSO's aren't in compliance with the latest Cablelab specs, and then the third party CE manufacturer has to pay for the technical support that the local cable provider should be paying for.
> 
> I'd be willing to bet that if you asked the engineering teams at TiVo, Samsung, SONY, Toshiba and any other manufacturer that makes a CableCARD deivce, if they had to program around bugs for specific MSOs, the answer would be yes.


Uh, No. Cablelabs only certifies the initial device - not subsequent firmware updates or hardware revisions.

Further, the 3rd party manufacturer does not pay for the support provided by the MSO.

Finally, you would rely on what 3rd party device manufacturers say to determine MSO compliance? Hmmm. I'm still waiting on my firmware update from Toshiba.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> interesting- so your beef is with the descisions that have already been made that they have to support third party devices. And you dont have much probelm with the current debate about if they should be forced to support CC in their own boxes.
> 
> I guess you'd need to go back in time to change that regulation.
> 
> ...


What I believe is the following, and it's really quite simple. Cable - and the MSOs are publicly held or private businesses - not government entities. Unless it's for a safety, constrained resource or health issue, I believe that the market should determine "how" they deliver their services. The government should only be involved to the extent that they insure that the masses can actually get their services, and that the services as described are of expected quality.

You use the term "open system" when in fact there is far more you use to describe it. Your statement sounds great - but is flawed from the consumers point of view when you consider that quality will likely drop and costs will certainly increase. In other words, what you believe is contrary to what the general consumer believes.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> it's about the FUTURE. The FCC's logic is that forcing the integration ban will creat a FUTURE affordable market for CC ready devices for the consumer.
> 
> That's a future where there is no such thing as renting a STB just to get plain tv functions.
> 
> the issue isn't about this week or this month. It's about how do we get to a system where third party open standard devices are readily availible for purchase by consumers.


In my opinion, rubbish. Those extra "services" will likely be delivered via IP and not via encrypted CC supported devices. Read the news this morning? MS to deliver HD content on demand via IP?

I have zero confidence that the integration ban will create anything whatsoever in the way of a future affordable market for CC ready devices. There is NO development for other than STB or DVR devices based on CC, and new technology will clearly leapfrog CC.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> you should read dt-dc's links to the court cases. You will get the FCC's reasoning at least. Maybe you disagree but it's interesting to see their logic.
> 
> The second case cable brought up costs and says that the FCC hasn't justified them. They even used some words that sound like you typed them right here in this thread . Stuff like the costs are "enormous" and will be passed onto consumers who will see "absolutely no benefit. The court disagreed.
> 
> ...


Well, just to be clear again - I have absolutely no relationship to, nor love for, cable MSOs. Any language or text I've used - for better or worse - came from my own limited mind.

The FCC is hardly reputable in terms of determing costs or impacts. Their explanation of how (over the long term) costs will be recouped is not only ridiculous. It is frankly unwarranted and improper. They even themselves recognize increased costs that they are forcing on MSOs.

Neither do I have any respect for Congress' handling of this mess. Anyone read Stevens (AK) speech about internet/technology legislation? BTW: He's the guy that sponsored one of the two federal bills - which is now a House Resolution.

The ban helps to "enforce" those two things I mentioned. Again, in my opinion if you ask anyone outside of this forum, they will

1) Not even have a clue what you're talking about, and
2) Not want to pay an extra penny for what the consumer at large would believe to be a relatively little value proposition.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

DCIFRTHS said:


> You think this is a bad thing? If so, why? I see it as a good thing. A more "neutral" version is good for the consumer. Why would anyone buy a box that displays the same interface as the cable company box? There would be no value added to the third party box, no market for it, and therefore no incentive to build it.
> 
> From my own experience, and from what others have said, many do make it hard to get a CableCARD. I had a salesman tell me that the S3 wasn't worth purchasing because it used CableCARDS. "Too much of a hassle to deal with all of that, and they usually don't work." he said. Let's face it, at the very least, the use of CableCARDS is discouraged.
> 
> Sometimes it's best to keep both feet behind the line because when that one toe crosses over, you can't complain that your foot gets blown off. Maybe a good spankin' is what the cable companies need


I think it's a bad thing, and so would you if you didn't want to "buy" a device - like the majority of consumers do not want to "buy" a device. MANY people are extremely happy that they can now get reasonably priced DVR service from their MSO with no upfront cost, no obligation and low monthly rates. You would eliminate that. You are taking your own personal desires and attempting to legislate the entire country with them. That's just selfish.

You say a "salesman" discouraged the S3 and cablecard. Was it a cableco salesman? If not, why are you blaming the MSOs for somebody else simply saying that CC is a pain in the rear? If so, why do you blame the MSO for not liking the support issue?

Here's a great question: I'd challenge somebody to tell me that the S3 (like any other new product) doesn't have software bugs. Some of those bugs are completely unrelated to CC, and only related to TiVo software/hardware. Yet, the cableco is in many cases being forced to be involved in the support process - at their own cost. Why is that right - except for the obvious reason that we want our S3s to work I mean? If somebody is going to state that no MSO is having to support S3 related defects at their own cost, step up and do so. Otherwise, please explain why they should eat the costs.

I'd like to ask what kind of business you're in? I ask that because it seems to me that you're applying a far different standard to the MSOs than you would allow for yourself. I certainly wouldn't tolerate your logic in my business. I would frankly tell you to move on and find another company willing to sell their soul.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Currently I have one cable provider I can use at my house, currently they offer me one choice in a DVR and I do not even get a say in the size of the hard drive. It is utterly absurd to say that being limited to that one choice is best for the consumers. Lets not even get started on the UI and season passes, etc..


And why is that choice absurd? Do you think you should have a choice in every single consumer product? No matter the cost? Not whether or not you should purchase it, but that there should be mandatory different versions? Why? I don't see any such constitutional requirement. Perhaps I should force my local municipal weekly newspaper to deliver content on the web. After all, I don't like the fact that I need to handle their low quality paper material. Should I demand a law to force them to deliver that way? In a manner that I can receive the content through a provider of my choice? Perhaps ALL newspapers should be forced to do so at their own cost. But then I suppose we'd have to block delivery of foreign newspapers since they can't be forced to comply.

You currently have one provider because no other provider wants to compete. Partially because profit margins are so darned low in this area. This used to be a high profit industry but is far from that now.

In other words, you want mandated technology to be enforced by the government at the expense of the provider so you can have freedom of choice.

Very interesting debate subject. I can't even figure out whether that's socialism, communism, or simply a dictatorship. It's most certainly not capitalism.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

winpitt said:


> You currently have one provider because no other provider wants to compete. Partially because profit margins are so darned low in this area. This used to be a high profit industry but is far from that now.


In the past, I don't think it was practical for another provider to compete in most markets. One company could lay cable in a given area and pay for it with the revenues they got from having 100% of the cable subscribers there. Two companies laying cable in the same area would have all the expenses of that scenario but would split the customers/revenue between them, making it a lot more difficult to be profitable. I think the reason we're seeing multiple cable companies in more places now is that the same company can now offer phone, internet, and cable, making things more profitable - previously, at least phone and cable were already pofitable enough on their own to pay for the infrastructure.

(I should also note, it is not enough for another provider to "want to compete." They have to get permission from the franchise authority in order to offer service.)

As for profit, I'm not an expert, but I took a look at Comcast's most recent earnings statement (I picked Comcast because they're my cable company  ). Their net income from continuing operations so far this year is 1.806 billion vs. 0.721 billion for the same time last year. Where do you read that profit margins are down? I admit that I'm not very familiar with the subject, but I hadn't gotten that impression from the things I'd read.



> In other words, you want mandated technology to be enforced by the government at the expense of the provider so you can have freedom of choice.


I can't speak for the other poster, but for me, the answer is *yes*. The expense to the provider is part of the cost of being in this business.

The government mandates all kinds of technology - for instance, for copy protection; I don't think that's going to go away.



> Very interesting debate subject. I can't even figure out whether that's socialism, communism, or simply a dictatorship. It's most certainly not capitalism.


I'm in favor of capitalism, but it doesn't solve all problems, which is why we don't have pure capitalism in the United States. We have a minimum wage, we constrain monopolies, and yes, we regulate things like cable television. The local government grants certain companies the right to offer cable television, and in return, they must abide by rules that are decided by the government.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

Brainiac 5 said:


> The government mandates all kinds of technology - for instance, for copy protection; I don't think that's going to go away.


DRM is there to protect the interests of the rightsholders first, the uesers of the equipment and content last.

Cablecard is the other way round, it is the public, and secondly the CE industry's interest first, the content provider second.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

winpitt said:


> And why is that choice absurd? Do you think you should have a choice in every single consumer product? No matter the cost? Not whether or not you should purchase it, but that there should be mandatory different versions? Why? I don't see any such constitutional requirement. Perhaps I should force my local municipal weekly newspaper to deliver content on the web. After all, I don't like the fact that I need to handle their low quality paper material. .


man you just keep blowing that same note on the trumpet don't you

Last time I checked, anyone had access to the content that is the news and you may perhaps have noticed all the sites related to news on the web- certain information is decidely better presented on the web and of course up to the minute details are there. Still I do not want to use the bathroom in the morning with a laptop. the morning print paper is just fine there. I find HUGE benefit in having access to both forms. If regualtory rules made it hard for anyone but one entity to provide the news then yes- I would want rules to keep them innovating in delivery method. Fortunately many towns have 3 local news programs, two newspapers and access to many national outlets. The open access to the news content has provided for good competition and thus regualr and timely innovations in the methods of delivery. I the consumer comes out ahead.

As has been stated to you many times - we do not have that withe local cable company. They get a franchise and for years did not have to compete and stagnated on a clunky STB while they came up with ways to sell more content via premium channels or PPV of 3rd rate content. Then Sat. suddenly became a competitor - now we have DVRs and much better PPV content and HD cvoming along. Competition moved things along again.

TiVo could not get a phone call returned until DirectTV saw a competitive angle and then Comcast saw the light as a way to snag Sat providers. I think the patent suit and the knowledge that Cable card was slowly making progress as impetus for TiVo to get more direct cable deals. Consumers will benefit from that open competition for what box is used to gather the coming media content choices. Ypou can keep going on about overhead costs of the very standard that MSOs came up with but it is just making me laugh now. Consumers will benefit from an open access standard as everyone will have to compete to be that box. Hell Sony might come and make this product and board a wasteland for all we know but if it was because open access let them market a better product that people flocked too then so be it.

closed access = little incentive for STB innovation
open access = competition which always = faster innovation

innovation = good for consumers


----------



## PPC1 (Sep 16, 2006)

winpitt said:


> You are quite wrong. Cablecos do NOT have government protected monopolies. By law, every franchise agreement is non-exclusive. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever preventing anyone who wants to from entering any market. Except financial logic of course. Not to be disrespectful, but your entire foundation for your argument is based on that monopoly idea, and the fact that it's blatently incorrect destroys the rest of your point.


First off, no disrespect taken-- this is all fair debate, and obviously none was intended as a personal attack.

Second, you are correct, at least to the extent that the federal regulations (as well as the local franchising statutes in my area) pay lip service to the concept of non-exclusivity, so let me be a little more precise. Cable companies (as well as all utilities) have had a "technical monopoly." (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly) by virtue of the inherint costs and practical considerations associated with running cable from the head end to each consumer's home. This monopoly power has been one foundation for the historic justification for government regulation of utilities. So the regulations come down, ostensibly to "protect the public" from this monopoly power. In the cable industry, we see "franchise" agreements, whereby cable companies have to get the approval from the local franchise authority to offer cable in any given geographical territory. Yes, I admit, the laws claim that franchises are to be non-exclusive, and in theory, anyone that wants to compete can apply for a franchise. But the hoops companies have to jump through to get a franchise have the effect of increasing even higher the barrier for other companies to compete in a particular geographic region, and thereby protecting through government action the natural monopoly of the existing cable company. Thus, while the government may not have created the monopoly, there clearly is government protection of the market of existing cable company monopoly. You can't seriously think that the franchise system is not inherintly restrictive of competition-- that's the whole point of requiring a franchise-- to restrict entry into the market place to only those companies that choose to, and of course, are able to meet what ever hoops the local franchise wants to set up. That gives a tremendous advantage to the encumbent cable company.

So, while it is true that the regs give lip service to "non-exclusivity" that does not equtate to the proposition that the governent does not protect the cable monopoly of the local MSO.



winpitt said:


> Example: Our franchise has been actively seeking Verizon business, but they have refrained because they think they can get a better deal if some new legislation is passed. That is in fact the opposite of the government mandating a monopoly or protecting one. It's business - pure and simple.


This example does not prove your point. It actually supports the point that I make above. Verizon doesn't want to jump through your franchise's hoops, so they choose not to compete in your area. Your franchise authority (perhaps unwittingly) has further helped protect the regional monopoly of your local cable company. It may be "business- pure and simple" to avoid competing in an area that is not economically advantageous due to government regulation, but that is not the same thing as a free market.


----------



## DCIFRTHS (Jan 6, 2000)

winpitt said:


> Uh, No. Cablelabs only certifies the initial device - not subsequent firmware updates or hardware revisions.


I think you are wrong on this one. Maybe someone that knows for sure can chime in.



> Further, the 3rd party manufacturer does not pay for the support provided by the MSO.


Huh?



> Finally, you would rely on what 3rd party device manufacturers say to determine MSO compliance? Hmmm. I'm still waiting on my firmware update from Toshiba.


If I purchased a product from a CE company, and they didn't support it, I wouldn't buy from them again. Unfortunately, your particular situation sucks.


----------



## DCIFRTHS (Jan 6, 2000)

winpitt said:


> I think it's a bad thing, and so would you if you didn't want to "buy" a device - like the majority of consumers do not want to "buy" a device. MANY people are extremely happy that they can now get reasonably priced DVR service from their MSO with no upfront cost, no obligation and low monthly rates. You would eliminate that. You are taking your own personal desires and attempting to legislate the entire country with them. That's just selfish.


Why would opening up the technology to third parties stop your cable provider from leasing you a box just as they always have? Are you saying cost is the issue? If so, then your desire for no price increase is an attempt at stopping technology and innovation from moving forward. Now *that's* selfish.



> You say a "salesman" discouraged the S3 and cablecard. Was it a cableco salesman?


It was a salesman in Best Buy. The only motivation I see for him discouraging a sale is that he was speaking from an experience he had, or from things he has heard. I can't remember the last time a salesman discouraged an $800.00 sale.



> If not, why are you blaming the MSOs for somebody else simply saying that CC is a pain in the rear? If so, why do you blame the MSO for not liking the support issue?


There's no way to deny that the cable industry, as a whole, has made it difficult for the consumer, to rent, and get information on CableCARDS. Who else would I blame? TiVo? Toshiba? Panasonic? SONY?



> Here's a great question: I'd challenge somebody to tell me that the S3 (like any other new product) doesn't have software bugs. Some of those bugs are completely unrelated to CC, and only related to TiVo software/hardware. Yet, the cableco is in many cases being forced to be involved in the support process - at their own cost. Why is that right - except for the obvious reason that we want our S3s to work I mean? If somebody is going to state that no MSO is having to support S3 related defects at their own cost, step up and do so. Otherwise, please explain why they should eat the costs.


I was forced to pay over $40.00 dollars for the installation of my CableCARDS. I could have done it myself. I am paying for the support I get from my cable company.



> I'd like to ask what kind of business you're in? I ask that because it seems to me that you're applying a far different standard to the MSOs than you would allow for yourself. I certainly wouldn't tolerate your logic in my business. I would frankly tell you to move on and find another company willing to sell their soul.


The cable companies are tying to protect their interests, and I am not saying they are wrong for that. I would do the same if I were a cable company. As an example, if my child committed an unspeakable act against another human being, I would still defend them to the end. Would I be right? Since this is my child, yes. Would this benefit society and the victim, no. We all do what's in our best interest. Is that your point? If it is, then your argument is based on having some connection, whether it's direct or because you work in a company that is the same position the cable companies are...or you could just be sympathetic to monopolies.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

winpitt said:


> Uh, No. Cablelabs only certifies the initial device - not subsequent firmware updates or hardware revisions.





DCIFRTHS said:


> I think you are wrong on this one. Maybe someone that knows for sure can chime in.


Technically CableLabs doesn't "Certify" any UDCPs (Unidirectional Digital Cable Products). They do "Verify" them. They run them against a test-suite that was developed / negotiated by cable and CE companies.

However, once a company goes through this process with CableLabs once ... they can self-verify UDCPs. Ie, they can run a UDCP against the test suite themselves and send CableLabs a letter and get their keys. They don't ever have to go through the CableLabs verification process again. CableLabs certainly doesn't 'certify' any future hardware / firmware revisions.

In fact, the S3 was self-verified by Tivo. The TCD648250*A* was verified by CableLabs. But the S3 as released (TCD648250*B*) was self-verified by Tivo. It was never verified, certified, tested, or even looked at by CableLabs.


> http://www.cablelabs.com/downloads/CertificationDefinitions.pdf
> 
> Verified Label Label
>  Verified means that the OpenCable Unidirectional Digital Cable Product (UDCP) has been tested against the Joint Test Suite (JTS).
> ...





> http://www.cablelabs.com/udcp/downloads/OC_PNP.pdf
> 
> Tivo TCD648250B Self-verified


Now, all that being said ... all manufactures that make a CableCard product must sign the DFAST (or CHILA) licensing agreement ... which is really the main thing that governs what a CableCard host must (and must not) do ... and allows CableLabs to revoke your keys if you violate the DFAST / CHILA licensing agreement.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> No, this is not semantics. ....


what do you mean by "is" though?

Also I think we'd need to have your definition of "not" please to determine your true meaning here.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> And again you completely disregard the cost of service by the MSO to support issues caused by 3rd party vendors. That is the very largest problem I see with this, and it doesn't affect SA or MOTO. It affects the MSOs - which really ultimately means it negatively affects the general consumer.


where do you get that I discount it- about 3 times alraedy i said you have a valid point.

But it's completely irrelevent to the BAn- the costs to support tons of third party devices are already forced upon cable by the earlier decisions. Implementing the ban or not will not change the fact that cabel already MUST support 3rd party devices. I dont see anythign from cable dsiputing that anywhere...


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> The law doesn't say that the converter boxes actually have to work as well as the cable company boxes, or provide the same features, or even carry all the same channels. An argument can be made that the intention should be to support commercially available converter boxes solely for the must-carry service.


could be- but no one has made that argument yet.

_edit: thought about it some more- I think that wont work.- If I recall- the law says that any equipment used to get cable services must be availible at retail . So if there's a box needed for PPV then Congress envisioned that you have the right to buy such a box at retail.

So I think that having a box with limited functionality availible at retail while having full featured boxes rentable from cable is illegal.

If not illegal then the FCC's comments about cable needing to support thrid party things by following the open standard themselves (using the refusal to give TiVo M-cards for the S3 as an example) shows the FCC had no intenttion of allowing better services from cable but not on third party boxes (dont know if the CURRENT FCC feels the same way as the one that made the arguments earlier- but since hte court case is from earlier this yuear I suspect they have the same views as stated in that case.)_


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

DCIFRTHS said:


> You think this is a bad thing? If so, why? I see it as a good thing. A more "neutral" version is good for the consumer. Why would anyone buy a box that displays the same interface as the cable company box? There would be no value added to the third party box, no market for it, and therefore no incentive to build it. ...


I think it IS a good thing.

I do wonder though if maybe it's a little further then the law says.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> ...
> 
> You use the term "open system" when in fact there is far more you use to describe it. Your statement sounds great - but is flawed from the consumers point of view when you consider that quality will likely drop and costs will certainly increase. In other words, what you believe is contrary to what the general consumer believes.


that's mint.

competition will RAISE prices and decrease quality. Can you please provide examples over the course of history how competion raised prices and caused quality to drop.

In other words what YOU believe is contrary to what every economist believes.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> In my opinion, rubbish. Those extra "services" will likely be delivered via IP and not via encrypted CC supported devices. Read the news this morning? MS to deliver HD content on demand via IP?
> 
> I have zero confidence that the integration ban will create anything whatsoever in the way of a future affordable market for CC ready devices. There is NO development for other than STB or DVR devices based on CC, and new technology will clearly leapfrog CC.


could be you are correct- but SO FAR the FCC doesn't believe so- if they did they would sanction downloadable security as the end game and drop any mention of the integration ban.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> I think it's a bad thing, and so would you if you didn't want to "buy" a device - like the majority of consumers do not want to "buy" a device. MANY people are extremely happy that they can now get reasonably priced DVR service from their MSO with no upfront cost, no obligation and low monthly rates. You would eliminate that. You are taking your own personal desires and attempting to legislate the entire country with them. That's just selfish. ....


I think the MAJORITY today doesn't want to lease a box at all- not a dvr or anything. Your desire is to lease a low cost DVR from cable. It seems seems very selfish of you to want to force your wants on people that dont want to have a DVR or be botherred with a cable box just to get HBO becasue it's encryted or toon disney becasue it's on the digital tier.

basically to keep your cable DVR rental cheap you are willing to force tens of millions of people to have to rent cable boxes in future years.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Brainiac 5 said:


> I'm in favor of capitalism, but it doesn't solve all problems, which is why we don't have pure capitalism in the United States. We have a minimum wage, we constrain monopolies, and yes, we regulate things like cable television. The local government grants certain companies the right to offer cable television, and in return, they must abide by rules that are decided by the government.


Only to the extent that the people want such regulation. Look at who we just elected to Congress.... these aren't your father's Democrats. They're mostly pro-business Democrats. There really is very little support for government regulation these days. The world has moved on -- moved away from a consumer-focused model to a more balanced model, which acknowledges that many consumers are also investors.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> could be- but no one has made that argument yet.


I just did. 


> _edit: thought about it some more- I think that wont work.- If I recall- the law says that any equipment used to get cable services must be availible at retail . So if there's a box needed for PPV then Congress envisioned that you have the right to buy such a box at retail. _


_Sorry, but what you think Congress envisioned isn't law. The law doesn't require what you're suggesting here. Read the law. Don't read INTO the law._


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

winpitt said:


> MSOs are already not cash cows and everyone here is pretending they're the best investment in the world - expecting them to foot the cost for us - the minority.


I don't know what reality you live in, but it's certainly different from mine.

In my reality, Comcast (the biggest MSO) is investing billions of dollars in infrastructure (in pursuit of the "triple play") and at the same time is finding the free cash flow to buy back billions of dollars in stock.

Here is summary of most recent quarterly results from their own investor relations web site.

http://www.cmcsk.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=118591&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=921791&highlight=

It's no wonder their stock is skyrocketing. Everything that follows in italics is cut/paste snippets directly from above page.

_Revenue increased 12% to $6.6 billion in the third quarter of 2006 as demand for our video, voice and high-speed Internet services accelerated. The rollout of our Triple Play offering contributed to the record-setting RGU net additions for the quarter.

Operating Cash Flow (as defined in Table 7) grew 15% to $2.6 billion in the third quarter of 2006 resulting in an Operating Cash Flow margin of 39.6%, an increase from the 38.5% reported in the same quarter of 2005.

Operating Income increased 46% to $1.2 billion in the third quarter of 2006 due to strong results at Comcast Cable, including record-setting RGU additions as described above. Similarly, consolidated operating income increased 27% to $3.4 billion for the nine months ended September 30, 2006.

Net Cash Provided by Operating Activities increased to $5.1 billion for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 from $3.9 billion in 2005 due primarily to stronger operating results and changes in operating assets and liabilities.

Free Cash Flow (described further on Table 4) increased $812 million to $2.2 billion for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 compared to $1.4 billion in 2005

Comcast repurchased $493 million or 15 million shares of its Class A Special Common Stock during the third quarter of 2006. On a year-to-date basis, Comcast repurchased $1.9 billion or 64 million shares, reducing the number of shares outstanding by 3%.
_

So don't cry me a river about how the MSOs are struggling. *Bull****!*


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

winpitt said:


> You currently have one provider because no other provider wants to compete. Partially because profit margins are so darned low in this area. This used to be a high profit industry but is far from that now.


You keep repeating variations of this same false claim. You're quite wrong. Profit margins are quite high now. It's probably why Verizon is investing so heavily in FIOS. See my previous message for details about Comcast.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

bicker said:


> Only to the extent that the people want such regulation. Look at who we just elected to Congress.... these aren't your father's Democrats. They're mostly pro-business Democrats. There really is very little support for government regulation these days. The world has moved on -- moved away from a consumer-focused model to a more balanced model, which acknowledges that many consumers are also investors.


I mostly agree with this - there has been a trend toward less regulation for decades now. I was just trying to point out that we do not live in a _purely_ capitalist society - there are rules about business and commerce just like there are rules about all kinds of things. (And the specific things I mentioned are not going away any time soon - they're talking about raising the minimum wage; there continue to be restrictions on monopolies; and I don't think _all_ regulations on cable TV will go away, either.)

By the way, in area of content providers, when did we have a consumer-focused model?  I wish...


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> I just did.  Sorry, but what you think Congress envisioned isn't law. The law doesn't require what you're suggesting here. Read the law. Don't read INTO the law.


I dont think I'm reading into the law- but no one seems to have ruled to say one way or the other but here's the exact quote and people can decide on their own what they think it means:



> "the commission shall... adopt regulations to assure commercial availability to consumers of multichannel video programming(MVP) and other services offered over MVP systems, of converter boxes, interactive communications equipment, and other equipment used be consumers to access MVP and other services offered over MVP systems..."


Sure sounds to me like they are saying that whatever equipment is needed to get any service cable offers needs to be available commercially.

I guess YOU and others might read into that that multichannel video programming and other services some how excludes cable only channels but I dont see that.

Reading it again for like the 10th time actually makes me wonder if cable didnt decide on the open DOCSIS standard so that cable modems would be available at retail because they thought broadband was an other service.

Heres the definition from section 602 of the communications act as amended by the act of 1996 for video programming:

(


> 20) the term ''video programming'' means programming provided by, or generally considered comparable to programming provided by, a television broadcast station.


I guess no place does it say that you have to give everyone all the channels but on the flip side I see nothing that points to your argument that somehow if applies only to must carry channels.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

on the subject plain STB's subsidizing DVR's-

I found the specific section and it says 
_
(7) AGGREGATION OF EQUIPMENT COSTS.--
(A) IN GENERAL.--The Commission shall allow cable operators, pursuant to any rules promulgated under subsection (b)(3), to aggregate, on a franchise, system, regional, or company level, their equipment costs into broad categories, such as converter boxes, regardless of the varying levels of functionality of the equipment within each such broad category. Such aggregation shall not be permitted with respect to equipment used by subscribers who receive only a rate regulated basic service tier._

So it almost does sound like they can subsidize DVR boxes with fees from other boxes (so long as they are no boxes required to get the basic tier- but since in most cases regulate basic is unencrytped analog I would doubt there are very many instances of people with regulated basic and boxes)

Sort of helps explain why cable can just charge $5-$15 for a DVR and some how makes out but DBS is charging so much more. It seems like cable is subsidizing DVR's with plain digital STB fees?



MichaelK said:


> I honestly don't KNOW - but i think you are still reading that wrong. again it says:
> 
> subsidized by charges for any such *service* . I'd think that includes multichannel video programming and other services delivered over the MPVD system. I dont see how that's limited to just subsidizing from other equipment. Unless there's a regulation, ruling, or "finding" (that's special- thanks for that pointer) that says otherwise that I havne't stumbled upon.
> 
> ...


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Brainiac 5 said:


> I mostly agree with this


I'll take it! 


> - there has been a trend toward less regulation for decades now. I was just trying to point out that we do not live in a _purely_ capitalist society - there are rules about business and commerce just like there are rules about all kinds of things.


However, less and less does that kind of thing show up in things that are essentially non-essential. While your local television channels might be considered essential, as long as they're available via analog SD, that's about where the official concern about what is being offered will end.



> By the way, in area of content providers, when did we have a consumer-focused model?  I wish...


E/I is almost exclusively a product of consumer-focus.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> man you just keep blowing that same note on the trumpet don't you
> 
> Last time I checked, anyone had access to the content that is the news and you may perhaps have noticed all the sites related to news on the web- certain information is decidely better presented on the web and of course up to the minute details are there. Still I do not want to use the bathroom in the morning with a laptop. the morning print paper is just fine there. I find HUGE benefit in having access to both forms. If regualtory rules made it hard for anyone but one entity to provide the news then yes- I would want rules to keep them innovating in delivery method. Fortunately many towns have 3 local news programs, two newspapers and access to many national outlets. The open access to the news content has provided for good competition and thus regualr and timely innovations in the methods of delivery. I the consumer comes out ahead.
> 
> ...


And we'll just have to disagree. You are in favor of charging one business additional costs when there is no value add for them, just in order to provide some sort of vague "open" advantage - which again CONSUMERS JUST DON'T GIVE A CRAP ABOUT!


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

PPC1 said:


> First off, no disrespect taken-- this is all fair debate, and obviously none was intended as a personal attack.
> 
> Second, you are correct, at least to the extent that the federal regulations (as well as the local franchising statutes in my area) pay lip service to the concept of non-exclusivity, so let me be a little more precise. Cable companies (as well as all utilities) have had a "technical monopoly." (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly) by virtue of the inherint costs and practical considerations associated with running cable from the head end to each consumer's home. This monopoly power has been one foundation for the historic justification for government regulation of utilities. So the regulations come down, ostensibly to "protect the public" from this monopoly power. In the cable industry, we see "franchise" agreements, whereby cable companies have to get the approval from the local franchise authority to offer cable in any given geographical territory. Yes, I admit, the laws claim that franchises are to be non-exclusive, and in theory, anyone that wants to compete can apply for a franchise. But the hoops companies have to jump through to get a franchise have the effect of increasing even higher the barrier for other companies to compete in a particular geographic region, and thereby protecting through government action the natural monopoly of the existing cable company. Thus, while the government may not have created the monopoly, there clearly is government protection of the market of existing cable company monopoly. You can't seriously think that the franchise system is not inherintly restrictive of competition-- that's the whole point of requiring a franchise-- to restrict entry into the market place to only those companies that choose to, and of course, are able to meet what ever hoops the local franchise wants to set up. That gives a tremendous advantage to the encumbent cable company.
> 
> ...


Just to be clear, your post highlights that you don't have a clue how this works. Our franchise provided NO "hoops" for Verizon to jump through. None. Our only requirement is that they commit to providing that service to the same communities within our municipality as cable does. Nothing whatsoever about pricing, channel selection, restriction of channels, PEG, equipment, etc. Nothing. Your comment that we have somehow further helped to protect the "monopoly" couldn't be further from the truth. We have been actively communicating with our legislative representatives to promote choice.

In other words, there are NO goverment regulations that restricts such choice. Please do some research before making such blatently false statements.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

DCIFRTHS said:


> I think you are wrong on this one. Maybe someone that knows for sure can chime in.
> 
> Huh?
> 
> If I purchased a product from a CE company, and they didn't support it, I wouldn't buy from them again. Unfortunately, your particular situation sucks.


I am not wrong. Cablelabs does not certify all subsequent firmware. You can read it yourself on the cablelabs site.

If you purchase a product from a CE Co that doesn't support it (after of course the cableco had to do the initial support) and they still blame the cableco? Of course, that doesn't change the fact that additiona support was required at the cableco's expense. Not defending the cableco, but am stating the truth - which seems to be remarkably unwelcome.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

DCIFRTHS said:


> Why would opening up the technology to third parties stop your cable provider from leasing you a box just as they always have? Are you saying cost is the issue? If so, then your desire for no price increase is an attempt at stopping technology and innovation from moving forward. Now *that's* selfish.
> 
> It was a salesman in Best Buy. The only motivation I see for him discouraging a sale is that he was speaking from an experience he had, or from things he has heard. I can't remember the last time a salesman discouraged an $800.00 sale.
> 
> ...


OK, so a bunch of problems here.

You are saying that you're OK with increasing costs - even to the consumer, right? When the consumer is saying costs are already high? THAT is selfish. You want the S3. Period. I've already said that there is little (if any, frankly) value in terms of "progress" to be had by CC for the consumer. Only for the very fringe consumers.

The day when I start blaming another company for what an entry level Best Buy employee says is the day I need to be put in a rest home.

Who should you blame for the CC difficulties in general? That would be the consumer. You see, if there was just about any redeeming value for the consumer in CC with the exception of a very small handful of devices, then the consumer would be screaming about it. The fact is that nobody cares, because it delivers so little, impacts so few, and has such a limited potential.

Cable entertainment is exactly that - entertainment. Nothing more. You guys need to stop comparing it to scientific advances for mankind. It's entertainment. Disposable. You won't die without it. Nobody will. Rules that deal with issues such as safety, health or constrained resources just don't apply. How would you feel if your government decided that your home was right smack in the spot that they wanted to put a billboard? Something not essential or good for the safety or health of your community? So, they took your home - and gave you 80% of the value? That's essentially what your espousing.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

winpitt said:


> In other words, there are NO goverment regulations that restricts such choice. Please do some research before making such blatently false statements.


OK. I've been silent, but I've done some research. Now what do you want to claim is blatantly false?



> WASHINGTON - In an effort to bring video choice and competition to citizens of Montgomery County, Maryland, Verizon today filed a federal lawsuit against the county for its unreasonable and illegal cable-franchising process and demands.
> 
> The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in Greenbelt, asks the court to declare that Montgomery County's cable franchise process and requirements violate federal communications and antitrust law, as well as the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> ...


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

CrispyCritter said:


> OK. I've been silent, but I've done some research. Now what do you want to claim is blatantly false?


If what you posted is true, then that local government should be prosecuted as they are clearly acting in violation of federal law. They are not acting within their guidelines. They should be heavily fined - if not jailed.

That being said, I'd like more than Verizons story to validate this as truth. But again, if it is true I'd love to see them publicly taken to task.

Additionally, this shows that Verizon already has a remedy for what appears to be corruption. They don't need excused from existing law to utilize it.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> that's mint.
> 
> competition will RAISE prices and decrease quality. Can you please provide examples over the course of history how competion raised prices and caused quality to drop.
> 
> In other words what YOU believe is contrary to what every economist believes.


yes. I can. And frankly you could also if you thought about it.

The reason is that this "competition" is not really competition as we know it. It isn't derived from market changes. This is really government stepping into private industry and legislating a change that consumers are not asking for. If (and that is a HUGE if) consumers were demanding CC (or frankly, any sort of similar standard that would eliminate proprietary STBs) then I would agree that it would result in true competition and change price elasticity. Since there is very little demand for this product, the equation changes fundamentally.

Please show me a market that is demanding CC. Please show me existing or planned devices that consumers will likely embrace creating a true choice. The ban does nothing more than replace an existing STB with one having CC in it. Do you really believe there will be an industry that will crop up overnight to create new STBs or devices?

The problem here is that the ban itself violates what any reasonable economist would promote.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> I think the MAJORITY today doesn't want to lease a box at all- not a dvr or anything. Your desire is to lease a low cost DVR from cable. It seems seems very selfish of you to want to force your wants on people that dont want to have a DVR or be botherred with a cable box just to get HBO becasue it's encryted or toon disney becasue it's on the digital tier.
> 
> basically to keep your cable DVR rental cheap you are willing to force tens of millions of people to have to rent cable boxes in future years.


No, the consumer wants the SERVICE at the lowest possible price. They most certainly do NOT want to purchase a device. Seen where DBS has gone lately? Where everything used to be a purchase process, and is now mainly leased?

The consumer wants the flexibility of not having to own or maintain the devices. if that can be done without having any box whatsoever, fine. But, since there has been little progress in that area - and since DVR services are on an extremely rapid upswing, I would humbly disagree with you.

Cablecos aren't far more successful in leasing DVRs than TiVo in selling them because of CC. It's because it's a LEASE. Absolutely no warranty issues. No committment. No upfront cost. I'm not trying to force anthing. I'm just reflecting the market and what the consumer wants.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> could be you are correct- but SO FAR the FCC doesn't believe so- if they did they would sanction downloadable security as the end game and drop any mention of the integration ban.


We'll see what happens going forward. I would not be surprised if the ban were not at least amended. I'm fairly confident that more waivers and delays will occur.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> You keep repeating variations of this same false claim. You're quite wrong. Profit margins are quite high now. It's probably why Verizon is investing so heavily in FIOS. See my previous message for details about Comcast.


Profit margins are getting higher for the big guys. Unfortunately the little guys have to deal with the same requirements IAW the ban. Many of them are negative EPS.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> You keep repeating variations of this same false claim. You're quite wrong. Profit margins are quite high now. It's probably why Verizon is investing so heavily in FIOS. See my previous message for details about Comcast.


Also, the point is that another provider would require significant infrastructure in order to deliver content that would both cannabalize the existing market and slash existing margins.

The name of the game is subs. There are only so many to be had.


----------



## PPC1 (Sep 16, 2006)

winpitt said:


> Just to be clear, your post highlights that you don't have a clue how this works. Our franchise provided NO "hoops" for Verizon to jump through. None. Our only requirement is that they commit to providing that service to the same communities within our municipality as cable does. Nothing whatsoever about pricing, channel selection, restriction of channels, PEG, equipment, etc. Nothing. Your comment that we have somehow further helped to protect the "monopoly" couldn't be further from the truth. We have been actively communicating with our legislative representatives to promote choice.
> 
> In other words, there are NO goverment regulations that restricts such choice. Please do some research before making such blatently false statements.


Admittedly, I am ignorant on many of the details in this area of law in general, and the requirements of your local franchise authority in particular. Accordingly, I am ready to be convinced otherwise, but your posts aren't doing it for me. Looking at just the facts you admit to in your posts, it is clear there is government restriction on competition in your franchise territory. The fact that you require service of the geographic region equal to that of the encumbent cable company IS a restriction on competition. Unless a particular company wants to provide service for the entire geographic region, it can't enter the market at all. Consequently, small companies that want to just compete on the margins must stay home. Go big, or don't go at all. There may be a (misguided?) reason from a public policy stand point for such a restiction. I suspect the thought process is that the franchise authority wants to ensure that cable companies don't just serve the profitable areas, and ignore the unprofitable ones. But you can't legitimately claim that this restriction isn't a protection. The whole friggin' point of requiring a franchise agreement is to exclude certain competitors that don't agree to your terms. If the franchise authority did not issue certain exclusions, what is the point of having a franchise authority? But any government restiction on would be competitors is necessarily a protection of the encumbant cable provider's regional monopoly.

Moreover, in fairness to my position, you cannot simply rely on the model in your own territory to conclusively prove that the franchise system is not anti-competitive and a protection for the existing local cable monoplies. What happens in your territory alone is just anecdotal evidence. Additionally, I don't know where your territory is (perhaps you have posted it, but I just missed it.) , so I can't research what restrictions your territory does or does not require, even if one territory were dispositive of the issue.

Finally, I certainly respect your point regarding not accepting Verizon's allegations in their complaint in the Montgomery county matter. By the same token, I can't take your allegations as to your own territory at face value, particularly given the argumentative tone of your posts. I would be curious what Verizon would have to say in response to your claim as to what your franchise authority requires.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

winpitt said:


> If what you posted is true, then that local government should be prosecuted as they are clearly acting in violation of federal law. They are not acting within their guidelines. They should be heavily fined - if not jailed.
> 
> That being said, I'd like more than Verizons story to validate this as truth. But again, if it is true I'd love to see them publicly taken to task.
> 
> Additionally, this shows that Verizon already has a remedy for what appears to be corruption. They don't need excused from existing law to utilize it.


With the help of a court-appointed mediator, Montgomery County and Verizon seem to have come to an agreement.

The court documents are all mostly available on-line ... and, as usual in these franchise disgreements both sides had some legitimate points.

How to treat an encumbant and new competitor "equally" / "fairly" isn't always the easiest thing to quantify.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

winpitt said:


> And we'll just have to disagree. You are in favor of charging one business additional costs when there is no value add for them, just in order to provide some sort of vague "open" advantage - which again CONSUMERS JUST DON'T GIVE A CRAP ABOUT!


There is one aspect of this I'd like to comment on. They don't care right now, because average consumers are not obsessed with following what's happening in the industry like the people here, and are blissfully unaware of what will happen the future. But many people just have analog cable and no premium channels, so they can currently just plug their cable into the TV, VCR, or whatever, and that's it - no boxes of any kind. I was one of these until I got an S3. When and if the cable companies stop broadcasting analog and tell everyone they now have to rent a box (and probably pay an additional outlet fee) for every TV, those customers are going to be pretty ticked off. It's already started happening, as you may have read in stories about customers angry with their cable company for moving individual channels from analog to the digitial tier.

CableCARD was an attempt to deal with this problem. Of course, it actually does not solve it, but at least it goes halfway.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

dt_dc said:


> How to treat an encumbant and new competitor "equally" / "fairly" isn't always the easiest thing to quantify.


Oh ... and then there's the regulatory distinctions between "cable service", "telecommunications service", and "information service" which were (mostly) drawn up at a time when there were more technical and corporate distinctions between them ... however now with technical and corporate changes are starting to look more arbitrary / fuzzy ...

How to distinguish between these different services, how to classify new technology and offerings under these different services, what exactly the regulatory lines are between these services, and even what exactly we should do about them is constantly an issue at the federal, state, and even local levels ... and indeed, from my reading of the court documents, was (part) of the disagreement between Verizon and Montgomery County as well.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Brainiac 5 said:


> There is one aspect of this I'd like to comment on. They don't care right now, because average consumers are not obsessed with following what's happening in the industry like the people here, and are blissfully unaware of what will happen the future. But many people just have analog cable and no premium channels, so they can currently just plug their cable into the TV, VCR, or whatever, and that's it - no boxes of any kind. I was one of these until I got an S3. When and if the cable companies stop broadcasting analog and tell everyone they now have to rent a box (and probably pay an additional outlet fee) for every TV, those customers are going to be pretty ticked off. It's already started happening, as you may have read in stories about customers angry with their cable company for moving individual channels from analog to the digitial tier.
> 
> CableCARD was an attempt to deal with this problem. Of course, it actually does not solve it, but at least it goes halfway.


Really? I'm sorry - I missed all those complaints from cable customers. Yes, there have been relatively infrequent complaints. The problem is that you're putting the cart completely away from the horse. The consumer will be charged something either way if they're using CC or a proprietary STB. That doesn't change. CC doesn't fix this.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

dt_dc said:


> Oh ... and then there's the regulatory distinctions between "cable service", "telecommunications service", and "information service" which were (mostly) drawn up at a time when there were more technical and corporate distinctions between them ... however now with technical and corporate changes are starting to look more arbitrary / fuzzy ...
> 
> How to distinguish between these different services, how to classify new technology and offerings under these different services, what exactly the regulatory lines are between these services, and even what exactly we should do about them is constantly an issue at the federal, state, and even local levels ... and indeed, from my reading of the court documents, was (part) of the disagreement between Verizon and Montgomery County as well.


You are absolutely correct about that one! The whole thing is what caused the FCC to remove broadband from other cable services and treat it completely differently in their finding of a few years ago.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

PPC1 said:


> Admittedly, I am ignorant on many of the details in this area of law in general, and the requirements of your local franchise authority in particular. Accordingly, I am ready to be convinced otherwise, but your posts aren't doing it for me. Looking at just the facts you admit to in your posts, it is clear there is government restriction on competition in your franchise territory. The fact that you require service of the geographic region equal to that of the encumbent cable company IS a restriction on competition. Unless a particular company wants to provide service for the entire geographic region, it can't enter the market at all. Consequently, small companies that want to just compete on the margins must stay home. Go big, or don't go at all. There may be a (misguided?) reason from a public policy stand point for such a restiction. I suspect the thought process is that the franchise authority wants to ensure that cable companies don't just serve the profitable areas, and ignore the unprofitable ones. But you can't legitimately claim that this restriction isn't a protection. The whole friggin' point of requiring a franchise agreement is to exclude certain competitors that don't agree to your terms. If the franchise authority did not issue certain exclusions, what is the point of having a franchise authority? But any government restiction on would be competitors is necessarily a protection of the encumbant cable provider's regional monopoly.
> 
> Moreover, in fairness to my position, you cannot simply rely on the model in your own territory to conclusively prove that the franchise system is not anti-competitive and a protection for the existing local cable monoplies. What happens in your territory alone is just anecdotal evidence. Additionally, I don't know where your territory is (perhaps you have posted it, but I just missed it.) , so I can't research what restrictions your territory does or does not require, even if one territory were dispositive of the issue.
> 
> Finally, I certainly respect your point regarding not accepting Verizon's allegations in their complaint in the Montgomery county matter. By the same token, I can't take your allegations as to your own territory at face value, particularly given the argumentative tone of your posts. I would be curious what Verizon would have to say in response to your claim as to what your franchise authority requires.


A few things.

1) You're actually partially right but mainly wrong on your first point. The "protection" is for the consumer - not for the incumbent. And to be more technically correct, the requirement is not to match the incumbent but rather to meet the needs of the consumer in general. In other words, an incumbent could in fact have exceeded the requirement and a newcomer would not have to do so. And the reason that this is absolutely essential is because when you remove that single consumer protection, it applies equally to all providers. That means that service can be either discontinued for areas by the incumbent (taking us back to the '80s) or have additional charges applied to it for the higher cost to deliver.

2) Additionally, the second reason for a franchise agreement is to oversee quality issues and to provide a mechanism for such related issues to be remedied. That is a critical componenet, as without it you are left with absolutely no venue for satisfaction. Don't even think about the FCC being that avenue.

3) My area is SW PA. We have no statewide franchise agreeement. I'd encourage you to contact Verizon and ask them their thoughts. They would not even entertain discussions and have never to my knowledge even seen our current agreement with Adelphia/Comcast.

4) Yes, I can indeed say that the current system is not anti-competitive. What I will not say is that there are not some minorities of people who are attempting to abuse this, though it's very difficult for me to even see how this can continue considering the very large spotbeam placed on such agreements. Prior to 1996 (actually a bit before that in actuality) it was most certainly different. But there have been very distinct changes - though it appears that few are aware of it. Further, I can also say that proposed changes would in fact could definitely be anti-competitive if you don't live in a high density or high disposable income area.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

BTW: A couple general notes on what we're discussion;

I'd really like to see CC succeed. Having experienced some of the zero length and missed recordings on my SA8300HDs, I've been anxiously awaiting the arrival of the S3. My current testing with CC in my 46HM94 have not yet yielded any sort of acceptable results (no decryption whatsoever yet). I'm still hoping the yet to be delivered Toshiba firmware will improve this, and then it's on to S3 ordering.

The issue here isn't about what you or I want. Let's face it. We're on the very fringe of a fringe of a niche market. We're considering plunking down a heck of a lot of money on a product nobody knows exists (s3), using a technology nobody understands (cc), with a poor service record (cable). It's really about whether or not this whole CC thing - and I supposed based on recent posts - the possible changes to franchises - is the right thing for the general user. I see it this way:

Our concerns: High end DVR and other yet to be delivered 3rd party devices delivering content from cable MSOs.

John Q Public concerns: Already paying too much. Don't want to have to buy anything at all. Don't want to have to worry about when the cable guy is going to show up. Just want it to be cheap and easy.

There seems to be an obvious conflict between the two viewpoints.


----------



## PPC1 (Sep 16, 2006)

winpitt said:


> A few things.
> 
> 1) You're actually partially right but mainly wrong on your first point.
> The "protection" is for the consumer - not for the incumbent. And to be more technically correct, the requirement is not to match the incumbent but rather to meet the needs of the consumer in general.


I don't quite see what you mean when you say I am partially correct, but mainly wrong. Perhaps you can clarify.



winpitt said:


> And to be more technically correct, the requirement is not to match the incumbent but rather to meet the needs of the consumer in general.


You will have to excuse me for my prior statement that you "require service of the geographic region equal to that of the encumbent cable company: It was a paraphrase of your prior statement:



winpitt said:


> Our only requirement is that they commit to providing that service to the same communities within our municipality as cable does.





winpitt said:


> The "protection" is for the consumer - not for the incumbent.


Regardless of the intent, the protection which was once for the consumer begins to serve the incumbant.



winpitt said:


> And the reason that this is absolutely essential is because when you remove that single consumer protection, it applies equally to all providers. That means that service can be either discontinued for areas by the incumbent (taking us back to the '80s) or have additional charges applied to it for the higher cost to deliver.


Yes, this is also a predictable public policy justification for government intervention. But that doesn't change the exclusionary effect on entry into the market.



winpitt said:


> 2) Additionally, the second reason for a franchise agreement is to oversee quality issues and to provide a mechanism for such related issues to be remedied. That is a critical componenet, as without it you are left with absolutely no venue for satisfaction. Don't even think about the FCC being that avenue.


Of course, if the market were in fact competitive, consumers could seek redress with their feet.



winpitt said:


> 4) Yes, I can indeed say that the current system is not anti-competitive. What I will not say is that there are not some minorities of people who are attempting to abuse this, though it's very difficult for me to even see how this can continue considering the very large spotbeam placed on such agreements. Prior to 1996 (actually a bit before that in actuality) it was most certainly different. But there have been very distinct changes - though it appears that few are aware of it. Further, I can also say that proposed changes would in fact could definitely be anti-competitive if you don't live in a high density or high disposable income area.


I guess that you and I just won't agree. I see franchising requirements all across the county, and there would simply be no purpose for them if the franchise authorities did not restrict entry into the market place, hence, the technical monoplies of the incumbant local cable providers gets protected. And even if you don't conceed the government protection issue, the local cable provider does enjoy the benefits of their technical monopolies. The practical effect is people can't vote with their feet. If you took a poll here, how many people do you think would have a choice in cable providers? Of those, I suspect the vast majority of those with options are in Verizon country. Of course, Verizon has enjoyed the benefits of their own technical monopoly in the telecommunications industry that gives them a foot in the door.


----------



## PPC1 (Sep 16, 2006)

winpitt said:


> I see it this way:
> 
> Our concerns: High end DVR and other yet to be delivered 3rd party devices delivering content from cable MSOs.
> 
> ...


I don't see those two concerns as necessarily in conflict. They are only now with the integration ban approaching. But had the MSOs invested the money early and over time to make cable cards work properly, then the FCC would never have gotten to the point of considering the integration ban. I will grant you that there are some problems that are generated by the CEMs, but the vast majority of the problems seem quite clearly to stem from a lack of investment into the technology by the MSOs. At the local level, the MSOs have spent next to nothing to educate their techs how to install cable cards.

How many posts have there been on this site that the S3 was the cable installer's first cable card install, and that they had no real idea what they were doing? I have read that over and over on this site. That was true in my case. This despite the fact that cable card has been out there for some time. Wouldn't you think that the cable company should have at least shown the installer a card and had them install one before sending them out in the field? If the number of cable card installs was too small to justify training all of the installers, why not a few specialists to handle all cable card installs?

Had the MSOs actually made any effort over the last several years to implement cable cards, the problems originated with the CEMs could have been identified and refered back to the source. But as it currently stands, when the typical local cable tech says that the install problem is not with them, but with the S3 (or any other CC compliant device), does anyone really believe him?


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

PPC1 said:


> I don't quite see what you mean when you say I am partially correct, but mainly wrong. Perhaps you can clarify.
> 
> You will have to excuse me for my prior statement that you "require service of the geographic region equal to that of the encumbent cable company: It was a paraphrase of your prior statement:
> 
> ...


Well, you're right about one thing. You and I will likely never agree about this subject. You're operating out of a narrow focused utopian viewpoint that has no chance of reflecting reality. Again, no insult intended, but either you don't care about a large segment of consumers or you don't perceive the threat of disenfranchising them. It's one or the other.

The market is competitive today. Today for example, Verizon has fiber rolled out to a large number of areas where they are delivering broadband but not TV services. Why? Because they feel they can get an advantage by waiting until some potential leglislative changes which would allow them to cherry pick - meaning not deliver to areas which aren't as profitable to them. Which would also of course give the incumbent the same opportunity - to either desist delivery or to charge additional maintenance charges for service in those areas. What is stopping Verizon from delivering TV services? Nothing. Not a darned thing. I don't blame them for their actions - they're just trying to maximize earnings. We're the dumb idiots falling for it.

This is a non-essential service at heart. Mandating that there be some sort of service is in the public interest. However, mandating that it be via CC or something else is frankly crazy. I realize that it's the current policy, but from a dollars and cents perspective, it's nuts. Notice how I argue that build-out requirements are good thing, but the integration ban is not. It is consistent with views toward what's good for the consumer as opposed to what's good for just us here, or for MSOs.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

PPC1 said:


> I don't see those two concerns as necessarily in conflict. They are only now with the integration ban approaching. But had the MSOs invested the money early and over time to make cable cards work properly, then the FCC would never have gotten to the point of considering the integration ban. I will grant you that there are some problems that are generated by the CEMs, but the vast majority of the problems seem quite clearly to stem from a lack of investment into the technology by the MSOs. At the local level, the MSOs have spent next to nothing to educate their techs how to install cable cards.
> 
> How many posts have there been on this site that the S3 was the cable installer's first cable card install, and that they had no real idea what they were doing? I have read that over and over on this site. That was true in my case. This despite the fact that cable card has been out there for some time. Wouldn't you think that the cable company should have at least shown the installer a card and had them install one before sending them out in the field? If the number of cable card installs was too small to justify training all of the installers, why not a few specialists to handle all cable card installs?
> 
> Had the MSOs actually made any effort over the last several years to implement cable cards, the problems originated with the CEMs could have been identified and refered back to the source. But as it currently stands, when the typical local cable tech says that the install problem is not with them, but with the S3 (or any other CC compliant device), does anyone really believe him?


So why should the MSOs dedicate resources to a relatively unknown and unwanted technology? I wouldn't if I were them. I don't blame them for not investing heavily into something that's not even 1% of there service requests. Would you? Really?

Should they be more proficient? Yes. But lets clear one thing up. The reason that there have been problems and there hasn't been investment is because nobody besides us really even has heard of CC. There is absolutely nothing in it for them. Nothing. If you ask the general consumer, they'd say there's nothing in it for them either.

This gets back to my question as to why any of this makes sense. Go over to AVS for example, and you'll see that this subject isn't even discussed. It's a non-topic. The ONLY place you really see this debate is here. Why? Because we're the only real segment trying to use this lame duck.

Oh, and BTW: You will never, ever eliminate all the potential problems involved in CC - no matter how much investment the MSOs make. It is not possible. Period. There is required integration between 3rd party HW, 3rd party SW/Firmware, CC, CC Firmware, Head-end MSO SW, etc - that all needs to be right. 3rd party HW and SW will always be in a state of change. Cablelabs does NOT address this. Nothing does.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

winpitt said:


> 3rd party HW and SW will always be in a state of change. Cablelabs does NOT address this. Nothing does.


I think the majority of the problems we've seen to date are a result of the CEA companies trying to play catch-up with the cable companies. Given the large number of different systems cable companies use the goal of a cable ready set hasn't been on the radar for several years. Lets get past the problem of how to tune in a station and get to some real innovation. As long as the CEA and MSO's aren't in line any new features offered by either will break the system. Getting them on the same page is an important step in moving forward with innovative devices and features.


----------



## PPC1 (Sep 16, 2006)

winpitt said:


> Well, you're right about one thing. You and I will likely never agree about this subject. You're operating out of a narrow focused utopian viewpoint that has no chance of reflecting reality. Again, no insult intended, but either you don't care about a large segment of consumers or you don't perceive the threat of disenfranchising them. It's one or the other.


I think you are arguing an issue outside the scope of my prior statements. I am not debating the benefit of government intervention, I am merely pointing out the effect. Whether I care about disenfranchising a large segment of consumers does not alter the fact that your governmental intevention effects the market, and restricts competition. This first portion of your post is simply an irrelevant statement to the issue.



winpitt said:


> The market is competitive today. Today for example, Verizon has fiber rolled out to a large number of areas where they are delivering broadband but not TV services. Why? Because they feel they can get an advantage by waiting until some potential leglislative changes which would allow them to cherry pick - meaning not deliver to areas which aren't as profitable to them. Which would also of course give the incumbent the same opportunity - to either desist delivery or to charge additional maintenance charges for service in those areas. What is stopping Verizon from delivering TV services? Nothing. Not a darned thing. I don't blame them for their actions - they're just trying to maximize earnings. We're the dumb idiots falling for it.


What is stopping them? Again, just relying on your own admissions, it appears that Verizon doesn't want to have to enter the entire region, and your franchise authority would require them to do so. Your interfering with the market. Whether or not it is intended, your interference benefits the incumbent cable company.



winpitt said:


> This is a non-essential service at heart. Mandating that there be some sort of service is in the public interest. However, mandating that it be via CC or something else is frankly crazy. I realize that it's the current policy, but from a dollars and cents perspective, it's nuts. Notice how I argue that build-out requirements are good thing, but the integration ban is not. It is consistent with views toward what's good for the consumer as opposed to what's good for just us here, or for MSOs.


Your franchise authority's whole reason for existing is to restrict competition, but you don't even recognize that you do. I could certainly understand your position if it were, "yes, we the franchise authority do interfere in the market place, which obviously restricts competition to some degree, but that restriction is fairly minimal given the incumbant cable company's pre-existing technical monopoly, and further the downside from such intervention is more than made up for by the fact that we increase through goverment intervention availability to consumers in non-proficitable geographic regions (albeit in part at the expense of those in more profitable ones) and we increase customer satisfaction by looking over the shoulder of the cable company's complaint department." But that's not what you are saying.

In terms of mandating CC or something else, that certainly is open for debate. But the cable card was the MSO offering to stave off more government regulation. If it there was a legitimate public policy to prompt the goverment to force the cable company to offer a solution to the percieved proprietary STB problem, the continued ignoring of the cable card technology hasn't remediated the driving concern.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

PPC1 said:


> I think you are arguing an issue outside the scope of my prior statements. I am not debating the benefit of government intervention, I am merely pointing out the effect. Whether I care about disenfranchising a large segment of consumers does not alter the fact that your governmental intevention effects the market, and restricts competition. This first portion of your post is simply an irrelevant statement to the issue.
> 
> What is stopping them? Again, just relying on your own admissions, it appears that Verizon doesn't want to have to enter the entire region, and your franchise authority would require them to do so. Your interfering with the market. Whether or not it is intended, your interference benefits the incumbent cable company.
> 
> ...


Sorry, but completely disagree with almost 100% of your position. There is probably no point in continuing to debate this. When somebody says that the entire point of a franchise is to restrict competition there is obviously no possibility to continue discussion.

Let's just say that we have markedly different perspectives, and that yours (IMHO) is one that if realized in reality would harm the general consumer. I will absolutely not characterize your position as being correct, but have no hope that we will be able to discuss this rationally. I've already said that there has been intervention which affects the market with respect to build-out requirements. Also, please do not continue to use the term monopoly when it clearly does not legally apply.

Do you have a solution? One that will not disenfranchise the general consumer in many markets? I've already provided one. That is, let it be and watch the market develop (as it is already doing so in many localities). In doing so you actually CREATE competition on an even playing field without ignoring a large consumer base. What's your solution? So far, I haven't heard one. All I've heard is your insistence that franchise agreements are a bad thing that prevents competition (which again I disagree with).

As for CC, it was the least bad of a very bad set of ideas. Least bad almost never means good. Certainly not in this case.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Stormspace said:


> I think the majority of the problems we've seen to date are a result of the CEA companies trying to play catch-up with the cable companies. Given the large number of different systems cable companies use the goal of a cable ready set hasn't been on the radar for several years. Lets get past the problem of how to tune in a station and get to some real innovation. As long as the CEA and MSO's aren't in line any new features offered by either will break the system. Getting them on the same page is an important step in moving forward with innovative devices and features.


What kind of innovative devices and features do you envision? This is a sincere and serious question.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

PPC1 said:


> They are only now with the integration ban approaching. But had the MSOs invested the money early and over time to make cable cards work properly, then the FCC would never have gotten to the point of considering the integration ban.


The Telecom Act was passed in 1996.

The FCC opened the preceedings on how to implement the 'Commercial Availability Navigation Devices' section in February 1997. Their very first Notice of Proposed rulemaking mentioned the possibility of an 'integration ban' as a way of ensuring commercial viability without compromising security:
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=1783770001
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=1783770002

The FCC released their first Report and Order on the subject in June 1998:
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=2101780001

The first Report and Order in 1998 contained the requirement to seperate navigation from security ... and the 'integration ban'. The FCC found that the integration ban was required to meet the Congressional mandate of assuring commercial availability ... while also meeting the Congressional mandate of not compromising security.

Not sure how MSOs were supposed to act quicker than that ...

Now, the MSOs have certainly had ample time since then to prove to the FCC that the integration ban is not _required_ to meet the FCC's Congressional mandate (and have tried to do so to the courts and the FCC). But I don't see how they could possibly have acted quickly enough to have "never have gotten to the point of considering the integration ban" since that took all of a year to consider and then another year to pass ...


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> No, the consumer wants the SERVICE at the lowest possible price. They most certainly do NOT want to purchase a device. Seen where DBS has gone lately? Where everything used to be a purchase process, and is now mainly leased?
> 
> The consumer wants the flexibility of not having to own or maintain the devices. if that can be done without having any box whatsoever, fine. But, since there has been little progress in that area - and since DVR services are on an extremely rapid upswing, I would humbly disagree with you.
> 
> Cablecos aren't far more successful in leasing DVRs than TiVo in selling them because of CC. It's because it's a LEASE. Absolutely no warranty issues. No committment. No upfront cost. I'm not trying to force anthing. I'm just reflecting the market and what the consumer wants.


sure-

and along those e lines they dont want to rent a box for each tv set in their house to the tune of $5/each. They dont want to have to maintain a house full of STB's.

You and I see this from a fundamentally different point of view. I think it's all about getting rid of STB's for the low end. You seem to think the point is so people can get third party STB's like TIvo. We just see it differently. I think the law, regulations, and record support my point of view., Some how you don't see it that way.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> If what you posted is true, then that local government should be prosecuted as they are clearly acting in violation of federal law. They are not acting within their guidelines. They should be heavily fined - if not jailed.
> 
> That being said, I'd like more than Verizons story to validate this as truth. But again, if it is true I'd love to see them publicly taken to task.
> 
> Additionally, this shows that Verizon already has a remedy for what appears to be corruption. They don't need excused from existing law to utilize it.


the verizon in Maryland case is an example of how you see things as absolute. YOu think what happens in your town in your franchise board is universal. It is not. ANd this is just another example.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> We'll see what happens going forward. I would not be surprised if the ban were not at least amended. I'm fairly confident that more waivers and delays will occur.


Funny but we actually agree on this point which is pretty mush the whole crux of the thing.

I am pretty sure that anyone that asks will get a waiver for the low end boxes. And As I've said like 10 times before in this thread I think that's the smart thing to do.

I also think verizon's argument has some merit.

I think the NCTA's argument for a huge blanket waiver just goes too far and so it wont get granted. If the NCTA had taken a reasonable stance then likely the FCC would have met them half way (or more- since as Bicker points out the governemnt is really skewed pro-business currently). I think it's just another example of cable pushing too hard and they will wind up gettting B-slapped for it (like happened with analogwith must carry/ and retransmission conset, like what happened with sub channel must carry, etc, etc ). WIll be interesting to see what happens in the next couple weeks when the FCC starts rulling on the wiaver requests. We'll see what the end result is then...


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> Profit margins are getting higher for the big guys. Unfortunately the little guys have to deal with the same requirements IAW the ban. Many of them are negative EPS.


does that have anything to do with cable regulation? (serious question) or just economy of scale? The current economic climate? The huge amounts needed to invest in infrastructure to compete with dbs and the telcos?

Also I would like to point out it's still possible for the little (well maybe medium) companies to do alright. My system used to be ran by RCN. They treated us as their red headed step children. Until a few years ago they literally had like 39 analog channels and one way cable modems. Then about 2.5- 3.5 years ago a private group from CT bought out the local system from RCN. 800,000 subs (so not tiny but not one of the big guns either). They spent money to upgrade like drunken sailors on shore leave. They started rebuilding everything within months of buying the system. Now we have a butt kicking triple play package and they are gaining subs and expanding all the time hiring new employees and becoming a bigger fixture around here. They got named 2006 "independent cable operator of the year". They support cable cards just fine and I haven't seen any request for waivers from them to the FCC. So I think they plan on complying with the current regs that say July, 2007 (even though I think they should at least try for the exemption for plain boxes). I love them, I wish them well, and I dont think cablecard will kill them.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> BTW: A couple general notes on what we're discussion;
> 
> I'd really like to see CC succeed. Having experienced some of the zero length and missed recordings on my SA8300HDs, I've been anxiously awaiting the arrival of the S3. My current testing with CC in my 46HM94 have not yet yielded any sort of acceptable results (no decryption whatsoever yet). I'm still hoping the yet to be delivered Toshiba firmware will improve this, and then it's on to S3 ordering.
> 
> ...


again this is how you choose to frame the whole thing.

there are some of us in this thread that beleive it's an oppurtunity to ditch the plain digital STB's so people can plug the cable into their tv's and get service just like they can today with analog cable.



winpitt said:


> ..
> 
> John Q Public concerns: Already paying too much. Don't want to have to buy anything at all. Don't want to have to worry about when the cable guy is going to show up. Just want it to be cheap and easy.
> 
> There seems to be an obvious conflict between the two viewpoints.


and again forcing a single open standard today could solve that in the future. No need to buy ny thing fancy extra- it would just come built into like every tv. No need to rent a $5 STB to get HBO, maybe a buck or 2 a month to rent a cablecard. No need to wait around for the cable guy to show up becasue if they were 100% cablecard they would likelu allow self installs and you could pick the cards up at the local office or they could fedex them to you like DBS does today.

It's all how you choose to look at it.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

dt_dc said:


> The Telecom Act was passed in 1996.
> 
> The FCC opened the preceedings on how to implement the 'Commercial Availability Navigation Devices' section in February 1997. Their very first Notice of Proposed rulemaking mentioned the possibility of an 'integration ban' as a way of ensuring commercial viability without compromising security:
> http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=1783770001
> ...


cant speak for the original poster , but i think he's trying to say (or at least what I would say is): They new they had to un-integrate in 1998 and it seems they are unable to make that a low cost reality 9 years later in July of 2007. WHy aren't they further along to the end game rather then stalling for yet another delay to go 11 years or more before we get to the final open system?

I think some of this got trumped (or delayed, or diverted?) by the plug and play agreement? (I'll certainly defer to you guys in the know there). But that was in what 2000 or 2001? SO again 5-6 years to act. 8-9 to implement if the NCTA gets their latest requested delay.

<rhetorical on>

Why in this day and age of moore's law and plummeting technology costs that it still will add such a large chunk to the costs of the hardware?

I'll 1 million percent agree that i'm totally inept understanding the technology involved but it just seems like a bad situation that it costs so much. To An ignorant layman it just looks can buy so much more powerfull computer hardware for a fraction of the cablecard costs for the host hardware and the card itself. You can but a PC for $500, you'll probably be able to buy a low end vista media pc for a grand before long, yet it costs ~80 to add cablecard support? Just seems high.

Just seems like some poor decsions where made all along the way. Maybe a simplier or different system would have been better (I asked above about maybe cheaper smart cards like cablevision uses in their STB's- why not figure out a standard based on smart cards in 2000? )Sounds like at this point that downloadable security is the way to go, but why is that so far off still? CAble is a HUGE industry with scores and scores of millions of customers. Why didn't the players (cable and the cea) get together sooner and act like grownups and figure out the end game and implement it by now?

In the same period of time the wireless phone industry has moved from analog to several varients of 2g digital to 3g digital. Digital handsets of today are a franction of the cost and size of their analog predecesors with hundreds or thousands of times the computing power. The service that the phones are used for has thrieved, prices have plummeted, and the market has probably grown exponentially. 10 years ago sprint was building their inital network, now they have a crazy speed EVDO nework covering most people. How did the wireless business team with the headset people to achieve so much and cable and the CEA are still not sure even of the roadmap they want to follow?

Since it hasn't happened we're stuck with this bad situation that doesn't really seem to have a good way out.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

winpitt said:


> Really? I'm sorry - I missed all those complaints from cable customers. Yes, there have been relatively infrequent complaints. The problem is that you're putting the cart completely away from the horse. The consumer will be charged something either way if they're using CC or a proprietary STB. That doesn't change. CC doesn't fix this.


The complaints are relatively infrequent right now, when it's just a channel here or there. But I'm guessing that someday cable operators will discontinue analog cable entirely, at which time the complaints will likely be much more numerous.

As for CC not fixing it, you're absolutely right, that's why I said it went halfway. In theory, it's cheaper to have a CableCARD, and you only have one device (say the TV) to operate.

What you say in your other posts is also true, CableCARD is not a very good technology. The problem is, I think it's too late to go with anything else. How long ago was the mandate that resulted in CableCARD? Wasn't it like ten years ago? If the FCC said to come up with something better, wouldn't it be another ten years? And it wasn't hopeless, they could have designed something good, but they decided on CableCARD instead.

Concerning the cable companies supporting third party products, I've been wondering something. Why don't the techs that come to your house have a CableCARD device they can try a card in? For instance, a cable box like the ones that would be required by the integration ban? If the CableCARD works in their box, plugged into the same cable where you'd plug your TV or TiVo or whatever, then the problem is in your device and they can leave it at that. I'm not sure why they don't have any way to perform this simple troubleshooting step.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Brainiac 5 said:


> What you say in your other posts is also true, CableCARD is not a very good technology. The problem is, I think it's too late to go with anything else.


It is only "too late" as long as the government says it is too late.


----------



## PPC1 (Sep 16, 2006)

winpitt said:


> Sorry, but completely disagree with almost 100% of your position. There is probably no point in continuing to debate this. When somebody says that the entire point of a franchise is to restrict competition there is obviously no possibility to continue discussion.


Isn't entry into the market restricted to those with franchise agreements? Don't applicant's have to meet your conditions to get a franchise agreement? Don't you exclude from the market those that don't agree to your terms?



winpitt said:


> Let's just say that we have markedly different perspectives, and that yours (IMHO) is one that if realized in reality would harm the general consumer.


Again, this is not the issue. I never once said get rid of the franchise authorities. I never once said get rid of government intervention. Go back and read my first post that set you off. My original point was, like it or not, there is government regulation of the industry (part of which has the effect of protecting the local franchise's market share, (I would go so far as to say "monopoly") so when it comes to discussing the regulations, let's not kid our selves about that any effort toward reducing the regulation would get us to a free market. The point is, unless you completely remove all government regulation, let's make the regulation work.



winpitt said:


> Also, please do not continue to use the term monopoly when it clearly does not legally apply.


In my area, I have ONE cable service provider available to me. THAT is a monopoly, in every sence of the word. Take a poll here. I am sure that I am not the only one to have only one cable option.



winpitt said:


> As for CC, it was the least bad of a very bad set of ideas. Least bad almost never means good. Certainly not in this case.


 I agree with this completely. But if it was the least bad option 10 years ago, has anything changed?


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Brainiac 5 said:


> The complaints are relatively infrequent right now, when it's just a channel here or there. But I'm guessing that someday cable operators will discontinue analog cable entirely, at which time the complaints will likely be much more numerous.
> 
> As for CC not fixing it, you're absolutely right, that's why I said it went halfway. In theory, it's cheaper to have a CableCARD, and you only have one device (say the TV) to operate.
> 
> ...


They do. And they did. An excellent example is this. About 2 weeks ago a Comcast technician arrived at my home to install a CC in my Toshiba 46HM94. The Toshiba is just under 2 yrs old. He was not able to get the CC to decrypt anything. He had a unit with him that he was able to take that same CC and install it, and watch it decrypt all channels. He then looked at the firmware in my Toshiba, and found that it was relatively outdated. He then called Toshiba (from my home), who confirmed that there may be a firmware conflict and recommended flashing new firmware. The firmware has not yet been delivered. However, at this point Comcast has already rolled one truck. They are going to have to roll another truck. They had to spend the time trying to troubleshoot what appears to be a 3rd party defect not capable of being controlled by Comcast. This cost them money, time and resource. It will cost them more if I'm to continue trying to use CC. The problem is that you leave off when they determine it's a 3rd party issue. What happens then? Do you expect the user to just give up? Do you really think that will work? Do you expect the consumer to pay for the cost? The problem is that around this forum people simply dismiss this and say it should be the cost of doing business, and the MSO just needs to suck it up.

That is a very dangerous position to take. It essentially allows all the 3rd party vendors to ignore quality issues in terms of sw development, leaving all the cost to the MSO.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

PPC1 said:


> Isn't entry into the market restricted to those with franchise agreements? Don't applicant's have to meet your conditions to get a franchise agreement? Don't you exclude from the market those that don't agree to your terms?
> 
> Again, this is not the issue. I never once said get rid of the franchise authorities. I never once said get rid of government intervention. Go back and read my first post that set you off. My original point was, like it or not, there is government regulation of the industry (part of which has the effect of protecting the local franchise's market share, (I would go so far as to say "monopoly") so when it comes to discussing the regulations, let's not kid our selves about that any effort toward reducing the regulation would get us to a free market. The point is, unless you completely remove all government regulation, let's make the regulation work.
> 
> ...


Sorry, cannot agree with you. Just because only one provider cares to enter a market does not make it a monopoly. Nobody is being "prevented". Frankly, by your own definition, every single product or service that exists is constrained from being free competition. There is no product or service that I'm aware of that does not have some sort of obligation placed upon them, whether it be in the form of taxation, occupational health requirements, safety, etc. This is no different.

Taking a poll of how many people have more than one cable option is pointless. A better poll would be how many people could have cable or DBS. Some can have only cable. Some can have only DBS. Most can have both. That is a choice. The service we're being offered is CONTENT. The means of delivery is without consequence. No monopoly.

But of more significance is that Franchise Agreements are incredibly easy to get. There are actually (with the exception of the normal FCC requirements) few real obstacles. The largest simply have to do with rights of way, and build-out. To be clear, Franchise Fees are NOT an item of disagreement. That's because they're simply passed on (by law) to the consumer. The MSO pays none out of their pocket. Most municipalities don't even use their PEG options (which are federal and not local requirements). To be even more crystal clear - the only reason this debate even exists today is because Verizon saw a political opportunity to market changes as "increased competition" - AFTER they had already rolled out a significant amount of fiber. That opportunity would allow them to heavily increase profit margins by "cherry picking". The reality is quite simple. If no changes are made to either state or federal law, they will absolutely continue to roll out FiOS. They will be profitable. They will also provide services to far more people, serving the greater good. They will THEN truly provide competition on an even playing field. Anyone who thinks they'll just stop laying cable is a few bricks shy of a full load. That ship has already sailed. So, the only people to gain from changes to this legislation are - Verizon and ATT. People who think that the only reason they got - or will get - FiOS is because Franchise agreements are moved to either state or federal level simply have little awareness of the situation and the facts.

The only possible dispute to this is for somebody to explain what Verizon will do with all the fiber already installed if changes to the law are not made. If you can somehow convince yourself that they'll just abandon it, well, OK. That's a really tough argument to try and make.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> Why didn't the players (cable and the CEA) get together sooner and act like grownups and figure out the end game and implement it by now?


I know you were being rhetorical but...

The cable industry is made up of numerous small entities and getting them all to agree on a standard that the CEA could implement would have been impossible or a short term solution if anything. Look at the state of cable ready sets prior to digital. How many years were we forced to use STB's before these were available? Even then sets handled the upper channels differently or not above a certain number.

The ONLY way to get both of these organizations on the same page was through regulation. CC is good for everyone and for innovation. Does this mean that cutting edge cable technology might be slowed? Yes it does. It also means that cutting edge reception equipment can also be developed without fear of the standard changing, or an entire region being incompatible because an MSO prefers one system over another.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Stormspace said:


> I know you were being rhetorical but...
> 
> The cable industry is made up of numerous small entities and getting them all to agree on a standard that the CEA could implement would have been impossible or a short term solution if anything. Look at the state of cable ready sets prior to digital. How many years were we forced to use STB's before these were available? Even then sets handled the upper channels differently or not above a certain number.
> 
> The ONLY way to get both of these organizations on the same page was through regulation. CC is good for everyone and for innovation. Does this mean that cutting edge cable technology might be slowed? Yes it does. It also means that cutting edge reception equipment can also be developed without fear of the standard changing, or an entire region being incompatible because an MSO prefers one system over another.


Do not agree with the statement that CC is good for everyone and for innovation. Actually, kind of think that it's actually bad for almost everyone (except us) and for innovation. I don't see that "cutting edge reception equipment can be developed without fear of the standard changing....". I do agree that advances will certainly be slowed.

I'm still waiting on what those new innovations will be as a result of CC - very seriously. I'm still having difficulty seeing CC as an avenue for anything really. Again, except for those of us wanting a TiVo S3 - myself included.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

winpitt said:


> Do not agree with the statement that CC is good for everyone and for innovation. Actually, kind of think that it's actually bad for almost everyone (except us) and for innovation. I don't see that "cutting edge reception equipment can be developed without fear of the standard changing....". I do agree that advances will certainly be slowed.
> 
> I'm still waiting on what those new innovations will be as a result of CC - very seriously. I'm still having difficulty seeing CC as an avenue for anything really. Again, except for those of us wanting a TiVo S3 - myself included.


I don't have an S3 and don't plan on getting one. My views are strictly from a viewers perspective and what I want my TV to be able to do. It was mentioned before but Telephone equipment was expensive and limited before third parties were able to manufacture it. How do you think that would have gone if the phone company changed the standard every couple of years due to some imagined or real efficiency.

It's the same here. Stop arguing about how to deliver the signal and get on with more complex and wonderful equipment. Anything can happen with a standard in place like this since we now don't have to worry about how to get the signal, but instead worry about what to do with it.


----------



## RoanokeHokie (Nov 16, 2000)

winpitt said:


> I'm still waiting on what those new innovations will be as a result of CC - very seriously. I'm still having difficulty seeing CC as an avenue for anything really.


Until cable companies can competently provide CableCARD installation, few companies will make the mistake of depending on it for their product's success. And, in the end, that's why the CEA mentioned this forum in their FCC filing. For all the TV sets that have been produced with CableCARD support, it is a decided minority that ever tried to get a CableCARD. However, almost every Series 3 owner is getting CableCARDs. That provides some good information, especially since TiVo seems to be very supportive of the cable operators. And still, there are Series 3 owners who can't get their service configured on CableCARDs, and many of those issue appear to be cable company problems, not TiVo problems.

So what other company is going to come out with a CableCARD device when the cable companies provide this level of support? This is why I think the integration ban is useful - not to push the CableCARD technology out to the low end, but to push the cable companies to train their support staff to handle CableCARDs.

The integration ban supports the innovation of solid CableCARD support from cable companies. If a cable company can demonstrate strong CableCARD support, then I think an integration waiver may be reasonable. But, to me, strong support includes:
Equivalent installation options as set-top boxes, including self-install.
Combined wait queues - no preference or penalty based on access device.
Identical or lower configuration error rate (incorrect programming package on cards, etc.)

The point isn't for the cable companies to only support CableCARD, but to provide effective support of CableCARD. If the only way to reach that point is the integration ban, then so be it. Since CableLabs developed CableCARD, I'm not willing to give them a break because of the issues of the device manufacturers - heck, I had a cable company tell me (5 years ago, admittedly) to replace my TV because it couldn't deal with the (defective) video out from a cable box. I ended up returning the box (going back to analog only) and then getting another box which worked when I upgraded again - one week later.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Stormspace said:


> I don't have an S3 and don't plan on getting one. My views are strictly from a viewers perspective and what I want my TV to be able to do. It was mentioned before but Telephone equipment was expensive and limited before third parties were able to manufacture it. How do you think that would have gone if the phone company changed the standard every couple of years due to some imagined or real efficiency.
> 
> It's the same here. Stop arguing about how to deliver the signal and get on with more complex and wonderful equipment. Anything can happen with a standard in place like this since we now don't have to worry about how to get the signal, but instead worry about what to do with it.


I wish you (and others) would stop bringing up the completely out of context telephone company analogy. As mentioned countless times before, there is no semblence of similarity between them. Nobody forced the phone companies to develop a new standard. Nobody. This is completely different from forcing MSOs to adopt a very narrowly focused, untested and error prone technology solution - and then to force them to assume all Tier 1 support responsibilities. There are certainly arguments that can be made here, but comparisons to telephone service is not one of them.

I'm asking a very simple question. Nobody has yet answered. What exactly are those innovations that we believe will result from the ban and the implementation of CC? I see clear innovations possible as a result of IP (which already exists) but none on behalf of CC.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

RoanokeHokie said:


> Until cable companies can competently provide CableCARD installation, few companies will make the mistake of depending on it for their product's success. And, in the end, that's why the CEA mentioned this forum in their FCC filing. For all the TV sets that have been produced with CableCARD support, it is a decided minority that ever tried to get a CableCARD. However, almost every Series 3 owner is getting CableCARDs. That provides some good information, especially since TiVo seems to be very supportive of the cable operators. And still, there are Series 3 owners who can't get their service configured on CableCARDs, and many of those issue appear to be cable company problems, not TiVo problems.
> 
> So what other company is going to come out with a CableCARD device when the cable companies provide this level of support? This is why I think the integration ban is useful - not to push the CableCARD technology out to the low end, but to push the cable companies to train their support staff to handle CableCARDs.
> 
> ...


So you would expect the MSOs to assume all responsibilities for defects associated with 3rd party vendors? I can provide many examples of that which exist right now. Do you believe that the MSOs should be forced to eat those costs?

If so, assuming you owned an MSO would YOU be OK with that?

A second question: Since it is highly likely (and legal) for the MSOs to pass those costs along to the consumer, are you OK with passing those costs along to consumers - who by majority would almost certainly disagree that they care about CC or the ban? Who are not complaining about anything you guys are, but ARE complaining about existing bills? Your statement that they should essentially eat costs associated with supporting 3rd party vendors ("not willing to give a break") highlights that you're most certainly not employed in the technology field - at least not at an Enterprise level. Not an insult - just an obvious observation.

Finally, let's clear something else up. CE manufacturers did NOT stop embedding CC in devices because of support issues. They did so because people didn't even know what they were for, and didn't care about them. With the singular exception of the S3 adopters, that has not changed one iota. Most certainly the providers have not earnestly sought out how to best support CC. But that's not the reason it's not popular. It's not popular because nobody cares about it except us. Why do you believe that will change? Less and less broadcast equipment (except for TVs) is "bought" and more and more is "leased". No warranty worries. No investment worries. That's the way the market is moving.

I still don't see it. Not from a market - or a technology perspective.

One other thing - and this is completely factual. The overwhelming majority of users out there are NOT cc users, and don't even know what it is, much less care about it. Support is an investment. Providers are trying to make that investment where it is best utilized. If you ask 1000 cable customers (excluding this small forum) whether they'd rather have faster STB and DVR installations and quicker turnaround, or have those same people focusing on CC, what do you think their response will be? And if you're saying they should do both, you're now arguing against others on this site who believe there is no additional support cost for CC.

To me, just another example of how singularly biased we as a group are - and in conflict with the wishes and desires of the general consumer.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

winpitt said:


> Finally, let's clear something else up. CE manufacturers did NOT stop embedding CC in devices because of support issues. They did so because people didn't even know what they were for, and didn't care about them.


You're making a very strong statement. Please back it up; I don't believe your unsupported statement for a second.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

CrispyCritter said:


> You're making a very strong statement. Please back it up; I don't believe your unsupported statement for a second.


Really? I completely stand by it. Prove me wrong. Show me a single, solitary example of CC being added because of the consumer asking for it.

Show me anything that says otherwise.

Actually show me something that says the general consumer even knows what CC is.

Not even people here are arguing that support is what caused CC to not take off in CE devices.

Of course, if you don't believe me you could look at the following. In the first link, note the statement "Frustrated by the lack of consumer interest, many television manufacturers have sharply cut the number of CableCard-ready models"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/03/t...rss&adxnnlx=1163534836-YhEaul0C+vmj+KfoyZlcAA

or

http://www.pvrwire.com/2006/09/15/are-cablecards-doomed/

or

http://www.techliberation.com/archives/040763.php

or

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/ar...77&article_id=1808&page_number=1&print_page=y

By all accounts, no more than 3% of all CC slot equipped devices have ever even had a CC attempted to be inserted into them.

That is a clear and unadulterated lack of consumer interest.

Let's be even more clear. I am NOT saying that MSOs have done a great job in supporting CC. I am NOT saying that MSOs haven't caused a great deal of frustration around CC.

However, you need to separate consumer interest from demonstrated support. The former deals with the likely market cap for this technology. The latter deals with adoption for that small segment who might be interested.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

winpitt said:


> That is a clear and unadulterated lack of consumer interest.


Not exactly, you fail to mention that CC add 200-300 to the base price of the set. CE manufacturers have removed CC from devices to sell these already overpriced sets.

I can't believe I bought one.... 

Course, mine doesn't support Cable Card because I couldn't afford a tuner. If I had it would have had CC support.


----------



## PPC1 (Sep 16, 2006)

winpitt said:


> http://www.techliberation.com/archives/040763.php


I find it interesting that one of the articles you cite actually supports my prior posts:



techliberation.com said:


> But rather than *repealing regulations that are currently acting as barriers to entry in that industry (such as liberalizing the cable franchise system)* they've dreamed up a highly artificial "market" in which firms are only allowed to compete in ways carefully circumscribed by the regulators. *Incumbents invariably find ways to subvert or co-opt such regulations*, with the result that they wind up simply forcing the incumbents to jump through a lot of hoops and wasting a lot of money on lawyers and lobbyists.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Stormspace said:


> Not exactly, you fail to mention that CC add 200-300 to the base price of the set. CE manufacturers have removed CC from devices to sell these already overpriced sets.
> 
> I can't believe I bought one....
> 
> Course, mine doesn't support Cable Card because I couldn't afford a tuner. If I had it would have had CC support.


Nope. Even the articles I mention don't show that cost as being the issue. They do show that people who bought them (myself included - have had CC capable set for 2 years but only 2 weeks ago attempted to use it) mainly never ever tried to use it.

CC did not add $200-300 to the sets. Those sets - like the one I bought - had other additional features beside the CC capability which affected price.

The bottom line, however is because only 3% of all sets sold with CC have actually ever used CC says it all. As evidenced elsewhere, you can't blame CE manufacturers for dropping a feature that added cost while nobody was asking for it.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

PPC1 said:


> I find it interesting that one of the articles you cite actually supports my prior posts:


Read the whole thing. Also don't construe that "liberalizing" means eliminating build-out requirements. If that single requirement were not eliminated from proposed changes, I'd feel quite differently. The reality is alas not the case.

To be honest, the only two things I care about with respect to Franchise Agreements are build-out requirements (to insure we don't disenfranchise a large percentage of the United States) and quality oversight. I could care less about Franchise Fees, etc. I guess I do care about PEG, but am not really highly charged about it.

Of course, the only thing that (for example) Verizon cares about getting removed - is build-out requirements. Let's not kid ourselves. Being biased is one thing. Being blindly biased is quite another.


----------



## PPC1 (Sep 16, 2006)

winpitt said:


> Read the whole thing. Also don't construe that "liberalizing" means eliminating build-out requirements. If that single requirement were not eliminated from proposed changes, I'd feel quite differently. The reality is alas not the case.


Yes, I read the whole thing. And no I don't equate "liberalizing" with eliminating build-out requirements. I refered to that only because that was a restriction that you admitted to. Perhaps if I looked, I would find others. But this is a requirment to compete market that you admitted existed.



winpitt said:


> To be honest, the only two things I care about with respect to Franchise Agreements are build-out requirements (to insure we don't disenfranchise a large percentage of the United States) and quality oversight. I could care less about Franchise Fees, etc. I guess I do care about PEG, but am not really highly charged about it.


I fully understand why you would want to impose this restriction. I am not claiming that you are evil for wanting to interfere with the marketplace for the benefit of the consumer. It is the natural monopoly character of the utility industry that drives government intervention. I fully admit that without your build-out requirement, some consumers will be left with either no service or increased service fees. Nor do I seriously contest the position that the consumer is better off with government regulation in this field. But just admit the obvious-- the build out requirement *is* a barrier. Like it or not, this barrier protects the incumbent. Without it, the incumbent carrier in SW PA would now be competing with Verizon.



winpitt said:


> Let's not kid ourselves. Being biased is one thing. Being blindly biased is quite another.


Yes, let's not kid ourselves.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

PPC1 said:


> Yes, I read the whole thing. And no I don't equate "liberalizing" with eliminating build-out requirements. I refered to that only because that was a restriction that you admitted to. Perhaps if I looked, I would find others. But this is a restriction you admitted existed.
> 
> I fully understand why you would want to impose this restriction. I am not claiming that you are evil for wanting to interfere with the marketplace for the benefit of the consumer. It is the natural monopoly character of the utility industry that drives government intervention. I fully admit that without your build-out requirement, some consumers will be left with either no service or increased service fees. Nor do I seriously contest the position that the consumer is better off with government regulation in this field. But just admit the obvious-- the build out requirement *is* a barrier. Like it or not, this barrier protects the incumbent. Without it, the incumbent carrier in SW PA would now be competing with Verizon.
> 
> Yes, let's not kid ourselves.


I guess our difference in opinion comes at heart from this. You're saying that because there is that "requirement" (note the different term rather than barrier) the market is being affected. Well, Yes. I already said that. No differently than the requirement to pay taxes, worry about health/safety issues, etc. Again - virtually every single product or service sold in the US has some sort of requirement attached to it. That's normal.

Where I see it differently is that Verizon would clearly still enter the market regardless. This is NOT a barrier. The only reason they are delaying (and that is the correct term to use - they are definitely going to enter regardless) is because they see a potential near term windfall. Build-out requirements are NOT a barrier. They are NOT barring Verizon from entry. Verizon seeing a potential advantage by waiting is only delaying them. Have you noticed that they haven't stopped deploying? Do you really believe they will not enter the market after spending hundreds of millions of dollars installing fiber? That they would just walk away?

No. If anything, the Verizon sponsored mullti-media marketing campaign to promote "competition" as a result of adopting federal or state Franchise Agreements are the barrier. It's simple. If there was no proposed legislation, Verizon would be directly competing with the incumbent today.

Again, let's not kid ourselves


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

PPC1 said:


> I find it interesting that one of the articles you cite actually supports my prior posts:


BTW - truly absolutely no insult intended, but I had to chuckle that you liked that article when it isn't exactly enamored with lawyers. When I posted that link I was wondering how you'd react to it.

I was laughing with you - not at you.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Oh, I forgot one thing. The Cable MSOs joined with Verizon on the State version of the bill that would grant Statewide franchise agreements. They also see the value in not having to service a good number of geographical areas, and the opportunity to gain additional revenues in those areas. They also see that Verizon is coming and are trying to eke out some more revenue. Doesn't seem to make sense that if they thought it was a barrier, the incumbent would also be lobbying for the change, right?


----------



## ac3dd (Mar 2, 2002)

Remember when not needing a box was a selling point that they used when trying to convince people not to use satellite? Cable companies should be embracing and promoting CableCards for their own good, rather than desparately clinging onto the revenue from renting the boxes.

Many people only get analog cable because they don't want boxes strewn around to the different TVs in their house, or they don't want yet another box cluttering up the already-crowded area where the TV sits (they probably have a DVD player, amplifier, video game console, etc. already taking up space).

Lots of people don't know what CableCard is, and that's after having bought a TV with it! CableCard is still in its infancy as most of the market is concerned, and most people don't demand it because they don't know about it.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

ac3dd said:


> Remember when not needing a box was a selling point that they used when trying to convince people not to use satellite? Cable companies should be embracing and promoting CableCards for their own good, rather than desparately clinging onto the revenue from renting the boxes.
> 
> Many people only get analog cable because they don't want boxes strewn around to the different TVs in their house, or they don't want yet another box cluttering up the already-crowded area where the TV sits (they probably have a DVD player, amplifier, video game console, etc. already taking up space).
> 
> Lots of people don't know what CableCard is, and that's after having bought a TV with it! CableCard is still in its infancy as most of the market is concerned, and most people don't demand it because they don't know about it.


Huh? "for their own good"? People getting analog only service get it because they don't want to spend more money. Not because they don't want an STB. If I owned or was employed by a cable company I'd hate CC also. Why? Forget about the potential lost revenue - I really don't care about that. That's normal business. What I do care about is the fact (and it is a fact) that they inherit quality issues from 3rd party manufacturers.

Do a quick search - even via just google - for Toshiba and Cablecard. What you'll see is a myriad of problems associated with different firmware revisions from Toshiba that have created problems - completely separate and uncontrolled by cable providers. Yet, the cable providers are in each and every case the repeated Tier 1 support element that has to continue working with consumers. It's not costing Toshiba a darned thing. It most certainly is costing the cable provider something. Why should the cableco eat the costs associated with supporting CC on a 3rd party device that didn't do a darn thing for them?

This is just an example. It's normal technology. Enterprise IT is filled with similar stories. That's why we've got the term "one throat to choke" - meaning that we'd like to partner with vendors that can provide vertical solutions eliminating such support issues. Unfortunately, cable has nowhere to go. There is absolutely no advantage to cableco's for CC. Nothing but trouble, increased cost, and lost revenue. IF - and ONLY IF - the public really had a demonstrated desire for such technology, the argument would be better. However, as it stands there just isn't any demand whatsoever, but we force the MSOs to divert their attention from more valuable and worthy endeavors for this unknown and unwanted technology (except for us - who want the S3 to work, including me).


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> the verizon in Maryland case is an example of how you see things as absolute. YOu think what happens in your town in your franchise board is universal. It is not. ANd this is just another example.


No, what I said is that we don't need more legislation to fix what appears to be an issue where people acted illegally.

If they are acting outside the law, they should be prosecuted. To that extent I do believe in "absolutes".

When people drive illegally under the influence of alcohol you don't outlaw either drinking or driving. You enforce the existing law to prevent them from driving when intoxicated.

Verizon has this avenue, and they have certainly used it in the past.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> Funny but we actually agree on this point which is pretty mush the whole crux of the thing.
> 
> I am pretty sure that anyone that asks will get a waiver for the low end boxes. And As I've said like 10 times before in this thread I think that's the smart thing to do.
> 
> ...


I think Verizons argument has zero merit. The only thing they care about in the discussion is build-out. Removing that requirement has dire effects on lots of people. They even admit that they're entering the market regardless.

Bottom line? If we as a country cave on this, it just shows that we're absolutely terrible business people and can be bought or swayed by a ridiculous story.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> sure-
> 
> and along those e lines they dont want to rent a box for each tv set in their house to the tune of $5/each. They dont want to have to maintain a house full of STB's.
> 
> You and I see this from a fundamentally different point of view. I think it's all about getting rid of STB's for the low end. You seem to think the point is so people can get third party STB's like TIvo. We just see it differently. I think the law, regulations, and record support my point of view., Some how you don't see it that way.


Not $5 each really. You're adding outlet charges, which don't go away. And I (nicely) challenge you to find something from consumers in general complaining about this. I can find countless articles complaining about pricing and availability. None but from small splinter groups like us complaining about STBs. People actually have moved MORE toward leasing of STBs, etc. Note the move from purchase to lease for DBS equipment.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> does that have anything to do with cable regulation? (serious question) or just economy of scale? The current economic climate? The huge amounts needed to invest in infrastructure to compete with dbs and the telcos?
> 
> Also I would like to point out it's still possible for the little (well maybe medium) companies to do alright. My system used to be ran by RCN. They treated us as their red headed step children. Until a few years ago they literally had like 39 analog channels and one way cable modems. Then about 2.5- 3.5 years ago a private group from CT bought out the local system from RCN. 800,000 subs (so not tiny but not one of the big guns either). They spent money to upgrade like drunken sailors on shore leave. They started rebuilding everything within months of buying the system. Now we have a butt kicking triple play package and they are gaining subs and expanding all the time hiring new employees and becoming a bigger fixture around here. They got named 2006 "independent cable operator of the year". They support cable cards just fine and I haven't seen any request for waivers from them to the FCC. So I think they plan on complying with the current regs that say July, 2007 (even though I think they should at least try for the exemption for plain boxes). I love them, I wish them well, and I dont think cablecard will kill them.


You've got a point, and there's one small independent provider here. I'd be more than willing, however, to bet that within 10 years they don't exist. Likely within 5. It is about scale and as new more advanced services (note I didn't say devices) come online, the smaller guys will be more and more unable to keep up. JMHO.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> again this is how you choose to frame the whole thing.
> 
> there are some of us in this thread that beleive it's an oppurtunity to ditch the plain digital STB's so people can plug the cable into their tv's and get service just like they can today with analog cable.
> 
> ...


Highly unlikely by all involved (even CC promoters) that long term costs will actually decline. I've never seen ANY study that shows this.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> cant speak for the original poster , but i think he's trying to say (or at least what I would say is): They new they had to un-integrate in 1998 and it seems they are unable to make that a low cost reality 9 years later in July of 2007. WHy aren't they further along to the end game rather then stalling for yet another delay to go 11 years or more before we get to the final open system?
> 
> I think some of this got trumped (or delayed, or diverted?) by the plug and play agreement? (I'll certainly defer to you guys in the know there). But that was in what 2000 or 2001? SO again 5-6 years to act. 8-9 to implement if the NCTA gets their latest requested delay.
> 
> ...


A couple interesting notes:

First of all, Moores Law is in danger of being broken as we speak. Don't know if you were aware of that. In the tech industry we're already discussion somewhat changing the definition of Moore's law to include virtual application of technology as opposed to physical power increases.

Second, you're also missing something with respect to EVDO (whether Sprint or Verizon) and EDGE. Those are closed systems, where the entire DEVICE (ie, the entire communications transciever) must be approved by the vendor - and note that specific devices are manufactured SPECIFICALLY for each service provider. Example: Treo700w is CDMA/EVDO for Verizon only. 8125 is GSM/EDGE for Cingular/ATT only. The biggest issue is that the devices have such broad application and appeal that the scale and market opportunity is immense - plus they have an 18 month lifecycle. This is so completely different from CC that it's hilarious. BTW: 3G is essentially non-existent - just as an aside.

Third, you need to become aware of the TRUE cost of IT. You mention buying (in the future) a Vista compliant machine for $1K. You should consider the cost of buying such a machine and having it being a member of your Enterprise Network. The cost of standardization, things like Group Policies, PKI infrastructure, etc, etc, etc. I'm sure there are people on this board that know what I'm saying. Just triple the cost of that machine to actually have it live on a mature and well managed large Enterprise Network - similar to what you'd consider a cableco. Then add in the cost of change management, locking down local administrative privileges, etc. Then consider that ALL of the underlying technology is built upon a globally agreed upon technology stack (the OSI model) using incredibly mature technology such as TCP/IP, Http(s), RDP, RPC, etc, etc. As opposed to a very small untested niche technology like CC. There is an incredibly large difference.

The issue is that you're comparing consumer device costs (non-enterprise networked PCs) with devices that must be supported by large enterprises. You shouldn't feel bad about it - people make that mistake all the time because of the "Best Buy" syndrome. After all, if I can buy a 100mb Ethernet Switch for $50 at Best Buy, why is Cisco charging me $7000? There is most definitely an answer.

A final note: In each of the cases you bring up, simple market economics drove the change. Not federal legislation forcing the adoption of a relatively untested technology. The difference is that there was a known and large demand for such technologies - as opposed to the situation with CC.


----------



## ac3dd (Mar 2, 2002)

winpitt said:


> Huh? "for their own good"? People getting analog only service get it because they don't want to spend more money. Not because they don't want an STB.


Many people I know don't want digital cable because it's another box they have to deal with. They have to deal not just with the space, but paying $5-10 per month per box, which is annoying when there are 3-4 TVs in the house. The box clutters their space AND makes them spend more money and makes them fumble with controlling 2 devices with the remote (or two). Having a separate box is also inconvenient in other areas like the bedroom.

My aunt in particular didn't have a DVD player until late last year because she didn't want another box cluttering the TV area in the living room. Eventually I bought her a DVD/VCR combo, which replaced the VCR, so she could have DVD and VCR without increasing the number of boxes. She has more money than me and could easily afford it, but she (like many other women) don't like devices cluttering their living room area.

Audio-video enthusiasts like me or you don't mind the boxes if that's what it takes to watch what we want. Millions of other people don't care about TV that much, and small annoyances will turn them off.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

winpitt said:


> Huh? "for their own good"? People getting analog only service get it because they don't want to spend more money. Not because they don't want an STB.


I can't speak for everyone else in the country, but I can say that this isn't true for me. I've stuck with analog for years, exactly because I didn't want a box. I don't want one on my TVs, and I don't want my TiVos to have to control a box with some kludged-up IR blaster.

The day the S3 came out, I ordered one, and when it arrived I upgraded to a nice digital cable plan. If it is in any way possible, I will never own a device that displays or records television and cannot tune/decode the channels by itself.

I know this is anecdotal evidence and doesn't prove anything about anyone other than me, so of course make what you will of it (if anything)...


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

winpitt said:


> First of all, Moores Law is in danger of being broken as we speak. Don't know if you were aware of that.


Of course, people have been saying this for some time and it hasn't happened yet. That's not to say that this time it won't be true, but I've given up on predicting. 



> Second, you're also missing something with respect to EVDO (whether Sprint or Verizon) and EDGE. Those are closed systems, where the entire DEVICE (ie, the entire communications transciever) must be approved by the vendor - and note that specific devices are manufactured SPECIFICALLY for each service provider.


Well, this isn't entirely true. In the case of companies that use GSM/GPRS/EDGE, you can go buy a phone wherever you want and stick your SIM card into it, and it's on the network. People do it all the time - they buy unlocked phones that haven't been released by any carriers in the US yet, and use them on Cingular, T-Mobile, or whatever (maybe only geeks do this, but they're people). Anyway, it works.

But on the actual subject of your reply, I agree. The reason they're not further along with making non-integrated boxes even though they've had this long is that integrated boxes are inherently cheaper. If for no other reason, then because there's only one piece of equipment to manufacture, and because they don't have to implement the box to CableCARD interface, or have separate components that talk over it if there's a cheaper alternative (which there almost certainly is).


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Winpit... narrow market for CC blah blah blah... Gee- wonder how it got to be such a narrow market. Funny how that worked out.

Frankly, I am tired of the vertical monopoly games. I am tired of the idea that companies can build cars that require me to go to only one company for my gas. I am tired of the perpetual 2 year lock In commitment even for the most minor service change. I am tired of only being able to buy devices which mysteriously only allow me to buy services from the company I got the device from (why no wireless-G or GMRS walkie talkie on my phone). I am tired of hearing about whining to the FCC about all the technical problems after a decade- about all the overhead while these Telco and Cable/Sat providers have obscene profits. 

Yeah, and I'm tired of the cable and satco games with Tivo and the FCC.

Congress has switched hands, and I as well as a number of other victims of these vertical monopolists are seriously po'd about getting locked in and squeezed hard. The FCC seriously needs a change of management, a philosophical change about the role of government in dealing with these kinds of shenagengans, and lastly, the enforcement power to carry out the 1996 Telco act. 

I am not for huge government interventionism but enough is a enough- all these platforms have to be blown open so that hardware may not be used as a mechanism for excluding competition between service providers.

We can start with simple enforcement of the 1996 Telco act.

EG- As I have long stated, I think 1 decade is about long enough of a waiver for the Satcos to comply- the act said that waivers could only be temporary. One decade? Sheesh.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

RoanokeHokie said:


> Until cable companies can competently provide CableCARD installation, few companies will make the mistake of depending on it for their product's success.


Well said. And the best way to facilitate that is to make providing CableCards as profitable or more so than the alternative. That's what a lot of anti-business people fail to realize -- that the way to get a company to do what you want is to provide a profit motive to do so (because the pro-business people aren't going to let you push them into doing what you want by punishing investor-owned companies).



> So what other company is going to come out with a CableCARD device when the cable companies provide this level of support? This is why I think the integration ban is useful - not to push the CableCARD technology out to the low end, but to push the cable companies to train their support staff to handle CableCARDs.


And this needs to be implemented in a way that it is a net-win for the cable company, or they will object to it, and with good reason.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Justin Thyme said:


> Winpit... narrow market for CC blah blah blah... Gee- wonder how it got to be such a narrow market. Funny how that worked out.
> 
> Frankly, I am tired of the vertical monopoly games. I am tired of the idea that companies can build cars that require me to go to only one company for my gas. I am tired of the perpetual 2 year lock In commitment even for the most minor service change. I am tired of only being able to buy devices which mysteriously only allow me to buy services from the company I got the device from (why no wireless-G or GMRS walkie talkie on my phone). I am tired of hearing about whining to the FCC about all the technical problems after a decade- about all the overhead while these Telco and Cable/Sat providers have obscene profits.
> 
> ...


"some" of the MSOs have large profits. Others are bankrupt. Yet others are teetering on the edge.

You have a serious misunderstanding of the market. And the Telco act of 1996. What I will agree with you about is that the FCC is seriously mismanaged - and has been for more than 20 years. This is nothing recent, and removing all oversight and enforcement to them will certainly not be an improvement.

Further, scream all you want, but the facts are that CC just isn't relevant. I really don't care if you would wish to purchase devices from another company. I really don't care that I PERSONALLY want to do so as well. That's not the point whatsoever. What IS the point is that the entire fiasco provides no real advantage for the consumer.

I'm still waiting for somebody here to find me ONE SINGLE ARTICLE showing that consumers are more fed up with having STBs than they are with costs. I can point to literally hundreds complaining about rising costs. I can't find ONE from consumers (not this forum) that is complaining about STBs instead. Perhaps I'm just using the wrong keywords.

Your perspective is very dangerous, and frankly if viewed rationally without legal basis for good reason. Entertainment is non-essential. Government stepping in and deciding how non-essential services must be delivered including hardware platforms in private industry is, well, communism. Maybe not by the pure definition, but certainly the intent. Frankly, you and I shouldn't have a darned say about how it's done. You don't like it? Go to DBS. You CAN vote with your feet - today. Or, are you also saying now that even DBS must comply with this and open their systems too? Actually, how can you legally and rationally impose this standard for cable and not for DBS? Government should only insure that the service is provided fairly and equally to all consumers. Not to decide how.

Until somebody can show me some sort of proof that the majority of the consumer group really wants CC - especially knowing the downside - then it's a bad deal. It's government trying to legislate "convenience" - most certainly not competition.

Last time I checked, "convenience" wasn't mentioned anywhere in the consititution.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Justin Thyme said:


> Winpit... narrow market for CC blah blah blah... Gee- wonder how it got to be such a narrow market. Funny how that worked out.


Oh, and another thing. CC got to be a narrow market - because it always was - and likely always will be. I was comparing it to technology such as switched ethernet, since somebody mistakenly compared CC to such data and voice technology.

If you're thinking there's some sort of black helicopter consipiracy theory on behalf of cable, SA or Moto, you're sadly mistaken. Are they responsible to a large extent for support issues? Most certainly. Are they responsible for the potential market size? No friggin way.

That, my friend is pure market economics. The ONLY thing that CC can be used for at this point - or anytime in the relatively near future, are digital TVs and TiVo S3s. There are a couple outliers which are similar, such as the Toshiba internal DVR for theater TVs (Symbio), but that really uses the same CC that is in the Toshiba display. There are a couple converged devices which are being trialed as well, but they pretty much fall into the same category.

Neither cableco's nor SA/Moto is big or bad enough to somehow prevent consumers from learning about CC - if it were in fact relevant. Ipso Facto, no conspiracy. Just bad technology attempted to be forced by ridiculous policy in the face of market lunacy.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

The internet is not in the constititution either. And yet, I have a net gigabit net card that costs me $59, that does heterogeneous transport layers and protocols.

Heh heh. Kind of funny what a decade will do. Choice one, free market. Choice two: vertical markets. 

Let's go back to choice one. Like I said, with the congress in different hands and with a less cozy relationship to monopolists, perhaps that will come about.


----------



## ac3dd (Mar 2, 2002)

winpitt said:


> Until somebody can show me some sort of proof that the majority of the consumer group really wants CC - especially knowing the downside - then it's a bad deal. It's government trying to legislate "convenience" - most certainly not competition.


Most people don't know what CableCard is, so asking them whether they want CableCard is irrelevant.

But ask them if they want to use TVs without needing set-top boxes to get all the channels, or if they would like to buy their own box for $70 rather than perpetually pay $5-10/month to rent one, and be able to use that box with another cable provider, and most will say yes.

The DOCSIS standard has facilitated that low-cost and portability for cable modems. CableCard can do that for cable boxes.


----------



## RoanokeHokie (Nov 16, 2000)

winpitt said:


> So you would expect the MSOs to assume all responsibilities for defects associated with 3rd party vendors? I can provide many examples of that which exist right now. Do you believe that the MSOs should be forced to eat those costs?
> 
> If so, assuming you owned an MSO would YOU be OK with that?
> 
> A second question: Since it is highly likely (and legal) for the MSOs to pass those costs along to the consumer, are you OK with passing those costs along to consumers - who by majority would almost certainly disagree that they care about CC or the ban? Who are not complaining about anything you guys are, but ARE complaining about existing bills? Your statement that they should essentially eat costs associated with supporting 3rd party vendors ("not willing to give a break") highlights that you're most certainly not employed in the technology field - at least not at an Enterprise level. Not an insult - just an obvious observation.


Don't quit your day job - you're not a psychic. I work for a small technology company that develops storage systems for consumer and small/medium business. Previously, though, I worked for a company that produced test and measurement equipment for telephone and cable companies, although I worked only in the telecomm group. I have worked in the enterprise space, and the same things happen everywhere.

Customers are going to pick "something" to blame, and they'll call them. This happens with my current job, where our main bit of software is a device driver for our products. They install our driver, see "something bad", and then blame us. I believe a keylogger install was even blamed on our software, and the customer asked us to pay for a year of credit monitoring for them. But as a small company, can we shoo these people away? No, because we need to make EVERY customer happy. (Kinda like what I expect of TiVo...)

Arguing about allocation of costs is a red herring, anyway. The CableCARD specification was created by the cable industry through their research group, CableLabs. I've seen the "support informaton" available from CableCARDs, and it simply seems insufficient. So who should I hold responsible when a standard doesn't provide enough support to diagnose problems: the sponsor of the creator of the standard, or the independent company which is implementing it? Obviously my small company background DOES come out here, and it why I feel that cable should take responsibility for the issues in their standard - even if the issue is simply a lack of easily understandable status for the technicians.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Justin Thyme said:


> The internet is not in the constititution either. And yet, I have a net gigabit net card that costs me $59, that does heterogeneous transport layers and protocols.
> 
> Heh heh. Kind of funny what a decade will do. Choice one, free market. Choice two: vertical markets.
> 
> Let's go back to choice one. Like I said, with the congress in different hands and with a less cozy relationship to monopolists, perhaps that will come about.


Wrong analogy.

Gig ethernet card: Based on time tested, globally accepted, widely used protocol. Almost unlimited potential in terms of market audience.

CC: Based on untested, relatively poorly accepted, incredibly low used protocol. Almost no potential ourside of initial market.

Funny what technology driven by markets do as opposed to technology mandated by ill informed government.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

RoanokeHokie said:


> Don't quit your day job - you're not a psychic. I work for a small technology company that develops storage systems for consumer and small/medium business. Previously, though, I worked for a company that produced test and measurement equipment for telephone and cable companies, although I worked only in the telecomm group. I have worked in the enterprise space, and the same things happen everywhere.
> 
> Customers are going to pick "something" to blame, and they'll call them. This happens with my current job, where our main bit of software is a device driver for our products. They install our driver, see "something bad", and then blame us. I believe a keylogger install was even blamed on our software, and the customer asked us to pay for a year of credit monitoring for them. But as a small company, can we shoo these people away? No, because we need to make EVERY customer happy. (Kinda like what I expect of TiVo...)
> 
> Arguing about allocation of costs is a red herring, anyway. The CableCARD specification was created by the cable industry through their research group, CableLabs. I've seen the "support informaton" available from CableCARDs, and it simply seems insufficient. So who should I hold responsible when a standard doesn't provide enough support to diagnose problems: the sponsor of the creator of the standard, or the independent company which is implementing it? Obviously my small company background DOES come out here, and it why I feel that cable should take responsibility for the issues in their standard - even if the issue is simply a lack of easily understandable status for the technicians.


No. Who you should hold resonsible is Congress and the FCC for mandating this entire mess to begin with.

What is your product based on? Is it based on previously unknown nonexistent protocols and standards that were developed at gunpoint? No.

You guys are making my point time and time again when you keep bringing up comparisons to Ethernet, compiled device drivers intended to work with globally distributed operating systems, and hugely tested hardware technologies such as SCSI, USB, SATA, etc. Those products evolved naturally as a result of consumer demand.

Here, there is no real measurable consumre demand - except again for us on the fringe. You're trying to CREATE DEMAND. You're putting the card way way in front of the horse.

It's surprising if you really were in the Enterprise space that you don't acknowledge this.

Here's another question for you - about your current job. Do you roll a truck to each of your customers? No.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

ac3dd said:


> Most people don't know what CableCard is, so asking them whether they want CableCard is irrelevant.
> 
> But ask them if they want to use TVs without needing set-top boxes to get all the channels, or if they would like to buy their own box for $70 rather than perpetually pay $5-10/month to rent one, and be able to use that box with another cable provider, and most will say yes.
> 
> The DOCSIS standard has facilitated that low-cost and portability for cable modems. CableCard can do that for cable boxes.


Sorry, but again yet another bad example. The DOCSIS standard supercedes anything on the video side for a variety of reasons. first of all, DOCSIS relies on (again) globally accepted, widely tested, mature technologies. Those would be:

QoS
IP (and for DOCSIS 3.0, IPv6)
CDMA and TDMA (with variants)
Key enabled authentication
Full compliance with layer 1 and 2 of the OSI model

Further, DOCSIS was a natural product of relevant services that providers had financial incentives to create, as a result of customer demand.

Finally, unfortunately your predictions as to what users would prefer to do are not grounded in fact. Users mainly still use the same old leased cable modems provided by their providers. Users have demonstrated in the market their preference (by majority) to lease products as opposed to having to purchase up front. That's why you see DirecTV and Dish - as well as Cable - being quite successful in that model while turning their focus away from the direct purchase avenue.

Users want low monthly prices, no fuss, one throat to choke, and no long term obligation.

At least that's what the facts of the market have consistently demonstrated over the past 5 years. I guess it's possible that they agree with you but are choosing to make purchase and vendor selections completely in conflict, but I'd not bet on it.

Ask them whether they'd rather see their cable rate per month stay the same or drop, or whether they'd rather increase those costs and eliminate the requirement for a STB. Wanna take any bets?


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

The only thing you are pissed off about Winpitt, is that the government is requiring the industry to eat the dog food of its own creation.

Actually, the internet is a perfect response to your condescension about how we don't understand IT and the grave complexities of a network. Building a proprietary network is actually a lot more simple than creating a heterogeneous network. Homogeneous nets encourage sloppy engineering. The vendors tweak their headend servers just enough to work with the crap boxes that the local cableco is buying from SciAtl. Why should they care about cablelabs standards. So the cablecos cobble up their proprietary nets that are houses of cards that will blow over with the slightest anomalies. The idea of net with heterogeneous clients is horrifying to them.

Our phones that plug into the wall don't look all the same anymore. They aren't all made by the same company anymore. I can buy one from any of thousands of companies, with a bewildering number of features. My phone service is not more costly now. The telcos didn't go bankrupt. The sky didn't fall. 

The cablecos figure they could wait out the public's patience. They figured they could drag their feet for a decade then when CCs come out, they come up with a brilliant new way to do it in software. Let me guess- when will this new way be available for companies to get their devices certified for? Another set of 18 month targets that again extend out to a decade? Let me guess the next step after that- there are problems with the rollout so the cable and satcos get to square one again by asserting that the 2006 technology is so antiquated now... Yada Yada Yada. 

Guess what. It isn't going to go down that way. Time to eat your own dog food. Wise up- the political winds have shifted. Go smiling, or action will be taken. 

Fines is one idea. Like customers get one free year of service for each service call attributable to CC interoperability problem with a Cablelabs certified device.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Justin Thyme said:


> The only thing you are pissed off about Winpitt, is that the government is requiring the industry to eat the dog food of its own creation.
> 
> Actually, the internet is a perfect response to your condescension about how we don't understand IT and the grave complexities of a network. Building a proprietary network is actually a lot more simple than creating a heterogeneous network. Homogeneous nets encourage sloppy engineering. The vendors tweak their headend servers just enough to work with the crap boxes that the local cableco is buying from SciAtl. Why should they care about cablelabs standards. So the cablecos cobble up their proprietary nets that are houses of cards that will blow over with the slightest anomalies. The idea of net with heterogeneous clients is horrifying to them.
> 
> ...


Hey pal, you have no idea. Do not - under any circumstances - put words in my mouth. I'm testing a CC. I'm hoping to pick up an S3. You're not only incorrect in your assumptions - you're being ignorant about is as well.

I'm NOT a friend of cable MSOs. Not for one single solitary minute. I'm NOT defending cable providers as the golden haired angels of technology.

I'm also just not emotionally biased to such an extent that I can't look logically and factually at the market. Apparently, you are. Just a perception based on your rather rude rhetoric.

Absolutely a heterogenous system is more difficult for the providers. It's more expensive to get to, and more expensive to maintain. So here's a challenge for YOU - PERSONALLY.

PLEASE try to make the argument that 3rd party vendors do not introduce significant potential for errors in the delivery of service. Have you ever heard of Six Sigma?

How about this.... Not only would customers get free service if a CC problem is found to be the responsibility of the service provider, but the opposite holds true as well. If cable rolls a truck to your location and the issue is with the 3rd party vendor, then the customer gets charged an additional fee? I sure don't want to pay it. If they did that, I'd already have paid for 2 truck rolls now for CC. And guess what? The 3rd party vendor in my case has ADMITTED that there's an issue with their firmware. Your statement about Cablelabs shows that you don't understand that process either. How about going to their site and reading up on how testing gets done? Who actually does it? What actually gets tested? Or perhaps just read a few posts above to what DT_DC posted. For the last time, Cablelabs does NOT certify every product and firmware release. That seems to be difficult to understand.

You keep pointing to the "political winds are changing". That in itself shows the fallacy of your position. You are completely ignoring the consumer and the market. You are focusing on legislation.

PLEASE continue to make the absolutely ignorant mistake of comparing encrypted entertainment content delivered by privately owned business infrastructure with analog telephone service (POTS). Doing so simply shows a fundamental inability or unwillingness to at least have a logical discussion.

I apologize if you take insult, but your ignorant tone and political bent are not necessary.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Calm down. 

You were lecturing us about how the situation whereby we don't all speak into ma bell phones was created by communists. 

You were lecturing us on how there was no demand for non mabell phones, therefore the gubmint should have stayed out of it.

Get over it. The other party won. They aren't communists. Opening up the Telco network was good. Same for video delivery networks. 

BTW- yes- the law does have to do with Satellite companies to. If you'd read the Telcom act you'd know that the same requirements apply to them. The FCC granted them a waiver for complying, but the law states that waivers can only be temporary.


----------



## PPC1 (Sep 16, 2006)

winpitt said:


> BTW - truly absolutely no insult intended, but I had to chuckle that you liked that article when it isn't exactly enamored with lawyers. When I posted that link I was wondering how you'd react to it.
> 
> I was laughing with you - not at you.


No worries. I know first hand the good and the bad of the legal profession. I certainly don'tthink lawyers have a monopoly on wisdom, nor do I think that the fact that someone is lawyer means that they know anything more than anyone else.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Justin Thyme said:


> Calm down.
> 
> You were lecturing us about how the situation whereby we don't all speak into ma bell phones was created by communists.
> 
> ...


You're showing your lack of knowledge there. The telecom act is not what created this. I have read it. They are not required to open their networks to 3rd party devices. Sorry, but true.

I made no analogy for phones. I refuted the analogy. Many times. Others keep using that comparison - which I have repeatedly shown is not relevant. Communications services are considered essential services, required for safety, etc. Cable TV is an entertainment service. Try making that argument that it's essential. Show me where I ever said there was no demand for phones? Perhaps you should calm down yourself and read through the posts more carefully. You seemed to have either misred or misunderstood something. There WAS a demand for communication devices. Don't see any demand for CC - except for us again.

As for what party won, you really need to take a pill. You have no idea what side of the aisle I lean toward. That's the point. This is not partisan. It's simple business. You in particular - and some others - keep trying to make this political. The facts are not political. The proposed solution in forcing CC is.


----------



## RoanokeHokie (Nov 16, 2000)

winpitt said:


> No. Who you should hold resonsible is Congress and the FCC for mandating this entire mess to begin with.
> 
> What is your product based on? Is it based on previously unknown nonexistent protocols and standards that were developed at gunpoint? No.


Hyperbole timeout for you.



winpitt said:


> You guys are making my point time and time again when you keep bringing up comparisons to Ethernet, compiled device drivers intended to work with globally distributed operating systems, and hugely tested hardware technologies such as SCSI, USB, SATA, etc. Those products evolved naturally as a result of consumer demand.


"Consumer demand" is another red herring. Let's look at the real point: documented standards at the base of development.

SCSI, USB, and SATA, or NTSC, QAM, and ATSC? Even the cable industry is based on standards, and every CableCARD-supporting device (TiVo included) handles those standards just fine. The issue is the upper software layers that make CableCARD "work". If they're implemented correctly, there are no problems. But bugs in those drivers make the entire system uncertain. Those bugs can be on the host or on the CableCARD. That's the same on Windows, where bugs can be in Microsoft drivers, your drivers, or third-party drivers. Having a standard just makes it possible to observe what's going on and assign blame.



winpitt said:


> Here, there is no real measurable consumre demand - except again for us on the fringe. You're trying to CREATE DEMAND. You're putting the card way way in front of the horse.
> 
> It's surprising if you really were in the Enterprise space that you don't acknowledge this.
> 
> Here's another question for you - about your current job. Do you roll a truck to each of your customers? No.


We also don't have an office in each city where we have customers.

As I've said, CableCARD is about supporting those who want to use it. It's about choice. Given choice, demand can build. If cable companies can effectively support that choice without the integration ban, then wonderful. But, right now, it seems the integration ban is the only method available to force cable companies into providing good CableCARD support.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

PPC1 said:


> No worries. I know first hand the good and the bad of the legal profession. I certainly don'tthink lawyers have a monopoly on wisdom, nor do I think that the fact that someone is lawyer means that they know anything more than anyone else.


And I also don't think that lawyers have a monopoly on being shifty or devious, or that the fact that someone is a lawyer means that they know nothing.

I may be in the minority....

Just kidding  But you have to admit, lawyer jokes are pretty good. I'm in the IT field and we've got our own (propeller head) typecasts.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

RoanokeHokie said:


> Hyperbole timeout for you.
> 
> "Consumer demand" is another red herring. Let's look at the real point: documented standards at the base of development.
> 
> ...


Uh, No. The bugs aren't actually just in the "drivers". There are several layers of programming involved in delivering service. For example, using versions of the SARA system you have the embedded software, device specific firmware, and then the service portal software. As a result, there are several layers of complexity that don't exist in your (or my) environment. Trying to compare SCSI to QAM for example is a really really big stretch. The issue is most certainly not just the higher - or perhaps presentation - layer of software. Examples, the conflicts between the 3rd party device firmware itself and the CC firmware revision.

As for you not having an office in every area you serve, so what? My point is that it doesn't cost you with the same cost structure. As a matter of fact, it even more makes my point. That creates a non-linear increase in service costs which would apply to them - but not you.

Finally, you at least clarified your last point correctly. But that's the heart of this. the "people who want to use it". They are a factual very small minority, yet we're forcing the entire business into it. I don't get that, and don't agree with that.

I should also mention that I just a short while ago today realized that TiVo had changed their rate structure. It's a separate item, but in efforts to be honest it will very likely change my desire to get an S3 and a couple S2's. For me, it just is too little value for too much money, front end loaded and with a long term obligation. I'll continue to test the CC in my Toshiba in hopes to get it working, but probably will not elect to try an S3 after all. I'm now probably going to move to DirecTV.


----------



## PPC1 (Sep 16, 2006)

winpitt said:


> But you have to admit, lawyer jokes are pretty good.


No I don't.

But I will admit that good lawyer jokes are good. (Tautological I know, but hard to deny its true.)


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

winpitt said:


> You're showing your lack of knowledge there. The telecom act is not what created this. I have read it. They are not required to open their networks to 3rd party devices. Sorry, but true.


On the contrary, it is precisely what it stated.

FCC regs further elaborate the limitations the 1996 law imposes on MVPD's here:
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1998/fcc98116.pdf

For example, Navigation devices must be available from sources "unaffiliated" with MVPDs, that the MVPDs are prohibited from preventing navigation devices through use of patents, licensing, and other shenanegans. MVPDs may retain technology for maintaining security on their network, but that they must make a security access device available to third parties by July 1, 2000.

Um. We are still waiting..... If anyone is showing their lack of knowlege, it is you. I'm sorry, but Dan, Zeo, and many others seemed to have dealt with your nonsense well enough.

The example of Ma bell phones points out how absurd your arguments are. Sorry. I like choice. I like competition. Competition is good. You in fact are arguing for a vertical monopolist system which ironically closely resembles the way things were done in the soviet union.

If you care to illuminate yourself on the 1996 Telecom act, just scan any of the notes by DT_DC. He provides a multitude of references.

As you continually demonstrate, you clearly do not know whereof you speak neither on technical, business or legal grounds.


----------



## ac3dd (Mar 2, 2002)

Winpitt is just upset that the government is telling an industry to do something, even though it was the government that established the monopolies years ago that enabled the operators in said industry to become dominant in their respective market areas. No use arguing; we're not going to dislodge Winpitt's ideology.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Justin Thyme said:


> On the contrary, it is precisely what it stated.
> 
> FCC regs further elaborate the limitations the 1996 law imposes on MVPD's here:
> http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1998/fcc98116.pdf
> ...


Again, you are patently incorrect. As well as insulting. No matter how rude you attempt to be it will not make your statements any more viable or accurate.

The changes specified in section 629 were NOT part of the 1996 Act as passed in 1996. They were an Amendment. Please read thoroughly. Further, if you read closely in no place does either the Act itself or the Amendment in '98 indicate that DBS would be subject to the requirement to adopt CC. DBS was already in compliance because of the use of ASIC based "smart cards" for authentication/decryption, separate from navigation.

The continued assinine comparison to Ma Bell does in fact continue to show your inability or unwillingness to understand the technology or the market dynamics which created the changes.

I'm not against Competition. Quite the contrary. I'm about as capitalistic and free market focused as you can find. For that reason I'm opposed to the forced legislation of technology changes at the expense of private industry when the consumer base doesn't want it. Your claims to the contrary notwithstanding.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

ac3dd said:


> Winpitt is just upset that the government is telling an industry to do something, even though it was the government that established the monopolies years ago that enabled the operators in said industry to become dominant in their respective market areas. No use arguing; we're not going to dislodge Winpitt's ideology.


I don't mind ideological perspectives. Like he, I don't like some large entity dictating to me what choices I am and am not permitted to make. Winpitt only puts the gubmint in that set. I am simply not as restrictive as he is. I don't like Apple telling me I can't buy my music from Real, and resent Apple's use of technology to reestablish iTunes' monopoly position (Jobs stated that a subsequent release would break Real's scheme to allow their music to work on iPods, and that's what happenned). Same thing. And Verizon prefers to make it very difficult for me to get my net access from Wireless G rather than their exhorbidantly priced service. They use their platform as a lock in weapon. Same thing as what has been going on with set top boxes.

What I do mind is outright falsehoods. Section 629 of the Telecom Act requires the FCC to:


1996 Telecom Law said:


> adopt regulations to assure the commercial availability, to consumers . . . of . . . equipment used . . . to access multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems, from manufacturers, retailers, and other vendors not affiliated with any multichannel video programming distributor.


Winpitt said he read the law and that it didn't require this third party access.

Winpitt is simply making stuff up.

It doesn't matter who he really is, or what his real motives are. If the cable and satcos keep this up, then legislation will be necessary to deal with this general scheme that we have seen with iPod/MVPDs/cell phones/Microsoft. Winpitt makes me want to write my Senator.

Anyway- it's like Texaco buying Ford and then building cars that require fuel that only Texaco sells (because of patented technology of course).

It stinks.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

ac3dd said:


> Winpitt is just upset that the government is telling an industry to do something, even though it was the government that established the monopolies years ago that enabled the operators in said industry to become dominant in their respective market areas. No use arguing; we're not going to dislodge Winpitt's ideology.


Sorry, but again you're attempting to misrepresent my position. I am all for telling an industry to do something. For example, Verizon should be told to provide universal service under the provisions of existing build-out requirements. That provides for the common good and delivers known value to satisfy known demand, and creating competition. I'm against government and narrow minded individuals telling an industry to do something that is without logic, placing the burden on private industry AND the consumer with very little positive outcome.

Mine is not an ideology. It's common market sense. Yours seems to me to be a very emotionally based self-centered desire to implement a technology that satisfies your own personal needs without concern for others.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Justin Thyme said:


> I don't mind ideological perspectives. Like he, I don't like some large entity dictating to me what choices I am and am not permitted to make. Winpitt only puts the gubmint in that set. I am simply not as restrictive as he is. I don't like Apple telling me I can't buy my music from Real, and resent Apple's use of technology to reestablish iTunes' monopoly position (Jobs stated that a subsequent release would break Real's scheme to allow their music to work on iPods, and that's what happenned). Same thing. And Verizon prefers to make it very difficult for me to get my net access from Wireless G rather than their exhorbidantly priced service. They use their platform as a lock in weapon. Same thing as what has been going on with set top boxes.
> 
> What I do mind is outright falsehoods. Section 629 of the Telecom Act requires the FCC to:
> 
> ...


Oh, now Apple is a monopoly too.

Unbelieveable. Is there ANYTHING you don't think is a monopoly? Don't like Apple's system with iPod? Here's a clue, DON'T BUY ONE.

Making up yet another nonsense analogy now with Texaco fuel simply highlights that you really don't understand the technology. It's nonsense. Not blaming you, but it is what it is. This is NOT about patents. Bringing that up is ludicrous.

BTW, what I explicity refered to was the integration ban as it applies to CC. THAT was the subject we were discussing. Don't try to bend the truth - or frankly just lie.

The personal attacks and Lies are what stinks.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Brainiac 5 said:


> Of course, people have been saying this for some time and it hasn't happened yet. That's not to say that this time it won't be true, but I've given up on predicting.


As for Moore's Law, now even the Vendors are admitting it. The current discussion is whether or not form factor density can be applied as a variable to show the sustainment of Moore's law, as from its pure definition we are clearly going to violate it. Now people are starting to consider whether Teraflops per die as opposed to MIPS per cpu should be used. It's an interesting discussion. The abandonment of SPARC and RISC have an impact as well. Now THAT is a really interesting discussion. Don't think too many people predicted this 5 years ago.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

winpitt said:


> Hey pal, you have no idea. Do not - under any circumstances - put words in my mouth. I'm testing a CC. I'm hoping to pick up an S3. You're not only incorrect in your assumptions - you're being ignorant about is as well.
> 
> I'm NOT a friend of cable MSOs. Not for one single solitary minute. I'm NOT defending cable providers as the golden haired angels of technology.
> 
> I'm also just not emotionally biased to such an extent that I can't look logically and factually at the market. Apparently, you are. Just a perception based on your rather rude rhetoric.


 anyone not emotionally attached to this topic would have given it a rest a long time ago, so how come you are so attached to this topic?

The 70's called, they want their broken record back.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Winpitt, pardon me. Our posts seem to have crossed.

You know what? When you discover you are stuck in a hole, it is good advice to stop digging.

In your case, just stop fibbing. You may find section 629 in the link to the 1996 telecom act below. You will find the text there. No ammendment. The 1996 law as it was passed.

But of course you read that, and I don't need to tell you.

http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.pdf

Maybe you should really read it.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

winpitt said:


> The continued assinine comparison to Ma Bell does in fact continue to show your inability or unwillingness to understand the technology or the market dynamics which created the changes.


 You give me unfair credit. Actually it was the FCC who made the comparison with the telco networks in explaining the rationale for the initiative.


FCC 1998 order said:


> Subscribers have the right to attach any compatible navigation device to a multichannel video programming system. We conclude that the core requirement, to make possible the commercial availability of equipment to MVPD subscribers, is similar to the Carterfone principle adopted by the Commission in the telephone environment. The Carterfone "right to attach" principle is that devices that do not adversely affect the network may be attached to the network. The Order also notes that commercial availability is furthered only if consumers are aware of the availability of equipment from alternative sources. source


Tom Carter was an interesting character- you probably would have liked him. In 1959, he build a wireless device that allowed guys on oil rigs offshore of Texas to call their families. Basically a radio that plugged into the Telephone outlet onshore to complete the landline connection. Made about 4500 of them. Sold like hotcakes because the nearest thing from Ma bell cost a fortune. Ma bell caught wind of it and shut him down. Like any red blooded American, he stood up for his rights, mortgaged his farm and beat Ma bell in court.

Just a little history for you concerning fighting bullies that stand in the way of technology and low cost products that consumers want.

No offence, but if the drift of Zeo's rhetorical question is correct, maybe you need to think about the team you are playing for. They don't share your values.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

winpitt said:


> As for Moore's Law, now even the Vendors are admitting it. The current discussion is whether or not form factor density can be applied as a variable to show the sustainment of Moore's law, as from its pure definition we are clearly going to violate it.


I guess I'm getting off topic, but of course it depends of which "pure definition" you're using. People say all kinds of things and call it "Moore's Law." But most frequently people talk about the growth in the number of transistors on a chip, which is _all_ about "form factor density" already. And we are not yet at the point where we can't pack more transistors on a chip.



> Now people are starting to consider whether Teraflops per die as opposed to MIPS per cpu should be used.


This seems to be referring to increasing processor speed, which is different. It's difficult to increase the speed of a single core (as measured in, say, MIPS) not because we can't add more transistors, but because we don't know know what to do with more transistors to achieve that. What we _can_ do is use the additional transistors to just put more cores on the chip, which is what companies are doing.

I'll also say in advance: yes, I'm kind of nitpicking.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Brainiac 5 said:


> I guess I'm getting off topic, but of course it depends of which "pure definition" you're using. People say all kinds of things and call it "Moore's Law." But most frequently people talk about the growth in the number of transistors on a chip, which is _all_ about "form factor density" already. And we are not yet at the point where we can't pack more transistors on a chip.
> 
> This seems to be referring to increasing processor speed, which is different. It's difficult to increase the speed of a single core (as measured in, say, MIPS) not because we can't add more transistors, but because we don't know know what to do with more transistors to achieve that. What we _can_ do is use the additional transistors to just put more cores on the chip, which is what companies are doing.
> 
> I'll also say in advance: yes, I'm kind of nitpicking.


Actually I was referring to being able to increase the number of on-die transisters as well as power output. I agree that from a theoretical viewpoint we haven't approached the absolute barrier (though as the size continues to approach the atomic level it will occur). However the original definition of Moore's law also included a cost factor reduction. The increase likelihood of out of range defects also has an impact.

This is one of the reasons that we're starting to see more and more 2, 4 and 8 cpu per socket configurations.

But, I'm nitpicking too. The general point is that I think at least we can agree that while we haven't reached it, the ever decreasing size (currently at 60nm and reductions to 30nm deemed to be overly expensive) make the breaking of Moore's Law finally a real possibility.

What we should most certainly agree on is that the velocity of change directly with respect to Moore's Law has significantly decreased, right?

One other thing - we're actually putting more cores on "die", and not really more cores on "chip" by the pure definition, right? I mean on the higher end stuff specifically. There's some pipeline optimization that's going on but I think (but am not entirely sure) that technically the multicore 4x and 8x procs are per die and not chip. Now I'm nitpicking 

Good discussion.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Justin Thyme said:


> Winpitt, pardon me. Our posts seem to have crossed.
> 
> You know what? When you discover you are stuck in a hole, it is good advice to stop digging.
> 
> ...


The order that you posted providing specific details on the implementation was an amendment dated 1998.

And again, I was referring to the Telecom Act of 1996 specifically as it applied to CC. Only as applied to CC and Cablelabs. No fibbing here - no matter how much you want to attempt to distort it.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Justin Thyme said:


> You give me unfair credit. Actually it was the FCC who made the comparison with the telco networks in explaining the rationale for the initiative. Tom Carter was an interesting character- you probably would have liked him. In 1959, he build a wireless device that allowed guys on oil rigs offshore of Texas to call their families. Basically a radio that plugged into the Telephone outlet onshore to complete the landline connection. Made about 4500 of them. Sold like hotcakes because the nearest thing from Ma bell cost a fortune. Ma bell caught wind of it and shut him down. Like any red blooded American, he stood up for his rights, mortgaged his farm and beat Ma bell in court.
> 
> Just a little history for you concerning fighting bullies that stand in the way of technology and low cost products that consumers want.
> 
> No offence, but if the drift of Zeo's rhetorical question is correct, maybe you need to think about the team you are playing for. They don't share your values.


Sorry, but you are again missing the point. Some people here - apparently including you - believe that it is an even comparison between having open competition for devices using POTS and implementing a completely open standard for cable. And that is purely, simply and factually not so. The point is - and was - that the competition which allowed other devices to be simply plugged into POTS were based on time tested, previously existing, globally accepted standards. On the other hand, CC is based on none of these. It is an entirely new technology that was shoved down industries throat with little or no consumer demand.

THAT is the history lesson you need to take to heart. You can get as ideological as you like. I really don't care about the ideology. I care about what the consumer will get, and how much it will cost.

To believe that you have a right to tell private business not only what kind of non-essential services they provide, but even technically how they provide it is completely in opposition to a market driven society. It holds those service providers to a different standard. I would be quite willing to bet that if you worked for one of those service providers or had invested in them, you'd have a far different perspective.

I also believe that there are other "services" (and that's what this is - non-essential service) which you use and would heatedly fight to prevent this same intervention.

Further, I'm still waiting for a description of those non-IP based innovative devices that will benefit from CC. Haven't heard a single one yet.

The future is in IP. We already have that. We're wasting valuable time and resources on a generally low value technology when it could be spent toward something that actually has a future.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

The cable companies made their bed, so now they have to lay in it. If a better technology could have been implemented it's cables fault for not doing so. Can we allow every industry that fails to meet requirements due to poor planing get a pass? 

Cable companies have an obligation to make their technology work and if it's buggy they aren't going to invest the resources to fix it unless their business depends on it. Otherwise we'll get another ten years of foot dragging.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Stormspace said:


> The cable companies made their bed, so now they have to lay in it. If a better technology could have been implemented it's cables fault for not doing so. Can we allow every industry that fails to meet requirements due to poor planing get a pass?
> 
> Cable companies have an obligation to make their technology work and if it's buggy they aren't going to invest the resources to fix it unless their business depends on it. Otherwise we'll get another ten years of foot dragging.


The cable companies were given nothing but a choice to pick the poison. They didn't make their bed in my opinion. They were victim to short sighted and frankly poorly developed political decisions, and took the least bad route available.

I'm still waiting for either the links of outraged consumers or the proposed innovations that will result from this. Haven't seen any.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

winpitt said:


> The order that you posted providing specific details on the implementation was an amendment dated 1998.
> 
> And again, I was referring to the Telecom Act of 1996 specifically as it applied to CC. Only as applied to CC and Cablelabs. No fibbing here - no matter how much you want to attempt to distort it.


Still digging.

Here is what you wrote.



winpitt said:


> You're showing your lack of knowledge there. The telecom act is not what created this. I have read it. They are not required to open their networks to 3rd party devices. Sorry, but true.


No CC, no cablelabs. A simple and bold false statement. Up is down, right is left. blah blah blah.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Justin Thyme said:


> Still digging.
> 
> Here is what you wrote.
> 
> No CC, no cablelabs. A simple and bold false statement. Up is down, right is left. blah blah blah.


So, then an apology for not effectively communicating my intent. We had been - and have continued to discuss specifically CC. Nothing else.

I apologize for ineffectively framing my comment. My point remains. You don't seem to be able to debate it, so are resorting to semantics.

Additionally, you do so in a fundamentally ignorant tone and method. People who are unable to debate or discussion rationally frequently resort to such tactics.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

No, you have a serious problem with coming to grips with easily verifiable facts.

Further, when confronted with the the truth, you spin further false statements, and do so with contempt for the opposing position. Nearly every post is filled with such false statements and bullying tactics. 

You don't even understand what was being amended. 

And you present yourself as an expert. Bah.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Justin Thyme said:


> No, you have a serious problem with coming to grips with easily verifiable facts.
> 
> Further, when confronted with the the truth, you spin further false statements, and do so with contempt for the opposing position. Nearly every post is filled with such false statements and bullying tactics.
> 
> ...


"Nearly every post is filled with such false statements and bullying tactics."?

Just the fact, maam. You seem quite filled with arrogance and hate. As well as some sort of "political wind" thing. I have no idea why you're so ideologically motivated, and why you insist on lying and misrepresenting.

I've consistently said that CC is a flawed technology.
I've consistently said that there are built in support and quality issues associated with CC.
I've consistently said that consumers are not demanding - or are even interested in - or even know about - CC.
I've consistently said that MSOs have not faired well with respect to CC, some of which is most certainly their fault but not the foundation.
I've consistently said that nothing in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 forces CC to be adopted by DBS.
I've consistently said that Cablelabs does NOT certify or validate all 3rd party CE devices, and no firmware updates.
I've consistently said and demonstrated that comparisons between CC as a technology and other mainstream technologies such as POTS are at the very least misleading, and more often deliberately and factually incorrect.
I've consistently maintained that the general consumer would prefer that resources be allocated in other areas.
I've consistently maintained that Cable TV is an "entertainment" service and not an "essential service" and that the only restrictions we should place on it are on quality and insuring that services are available to all.
I've consistently said that there is already effective competition in the form of cable vs DBS for the majority of our consumers.
I've consistently asked what sort of "innovations" would likely result from adoption of CC.
I've consistently maintained that the future of such innovative devices is far more likely to be via IP based transport, rather than such CC delivered content.

You've consistently attacked me as an individual rather than the points I've tried to make.
You've consistently attempted to spin the discussion away from facts, away from the technology, away from the consumer.
You've consistently failed to provide a single, solitary example of consumer outcry because of integrated STBs, or a single solitary example of an innovative technology resulting from CC deployment and adoption.
You've consistently failed in explaining away why this "critical" technology has completely flopped in the market in the face of clear, printed evidence that consumers just don't care about it.

So how about putting aside your accusations, your political rants about a new wind, and actually discussing the merits of the argument? Is that too much to ask from you? Thus far, the answer is yes.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

winpitt said:


> We had been - and have continued to discuss specifically CC. Nothing else.


Well if you want to get that specific / simplistic ...

I believe we were discussing the FCC 'integration ban' and the (various) applications for waivers from it.

The integration ban does not specify that cable companies must use CableCard. The integration ban precludes (certain) MVPDs from distributing equipment that integrates _both_ conditional access _and_ other functions in a single device. The integration ban does not preclude cable companies from using technology other than CableCard to accomplish this. The integration ban does not even force all cable companies to use the _same_ technology to accomplish this. The integration ban does not preclude cable companies from using something like DCAS which the NCTA and many other cable companies have indicated is preferable to CableCard. The integration ban does not preclude cable companies from using certain other technical solutions that they have proposed in the past.

One _could_ even (pretty effectively) argue that any debate on whether (or not) the integration ban should be waived (or even lifted altogether) based purely on advantages / disadvantages of CableCard would be largely extraneous. If that is the _only_ area of debate ... well then, the integration ban should be applied and not waived since it doesn't specify CableCard at all ... even if CableCard is flawed and cable companies (and consumers) don't want it ... fine, don't use it. Use something else.

But, of course, given the history of the plug and play preceedings, the other FCC regulations enacted under the "commercial availability of navication devices" (Sec. 629) of the Telecom Act, current technical standards, current market place conditions, etc ...

Limiting a discussion of the integration ban to "specifically CableCard" and "Nothing else" would be about as artificially construed as precluding CableCard from the discussion altogether.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

dt_dc said:


> Well if you want to get that specific / simplistic ...
> 
> I believe we were discussing the FCC 'integration ban' and the (various) applications for waivers from it.
> 
> ...


Sorry, but I was being exactly that specific. This whole debate started about CC and not other alternative solutions which could have been selected. Frankly, because of the S3. You don't see this debate elsewhere because nobody else cares. Further, I've debated the ban in its inception is flawed and derives very little (actually read effectively no) advantages for the consumer.

I agree that purely based on the '96 act and subsequent orders and findings associated, other means to separate access control from navigation exist. The interesting thing is that should those providers each choose independent solutions to execute on this there is very strong likelihood that their implementation costs would be higher due to a lack of scale in the procurement/production of hardware.

You did hit on one thing that we agree on. There are two separate discussions to be had. One is the merits and failures of Cablecard as a technology solution. The other is whether or not there is truly any value to the ban. They probably should be treated separately. However IMHO both are fundamentally flawed.

Since we're so fond of using analogies here, one that strikes me is this. People keep saying that "it's the law, so deal with it and don't discuss it". Well, prohibition was a law. There are lots of examples of improperly or poorly constructed items of legislation that unfortunately turned into laws in our country. That has no bearing on whether or not they are correct, or should be changed/eliminated.

What I find truly surprising here is that many of the same group of people who adamantly support forcing MSOs to go through this transition even though there is little or no evidence that it will benefit anyone other than SA or Moto (and TiVo I suppose, though with their recent business decisions I'm less and less convinced of that), those same people often oppose those same providers to have build-out requirements. In other words, they are in favor of something that benefits the few at least for quite some time, and opposed to something that benefits the majority.

Of course, that's in addition to the emotional attachment that seems to occur here. This really is a narrowly focused group. It's interesting that you can't find more than a 3 or 4 post thread over on AVS - an area where you would expect to see the S3 all over the place if in fact it's targetted toward the high end audio/video enthusiast, and not just the high end TiVo enthusiast.

BTW, I appreciate your comments.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

So, the Consumer Electronics Industry is a narrow interest group. Up is down, left is right blah blah blah. Lets step back and take a look at the object of Winpitts continued assaults, and the common thread of his assaults.

*It is fundamental to this entire thread that the 1996 Telecom law states that the cable and satellite companies are required to open their networks to 3rd party devices. *

Yet Winpitt stated:


> They are not required to open their networks to 3rd party devices. Sorry, but true.


So which was it? True or false?

It's false.

The fundamentals are very simple. The law states that the cable and satcos must allow consumers to attach third party devices to their networks. Everyone understands the benefits of being able to buy a phone from someone other than the phone company. We have enormous choice precisely because telco's are not allowed to maintain a vertical monopoly. 10 years after the 1996 Telcom act, we are still waiting for cable and satellite companies to comply with this law.

The Consumer Electronics Association Gary Shapiro said it very well


> For years, consumers have been offered two choices in set-top boxes: take it or leave it.... After numerous delays, including extensions granted by the FCC and two lost court cases, the cable companies are still chaining their customers to technology of the past and requiring them to pay higher fees for the privilege of using their pre-1996 first generation technology, not to mention defying the will of Congress and the FCC. Source


The letter was addressed to the Reason Foundation. The supporters of Reason Foundation believe in the defense of liberty. Does Reason Foundation care about the liberty of guys like Tom Carter? Of course not- guys like Carter don't contribute the big bucks. So really, Sourcewatch is wrong about them. They arent libertarians. Reason foundation is only using the guise of libertarian ideals to the extent that they further the goals of their corporate sponsors. All they care about is the liberty of vertical monopolists to tyrannize you and me.

Its a move out of a playbook we have become all too familiar with over the last 12 years.

Folks on both the right and left are sick of it. If the FCC commissioners are swayed by this kind of baloney, then they need to be removed.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

winpitt said:


> I've consistently said that CC is a flawed technology.
> I've consistently said that there are built in support and quality issues associated with CC.
> I've consistently said that consumers are not demanding - or are even interested in - or even know about - CC.
> I've consistently said that MSOs have not faired well with respect to CC, some of which is most certainly their fault but not the foundation.
> ...


great now there is a skip in the record as well. Would someone please stand up and change the record?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> Not $5 each really. You're adding outlet charges, which don't go away. And I (nicely) challenge you to find something from consumers in general complaining about this. I can find countless articles complaining about pricing and availability. None but from small splinter groups like us complaining about STBs. People actually have moved MORE toward leasing of STBs, etc. Note the move from purchase to lease for DBS equipment.


Good point about the outlet fees, so lets assume it's $2.50 a box- there's still a cost that I think could be reduced by mass producing CC compatibility universally. People will still need to rent a card, but I personally, honestly think that if you had 100 million tv's cablecard ready and 15 or 20 million cablecards deployed that the economies of scale plus competition would make it cheaper for the consumer in the end then renting a cable box their whole life.

In my mind people are moving to rent STB's not because they like STB's but becasue they like the additonal features or content availible from them. If there was an open system that worked then they could get hose features and content without the STB.

I honestly cant fiund a source that says people dislike STB's but I think it's just common sense. But maybe I'm a nut and people enjoy another peice of clutter in their house, with yet another remote, and enjoy the fact that some of the features in their TV's like PIP become less usefull with external STB's. So on the flip side can you point me to a source that says people enjoy STB's for the sake of having a box and not becasue they need it to get content or addtionaly feautures (which an open system would allow them with the same TV they bought at the walmart) ?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> Highly unlikely by all involved (even CC promoters) that long term costs will actually decline. I've never seen ANY study that shows this.


and that's your opinion- I respectually disagree.

the CEA, Tivo, and the FCC all see it differntly- that the long term costs will be much less then the cost to implement today.

I dont see how having tens or hundreds of millions of products with one standard wont decrease the cost.

But I guess your mind is made up that it will only raise prices over time. If I held that opinion then I too would question the wisdom of it all. Time will tell- mark this thread as anothe rone to come back and check in 2, 5, and 10 years to see what really happened.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> A couple interesting notes:
> 
> First of all, Moores Law is in danger of being broken as we speak. Don't know if you were aware of that. In the tech industry we're already discussion somewhat changing the definition of Moore's law to include virtual application of technology as opposed to physical power increases.....


yeah yeah yeah- they've said that for years.

My brother in law who works at the intel CPU Fab's has told me the same thing 10 times in 10 years and then miraculously they figure out how to do it one more time...



Again- we'll have to check back in in a few years on this one.

The rest of your post I'll let be- I'm not in a fighting mood anymore... LOL


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> As for Moore's Law, now even the Vendors are admitting it. The current discussion is whether or not form factor density can be applied as a variable to show the sustainment of Moore's law, as from its pure definition we are clearly going to violate it. Now people are starting to consider whether Teraflops per die as opposed to MIPS per cpu should be used. It's an interesting discussion. The abandonment of SPARC and RISC have an impact as well. Now THAT is a really interesting discussion. Don't think too many people predicted this 5 years ago.


since we're back on moore's law

on form factor - stop thinking electrons my friend - there's othe ways to skin a cat. 

depends on what definitions people use for sure though...


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> ...
> 
> Further, I'm still waiting for a description of those non-IP based innovative devices that will benefit from CC. Haven't heard a single one yet.
> ....


I dont need innovation- I think the fact that you could get eveything availible on a STB today but by using your tv would be nice.

But who knows what innovative devices we'll see.

Maybe we'll see a sports illustrated football STB - popular mechnaics is always trying to imagine the future innnovations and they are always wrong- so trying to guess at the future isn't the easiest thing to do.


----------

