# Petition to Congress/FCC to Force SAT to do Tivo



## Bonanzaair (Aug 26, 2006)

Ebonovic was right! Nothing from DirecTV about Tivo. I have waited long enough to put up with this situation. I have started a petition over at iPetition.com to have Congress and the FCC review the status of the satellite companies forcing it's customers to use in-house DVR boxes. The FCC forced cable to use the cablecard, maybe the same like thing should happen with satellite.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/satellitefreedom/

Bonanza


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

I signed.
It is time to end the "temporary" waiver that DBS companies received from the FCC


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

I think it should have been worded such as to allow 3d party gear of any sort, not just DVRs, as the original cablecard mandate was for.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

What has happened to this country? Now congress should be meddling in how satellite operators run their business? Please explain why you think congress should stick their nose into the business plans of satellite operators.

I'd rather congress focus on other things than the operations of businesses such as this.

I can understand cable because of the monopolistic effects of early cable systems but satellite operators?

Do you want to force Sirius and XM to use CableCARDs too?


----------



## Okeemike (Apr 24, 2002)

ah30k said:


> What has happened to this country? Now congress should be meddling in how satellite operators run their business? Please explain why you think congress should stick their nose into the business plans of satellite operators.
> 
> I'd rather congress focus on other things than the operations of businesses such as this.
> 
> I can understand cable because of the monopolistic effects of early cable systems but satellite operators?


For the sake of argument, aren't satellites referenced as competition for cable tv? Assuming they are, cable companies are required to allow third party decription (cable cards), so shouldn't DTV / Dish be required to as well?

_Disclaimer: I don't have a full understanding of the issue, this is just what it looks like from the outside._


----------



## appleye1 (Jan 26, 2002)

ah30k said:


> What has happened to this country? Now congress should be meddling in how satellite operators run their business? Please explain why you think congress should stick their nose into the business plans of satellite operators.
> 
> I'd rather congress focus on other things than the operations of businesses such as this.
> 
> ...


I agree with you, from a free market standpoint. I was never a big fan of the FCC regulating cable companies either.

But from a personal standpoint I'll sign the petition. I'd love to have a cablecard equivalent on satellite. Too bad the satellite companies (and the cable companies) are so greedy and stupid that they don't come up with it on their own.


----------



## Bonanzaair (Aug 26, 2006)

ah30k said:


> What has happened to this country? Now congress should be meddling in how satellite operators run their business? Please explain why you think congress should stick their nose into the business plans of satellite operators.
> 
> I'd rather congress focus on other things than the operations of businesses such as this.
> 
> ...


How did America get away from standards, you go to the hardware store and all the plumbing, electrical parts are standard. Where I get my programming should not be stopped because of a business plan. America needs to stand up for standards. Cable's business plan didn't include cablecards - now it does. I can use my TivoHD on cable and FIOS. Why not satellite. I will change the petition (if I can) to say all third party home electronics as classicsat suggested. America needs standards not business plans.

Bonanza


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

Bonanzaair said:


> How did America get away from standards, you go to the hardware store and all the plumbing, electrical parts are standard. Where I get my programming should not be stopped because of a business plan. America needs to stand up for standards. Cable's business plan didn't include cablecards - now it does. I can use my TivoHD on cable and FIOS. Why not satellite. I will change the petition (if I can) to say all third party home electronics as classicsat suggested. America needs standards not business plans.
> 
> Bonanza


Satellite TV would never exist today if they followed you advice. Comparing the launch of satellite TV to nuts and bolts seem a bit of an un-natural comparison to you?


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

Bonanzaair said:


> America needs standards not business plans.


Say no more, this sums up your point of view. Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds!


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

ah30k said:


> What has happened to this country? Now congress should be meddling in how satellite operators run their business? Please explain why you think congress should stick their nose into the business plans of satellite operators.
> 
> Do you want to force Sirius and XM to use CableCARDs too?


actually The FCC meddled with Congress by allowing the sat companies a temporary waiver from the comman access law that INCLUDED sat companies from the get go as passed by Congress. So yah, all broadcasters should allow for common access so 3rd parties can create devices that comply with the comman access standard the companies come up with.

I think it sounds good for sat radio as well. why should I have to ditch my sat radio receivers because I want to move to Sirius and get in on the football, for example. Why can't an upstart come along that I can simply switch too without having to ditch currnt hardware for all new yet again and be stuck with whatever the upsatrt can come up with.

broadcasters are about content to me - not hardware

PS - cable companies are starting to realize that cable cards in TiVo DVRs are a great way to reduce movement to Sat. Sure Sat companies early on were fearful of people moving over to cable if one access standard worked for all - but now that they built the wall and fenced customers in - I, as a consumer, have zero use for THEIR business plan and they will not see my dollars


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> PS - cable companies are starting to realize that cable cards in TiVo DVRs are a great way to reduce movement to Sat.


really? or are you just wishful thinking. I've seen no evidence of this. have you seen the brighthouse SDV thread in the S3 forum?


----------



## JimSpence (Sep 19, 2001)

BTW, multiple posting is against forums rules.
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=387228
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=387229

Also, the government shouldn't be getting involved in this.


----------



## Bonanzaair (Aug 26, 2006)

JimSpence said:


> BTW, multiple posting is against forums rules.
> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=387228
> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=387229
> 
> Also, the government shouldn't be getting involved in this.


Oops! Sorry. I thought that each sub-board had it's own readers. Not everyone reads all boards. I hardly get on the DirecTV Tivo sub-board because I no longer have DirecTV. The moderators are welcome to delete the HD board and this thread as I think the most activity for my purpose is at the standard def DirecTV board. I maintain I was writing to different readers.

Your wrong about the govt beeen involved - ask Cable providers.

Bonanza


----------



## Bonanzaair (Aug 26, 2006)

ah30k said:


> Say no more, this sums up your point of view. Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds!


No...e-mail me and tell me how. There is a chance I'd agree with you. Overall I just want a Tivo that does satellite.

Bonanza


----------



## JimSpence (Sep 19, 2001)

Bonanzaair said:


> Oops! Sorry. I thought that each sub-board had it's own readers. Not everyone reads all boards. I hardly get on the DirecTV Tivo sub-board because I no longer have DirecTV. The moderators are welcome to delete the HD board and this thread as I think the most activity for my purpose is at the standard def DirecTV board. I maintain I was writing to different readers.
> 
> Your wrong about the govt beeen involved - ask Cable providers.
> 
> Bonanza


The main reason to not post in many forums is that the members won't necessarily see what others have written in the other forums. Also, the original poster may forget about the other forum threads. This is most critical when asking for help to solve a problem.

Personnally, I visit multiple forums here (as you can tell from my post count).

For subjects such as this, I would have posted in the Happy Hour.


----------



## jkalnin (Jan 8, 2003)

The only thing the government needs to do with cable and satellite is force Comcast to give their feeds to satellite companies. I live near Philly and I love the Flyers, if I go for the Dish I'l never get see them play! How is it that Fios has comcast sportsnet as a channel but not the dish?

As for Sirius and XM - the DOJ needs to let them merge already. 

Wow, two thoughts and not one pertaining to the actual thread. Sorry


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> I signed.
> It is time to end the "temporary" waiver that DBS companies received from the FCC


It may not be possible for sat companies to comply if the waiver were lifted.

Cable Companies (or other hard-wired) content providers deliver their product via a two-way communication system. The cablecard can talk to the cable-nest, and decode programming that said cablecard is entitled to. I would assume that such type of two-way comms doesn't exist with the satellite offerings unless said box is hooked into an internet connection or phone line.

For cablecard to work on sat, one should not have to connect their sat boxes to a phone line or to an internet connection. I know this is needed for sports programming, and PPV, but this shouldn't be required for everything.

Just my two cents....


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Well, if Tivo were to do it right, it would be just like an HR-20 with all its other features (VOD, games, PPV, etc.) with a Tivo GUI and reliability. Tivo would need more than CableCard to support all that.

D* is coming out with a PC tuner. You could then use Vista Media Center for DVR functionality.


----------



## Okeemike (Apr 24, 2002)

BobCamp1 said:


> D* is coming out with a PC tuner. You could then use Vista Media Center for DVR functionality.


And revel in Microsoft reliability?

Sarcasm aside, that might be a workable alternative (to get me out of cable Hell). Isn't TiVo supposed to release a standalone client at some point?


----------



## Cudahy (Mar 21, 2001)

The public airwaves have always been subject to regulation. It is a totally reasonable request that customers be given options. It's in the public interest and actually enhances the income of the companies.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

HiDefGator said:


> really? or are you just wishful thinking. I've seen no evidence of this. have you seen the brighthouse SDV thread in the S3 forum?


have you read of the fast response of the SDV dongle?
have you read of Comcast/TiVo working *together* on tru2way?
Cable companies are starting to embrace TiVo as a 3rd party example of how they need no more regulation.

As for sat all I read about is TiVo having to sue Dish and that being dragged out by shady lawyers tactics and DirecTV buying replay patents to hold 3rd party DVRs at arms length. there is NO 3rd party HD alternative for Sat and if you choose them as the provider you take the box they give you, no questions please.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

dstoffa said:


> It may not be possible for sat companies to comply if the waiver were lifted.
> 
> Cable Companies (or other hard-wired) content providers deliver their product via a two-way communication system.


 Umm cable cards are all one way devices - it is other hardware that talks back - OCAP/DOCIS. It would be no different for sat except they may use different hardware/standard

and yah if you want PPV or VOD then the sat companies need to agree on a standard that a 3rd party can implement - In fact they get the benefit of the brutal OCAP talks for cable and CEs. CEs are far more seasoned now on what will actually work.

will they comply within a year if the waiver is dropped - of course not, but it will be a year sooner if the waiver is dropped NOW instead of next year and so on.


----------



## wierdo (Apr 7, 2002)

Okeemike said:


> For the sake of argument, aren't satellites referenced as competition for cable tv? Assuming they are, cable companies are required to allow third party decription (cable cards), so shouldn't DTV / Dish be required to as well?
> 
> _Disclaimer: I don't have a full understanding of the issue, this is just what it looks like from the outside._


The sad thing in the case of the satellite providers is that the infrastructure already exists. In the case of Dish Network, there are hundreds if not thousands of compatible satellite receivers available (including more than a few DVRs). In fact, you can plug one in and start receiving NASA TV (which isn't encrypted) right now. They just won't give you an access card for a box they didn't produce.

The only thing Dish has to do is change their business process. There is no real work to be done on their part, aside from their billing system.

This stands in sharp contrast to the cable companies, which didn't have the technology in place.

In DirecTV's case, slightly different software would have to be loaded on the existing DVB boxes for them to be compatible, as they use a draft version of DVB (with a few extensions, as I understand it) rather than the final standard, but it's all software.

The point being that it would be dead simple for the satellite providers to do this today, with no government intervention. Unfortunately, it won't happen until the FCC requires it. Even then, it'll work a hell of a lot better than the CableCARD fiasco.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

I would prefer for congress to worry about more important things... like steroids in baseball. 



ah30k said:


> What has happened to this country? Now congress should be meddling in how satellite operators run their business? Please explain why you think congress should stick their nose into the business plans of satellite operators.
> 
> I'd rather congress focus on other things than the operations of businesses such as this.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

dstoffa said:


> It may not be possible for sat companies to comply if the waiver were lifted.
> 
> Cable Companies (or other hard-wired) content providers deliver their product via a two-way communication system. The cablecard can talk to the cable-nest, and decode programming that said cablecard is entitled to. I would assume that such type of two-way comms doesn't exist with the satellite offerings unless said box is hooked into an internet connection or phone line.
> 
> ...


Actually the current CableCARD standard is one way. It works by sending a continuous broadcasts of keys and other authorization information via an "out of bounds" frequency which the CableCARD device is required to have a special tuner to receive. So DSS providers could use something similar to CableCARD without the need for a two way connection. In fact the access cards they use now are very similar to CableCARDs already.

That being said DSS uses a completely different frequency scheme then cable and requires completely different tuners. So while it may be possible for DSS providers to adhere to some sort of universal decryption standard like CableCARD it would be nearly impossible, or at least impractical, for manufacturers to build devices that would be interchangeable among both cable and DSS providers.

I think the best option would be for Dish and DirecTV to be forced into allowing 3rd party devices on their networks. Whether that's by simply opening up their access card standards to 3rd parties or via a new universal access standard it doesn't matter. As long as people aren't forced into using their box then I think most people would be happy.

Dan


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

ah30k said:


> What has happened to this country? Now congress should be meddling in how satellite operators run their business? Please explain why you think congress should stick their nose into the business plans of satellite operators.
> 
> I'd rather congress focus on other things than the operations of businesses such as this.
> 
> ...


I tend to agree. However, I am still trying to wrap my head around the baseball steroid use scandal going to Congress!!!! Why were taxpayer dollars being wasted on something like that? ON that reason I agree with OP.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

dstoffa said:


> It may not be possible for sat companies to comply if the waiver were lifted.
> 
> Cable Companies (or other hard-wired) content providers deliver their product via a two-way communication system. The cablecard can talk to the cable-nest, and decode programming that said cablecard is entitled to.


Umm, no.

Cablecards are *one way*. That's the reason that people don't get PPV & OnDemand.

Plus, people can ALREADY get PPV on satellite boxes -- either DirecTivos or standalone ones. They just call up over the phone to show which movies were rented.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

mattack said:


> Umm, no.
> 
> Cablecards are *one way*. That's the reason that people don't get PPV & OnDemand.


Oh really? The reason TiVo can't get two-way services are CableCARDs are one-way? So a Mot DCH-xxxx DVR with CableCARD cannot do PPV and On-Demand? They have the same CableCARDs in them.

Have you seen the FAQs from CableLabs which explicitly say the opposite:
http://www.opencable.com/primer/cablecard_primer.html


> *From the very early specifications and draft standards, the CableCARD module has been a two-way device. *That is, it included the functionality to enable two-way communication on the cable plant. This two-way communication is necessary for a variety of advanced cable services including video on demand (VOD), switched digital video (SDV), interactive services and applications.
> 
> *The media has frequently reported that first-generation CableCARD 1.0 modules are one-way devices1. This is simply not true. *CableLabs had always intended to develop the CableCARD module and host receiver standards with two-way capability. However the manufacturers of digital TVs requested that a host standard be developed that only had one-way capability. This one-way cable-ready receiver was defined by the FCC's Plug & Play order and by the Joint Test Suite (JTS). It is the definition of this one-way receiver that lacks the ability for two-way functionality, not the CableCARD module. While the FCC defined the elements of the one-way cable-ready receiver, CableLabs continued to define specifications for two-way receivers.
> 
> When a CableCARD 1.0 module is used with a two-way receiver (e.g., Samsung HLR5067C) that card supports all the necessary two-way functionality for VOD, SDV, and other interactive services.


----------



## wierdo (Apr 7, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> Whether that's by simply opening up their access card standards to 3rd parties or via a new universal access standard it doesn't matter.


DVB standardizes the interface between the box and the access card. There's no need to do anything differently for the satellite companies than they are doing today. It already works fine in Europe, where most of the content providers are happy to provide you an access card for any box.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

ah30k said:


> Oh really? The reason TiVo can't get two-way services are CableCARDs are one-way? So a Mot DCH-xxxx DVR with CableCARD cannot do PPV and On-Demand? They have the same CableCARDs in them.
> 
> Have you seen the FAQs from CableLabs which explicitly say the opposite:
> http://www.opencable.com/primer/cablecard_primer.html


Wow, you've completely bought into the disingenuous cable marketing FUD.

Yes, cable cards are technically capable of working in 2 way devices - however _by regulation_, the cable companies would only certify them in unidirectional appliances. In order to be certified in 2 way devices, the device in question would have to be kneecapped by being OCAP-capable. Up until now, this has meant that the cable companies would have been able to overwrite the Tivo software with their own guide and U/I, completely blowing away the primary reason for buying a Tivo.


----------



## RoyK (Oct 22, 2004)

aadam101 said:


> I tend to agree. However, I am still trying to wrap my head around the baseball steroid use scandal going to Congress!!!! Why were taxpayer dollars being wasted on something like that? ON that reason I agree with OP.


The reason is simple - there isn't much controversy in the steroids in baseball issue. The congressmen can go home and tell the voters that they investigated the 'critical problem' and that's a good thing.

The last thing a congressman wants to do is take on a real issue unless he can find one that almost all of the voters agree on in which case it wouldn't be much of an issue. The main motivator of most congress people is, after all, keeping their job.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

GoHokies! said:


> Wow, you've completely bought into the disingenuous cable marketing FUD.
> 
> Yes, cable cards are technically capable of working in 2 way devices - however _by regulation_, the cable companies would only certify them in unidirectional appliances. In order to be certified in 2 way devices, the device in question would have to be kneecapped by being OCAP-capable. Up until now, this has meant that the cable companies would have been able to overwrite the Tivo software with their own guide and U/I, completely blowing away the primary reason for buying a Tivo.


You've simply distorted what ah30k said. (Why would you do that?  ) What he said is exactly correct. What you've claimed (in your second paragraph) is also correct. They are not inconsistent.

And you really hit the nail on the head, mentioning that the way things is a reflection of the regulations. If people want things to change, they should expect to work this through their elected representatives, because the FCC is pursuing a specific direction, and until Congress or the President tell them otherwise, they'll likely continue to do so.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

RoyK said:


> The main motivator of most congress people is, after all, keeping their job.


I've found that most working people put keeping their jobs high on the list of priorities.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

bicker said:


> You've simply distorted what ah30k said. (Why would you do that?  ) What he said is exactly correct. What you've claimed (in your second paragraph) is also correct. They are not inconsistent.


It isn't a distortion at all, it's the whole truth.

Saying that cable cards are perfectly capable of 2 way operation is only half the story, while technically correct, it leads to making faulty assumptions unless someone tells the rest of the story...

On your second point, I would also say that people worked this through their representatives over 10 years ago, when congress mandated seperatable security in 1996. The problem is the FCC allowing the cable companies to drag their feet for 10 years before mandating that all new boxes have cable cards in them just last year, and still giving the sat companies a free pass.


----------



## RoyK (Oct 22, 2004)

bicker said:


> I've found that most working people put keeping their jobs high on the list of priorities.


Sure. But most of us get to do that by doing our jobs and doing them well. Congress does it by avoiding same.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

GoHokies! said:


> Wow, you've completely bought into the disingenuous cable marketing FUD.
> 
> Yes, cable cards are technically capable of working in 2 way devices - however _by regulation_, the cable companies would only certify them in unidirectional appliances. In order to be certified in 2 way devices, the device in question would have to be kneecapped by being OCAP-capable. Up until now, this has meant that the cable companies would have been able to overwrite the Tivo software with their own guide and U/I, completely blowing away the primary reason for buying a Tivo.


Excuse me, the poster said that TiVo could not do VOD/PPV/SDV *BECAUSE* CableCARD was one-way. This is not true. Sorry if you do not like the answer. Perhaps you prefer the continued spread of untrue internet rumor.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

ah30k said:


> Excuse me, the poster said that TiVo could not do VOD/PPV/SDV *BECAUSE* CableCARD was one-way. This is not true. Sorry if you do not like the answer. Perhaps you prefer the continued spread of untrue internet rumor.


It isn't a matter of me liking the answer or not - your spreading of half-truths is just as bad as the perpetuation of an untrue internet rumour.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

GoHokies! said:


> It isn't a matter of me liking the answer or not - your spreading of half-truths is just as bad as the perpetuation of an untrue internet rumour.


You may think CableCARDs being two-way is a half truth if it makes you sleep better. The stating that CableCARDs are one-way is a whole lie. You can see it how you want.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

ah30k said:


> You may think CableCARDs being two-way is a half truth if it makes you sleep better. The stating that CableCARDs are one-way is a whole lie. You can see it how you want.


It doesn't make me sleep better, it's called telling the "whole truth", which seems to be a concept that escapes you.

While "cable cards can do 2 way" is a true statement, "devices that do cable cards must be OCAP-enabled to be 2 way" is also true and tells the whole story, rather than buying into the cable companies BS is distorting the truth by only telling half the picture.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

GoHokies! said:


> it's called telling the "whole truth", which seems to be a concept that escapes you.


I simply corrected a factually untrue statement. I am under no obligation to rant on about how the whole OCAP requirements were politically motivated blah blah blah. I simply can't understand why you jumped all over my case with insults about me buying into some propaganda and FUD simply for correcting an untrue statement.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

jkalnin said:


> The only thing the government needs to do with cable and satellite is force Comcast to give their feeds to satellite companies.


That won't help those that directly receive satellite have the right to use 3rd party boxes. It might help by unifying lineups and such.



> I live near Philly and I love the Flyers, if I go for the Dish I'l never get see them play! How is it that Fios has comcast sportsnet as a channel but not the dish?


That has something to do with Sportsnet Philly being only locally/regionally distributed by microwave or fiber, why it is not available for satellite.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

dstoffa said:


> It may not be possible for sat companies to comply if the waiver were lifted.
> 
> Cable Companies (or other hard-wired) content providers deliver their product via a two-way communication system. The cablecard can talk to the cable-nest, and decode programming that said cablecard is entitled to. I would assume that such type of two-way comms doesn't exist with the satellite offerings unless said box is hooked into an internet connection or phone line.


The vast majority of Cable programming doesn't need two-way to work (at least yet). The current On-way cablecard standard works fine for "linear" statically mapped programming. It just doesn't work for two way services.

Satellite even moreso, since its reverse channel is a modem only used occasionally.

And the modem in most satellite receivers is a more or less standard modem. If you have a satellite receiver, I bet it has a Rockwell/Conexant RC224ATL. All mine do, including the DirecTV, Dishnet, and Alphastar receiver I have.

The standards are essentially there for a "Cablecard" like standard for satellite. They just need slightly adjusted for the respective platforms, and the providers coerced into using it.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

Cudahy said:


> The public airwaves have always been subject to regulation. It is a totally reasonable request that customers be given options. It's in the public interest and actually enhances the income of the companies.


Satellite TV technically isn't "Public" airwaves, it is regualtorily considered a closed system, like cable.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

GoHokies! said:


> It isn't a distortion at all, it's the whole truth.


It may not have been clear from my message, but the distortion was your first paragraph, saying that he, "completely bought into the disingenuous cable marketing FUD". I said explicitly that your second paragraph was correct.



GoHokies! said:


> On your second point, I would also say that people worked this through their representatives over 10 years ago, when congress mandated seperatable security in 1996. The problem is the FCC allowing the cable companies to drag their feet for 10 years before mandating that all new boxes have cable cards in them just last year, and still giving the sat companies a free pass.


Yup, the FCC crafted a regulation that provided a balance between the needs of consumers and business that results in a situation that consumers, like us TiVo owners, find dissatisfying. And the FCC granted satellite service providers waivers. They sure did. Neither was a mistake on their part. Just dissatisfying. That was my point.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

RoyK said:


> Sure. But most of us get to do that by doing our jobs and doing them well. Congress does it by avoiding same.


This is the second time today I've had to grant someone making a great point in rebuttal to something I posted. It's been a good long time since I've read even one good rebuttal to something I posted, and here in less than an hour I've read two!


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

bicker said:


> It may not have been clear from my message, but the distortion was your first paragraph, saying that he, "completely bought into the disingenuous cable marketing FUD". I said explicitly that your second paragraph was correct.
> 
> Yup, the FCC crafted a regulation that provided a balance between the needs of consumers and business that results in a situation that consumers, like us TiVo owners, find dissatisfying. And the FCC granted satellite service providers waivers. They sure did. Neither was a mistake on their part. Just dissatisfying. That was my point.


Based on his later posts, I think that it's clear that he's not interested in the whole truth, and rather more interested in correcting a technical detail than contributing useful, _complete_ information that helps move the discussion on in a productive manner. Which one of us is distorting again? 

More on target, let's take a look at the language of the '96 telecom act that started this train rolling down the tracks:



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


When you look at this as "the will of the people" as enacted into law by Congress, it's pretty clear what was mandated. Open access to all. No distinctions between cable and satellite. The sat TV providers case may have had merit 12 years ago when this law was passed - arguing what was the case then isn't really productive at this point. But the bottom line is that the time for this kind of special treatment is well past. The FCC has absolutely NO mandate to say to Congress: "You know that law that you passed? The one you explicitly wrote so that it would apply to all tv providers, regardless of the delivery method? Yeah, we're going to go ahead and ignore that part, and exempt an entire industry from your regulations, because they don't want to take part. "

You say it's a regulation that balances the needs of the consumers and business. While that _may_ have been the case 12 years ago, at this point in time it is nothing more than the FCC giving a giant middle finger to Congress (and therefore each and every one of us). I think that it's high time for this to change.


----------



## outrigger (Mar 9, 2008)

None of this is the role of government. I'll pass.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

Is it not the role of government to stop monopolies from taking over an industry? Is it not the role of government to make sure that the competition in the industry is there?

However, a much louder message to Directv would not be the FCC but by everyone that feels this way... to cancel service (and cite the reason for leaving as being the lack of Tivo HD).

Anyway, I gave that as the reason to Directv but even if they had Tivo... I can't say that I would go back. I'm happy with my S3 and OTA digital.



outrigger said:


> None of this is the role of government. I'll pass.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

The role of government in this is to balance the needs of consumers and businesses, by regulating interstate and foreign commerce. Note that the role of government is only to provide for what *it *considers reasonable access to services at what *it *considers reasonable prices. Period.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

magnus said:


> Is it not the role of government to stop monopolies from taking over an industry?


What monopoly is taking over the what industry due to the lack of CableCARDs in DBS television? Also, how are consumers hurt by that situation? You need to specify these three items for your argument to have any merit at all.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

GoHokies! said:


> When you look at this as "the will of the people" as enacted into law by Congress, it's pretty clear what was mandated. Open access to all. No distinctions between cable and satellite.
> ...
> The FCC has absolutely NO mandate to say to Congress: "You know that law that you passed? The one you explicitly wrote so that it would apply to all tv providers, regardless of the delivery method? Yeah, we're going to go ahead and ignore that part, and exempt an entire industry from your regulations, because they don't want to take part. "


1. CableLabs explicitly bans DBS providers from joining. I don't think the NCTA will allow them in, either. There is most certainly a distinction in the real world.

2. The FCC does have this power as part of the executive branch. For example, suddenly there are a bunch of home-schooled truant kids in California. Why isn't child services taking away these kids right now? Why aren't the parents being arrested? Because the governor doesn't like the ruling, and has told everyone to ignore it for now.

3. Tivo doesn't want to do D* or E* anymore, and vice versa. That's part of the reason why the cable SDV adapter will exist.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

BobCamp1 said:


> 1. CableLabs explicitly bans DBS providers from joining. I don't think the NCTA will allow them in, either. There is most certainly a distinction in the real world.


Please show me where "Cable Labs" is specified in that legislation anywhere? Nobody is saying that DBS providers need to join cable labs. They need to have an open standard that 3rd parties can build hardware to. Nothing more.



> 2. The FCC does have this power as part of the executive branch. For example, suddenly there are a bunch of home-schooled truant kids in California. Why isn't child services taking away these kids right now? Why aren't the parents being arrested? Because the governor doesn't like the ruling, and has told everyone to ignore it for now.


I know nothing about the structure of the California government, but your example doesn't apply on a Federal level. *IF* there were an Executive Order, that would be analogous to the Governor saying "ignore this", but the FCC doesn't have the authority to issue one of those.



> 3. Tivo doesn't want to do D* or E* anymore, and vice versa. That's part of the reason why the cable SDV adapter will exist.


No evidence to back your wild assertion, aye. Just as I thought. You should stop trying to pass off your opinion as fact.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

BobCamp1 said:


> 1. CableLabs explicitly bans DBS providers from joining. I don't think the NCTA will allow them in, either. There is most certainly a distinction in the real world.


 cablelabs is a consortium put in place by the cable industry. It was not mandated by any govt. regulation. If the waiver was dropped then the FCC would direct with a ruling that the various parties should talk(but not specifiy within what industry group) or perhaps the FCC would rule that DBS could have their own comman acces seperate from Cable. Anyhow it is kind of silly to say there is no current group composed of DBS abd cable when currently no need exists for one because of the waiver.



> 2. The FCC does have this power as part of the executive branch.


 well of course the FCC has that power - they did after all grant the waiver. Still they should re-examine the validity of the temporary wiaver granted so long ago in an entirely different business environment and political leadership.



> 3. Tivo doesn't want to do D* or E* anymore, and vice versa. That's part of the reason why the cable SDV adapter will exist.


You say that as if you know something about internal TiVo meetings  The SDV adapter has nothing to do with TiVo/DBS realtions and everything to do with Cable industry seeing SDV as an important strategic piece of the infrastructure they can use to deliver far more content and features. That will be used to knock the DBS out of the sky(another pun ) but is independant of anything but keeping cable card on track as delivering all the channels you would get with direct cable co. hardware.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

My point was that they could keep a monopoly from forming. Also, that the consumer should have a choice. Yes, they do have choice now... that is... leave D* and don't go back. They made their decision and they will end up living with the consequences... just like E*.

Also, I do not NEED to specify anything. It was a question.



ah30k said:


> What monopoly is taking over the what industry due to the lack of CableCARDs in DBS television? Also, how are consumers hurt by that situation? You need to specify these three items for your argument to have any merit at all.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

magnus said:


> Is it not the role of government to stop monopolies from taking over an industry? Is it not the role of government to make sure that the competition in the industry is there?





ah30k said:


> What monopoly is taking over the what industry due to the lack of CableCARDs in DBS television? Also, how are consumers hurt by that situation? You need to specify these three items for your argument to have any merit at all.





magnus said:


> Also, I do not NEED to specify anything. It was a question.


You question sure sounded like you were making a claim and teaching the ignorant that it is the government's job.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

magnus said:


> My point was that they could keep a monopoly from forming. Also, that the consumer should have a choice. Yes, they do have choice now... that is... leave D* and don't go back. They made their decision and they will end up living with the consequences... just like E*.


My original question still stands. Please define the industry that defines your monopoly?

To use Bicker's famous anlogy, if you define your industry to be 'brand new Ford pickup trucks available within 5 miles of the center of town' then you could call the local Ford dealership a monopoly.

What is your industry? Perhaps video content providers nationwide? Nope that does not work.

How about video content providers in my particular town? Probably not.

How about satellite video providers? No there are others, you just need bigger dishes.

How about satellite video providers that offer local television channels and use a relatively small dish? There you go. Try to go to congress asking for protection of that niche industry.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

magnus said:


> My point was that they could keep a monopoly from forming.


Indeed, the DBS waivers we've been talking about were put in place to secure the competitive marketplace we have for subscription television services.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ah30k said:


> How about video content providers in my particular town? Probably not.


Actually, I'm pretty sure that *is *the definition of the industry: Subscription television providers offering service within a municipality.

Theoretically, if Dish Network and DirecTV merge (just saying), if there is a town without any cable companies, no FiOS, and no U-verse, then the merged DirecTV/Dish Network company would indeed be a monopoly in that town.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

bicker said:


> Indeed, the DBS waivers we've been talking about were put in place to secure the competitive marketplace we have for subscription television services.


Exactly - and now that the DBS companies are secure in their footholds, not only is the waiver out of date, getting rid of the waiver and forcing the DBS companies to join the "bring your own hardware" club will further enhance competition.

Dish/DirecTV would be a much more viable choice for folks (myself included) if there were more hardware options out there.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

bicker said:


> Actually, I'm pretty sure that *is *the definition of the industry: Subscription television providers offering service within a municipality.
> 
> Theoretically, if Dish Network and DirecTV merge (just saying), if there is a town without any cable companies, no FiOS, and no U-verse, then the merged DirecTV/Dish Network company would indeed be a monopoly in that town.


I doubt the very few citzens in your contrived situation warrant congressional action.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I agree.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

ah30k said:


> I doubt the very few citzens in your contrived situation warrant congressional action.


Then it's a darn good thing that the only congressional action necessary happened over a decade ago.

Now it only remains for the FCC to catch up with the will of the people.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

I guess you just don't get it. Oh well.



ah30k said:


> My original question still stands. Please define the industry that defines your monopoly?
> 
> To use Bicker's famous anlogy, if you define your industry to be 'brand new Ford pickup trucks available within 5 miles of the center of town' then you could call the local Ford dealership a monopoly.
> 
> ...


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

magnus said:


> I guess you just don't get it. Oh well.


You and GoHokies are in good form today. I ask a simple question to define your industry you'd like to protect (you want to protect from monopolies from taking over the industry) and you come back with "you just don't get it". Just like GoHokies replying to my early correction of factual mis-statements with the "you're a tool" type of reply. No one likes a straight question I guess.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

GoHokies! said:


> Then it's a darn good thing that the only congressional action necessary happened over a decade ago. Now it only remains for the FCC to catch up with the will of the people.


You're mistaken. What remains is for *reality* to catch up with your dissatisfaction. In the scenario you commented on, Dish Network and DirecTV have not merged (yet). Beyond that, as far as we know, there aren't any towns without any cable companies, without FiOS, and without U-verse available. There is no action for the FCC to take until those things all happen.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

> Now it only remains for the FCC to catch up with the will of the people.


And how does "will of the people" benefit me and another 25 million DBS users?
Except for the few TiVo stockholders, how many people will benefit from implementing cable card like system for DBS?
In my case, between DirecTV and Dish I have 9 DVRs (not counting 2 SA TiVos that are collecting dust). I spent quite a bit of money for this hardware. You are telling me that I will benefit if I will have to buy 5 TiVos and 5 subscriptions (assuming that TiVo will work with both providers using cable card like device)
Right now my subscription cost $6/month for 4 DirecTV DVRs and $5/month for VIP622 (4 of my 508 are free).
My DVRs work fine including 2 DirecTivos (although I prefer DBS provider's DVRs). Why best interests of 25 million DBS users who are perfectly happy with the hardware they have now should be ignored to benefit few TiVo shareholders?


----------



## RoyK (Oct 22, 2004)

bicker said:


> ..... Beyond that, as far as we know, there aren't any towns without any cable companies, without FiOS, and without U-verse available. ...


You don't get around much in the boonies do you?


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

samo said:


> Why best interests of 25 million DBS users who are perfectly happy with the hardware they have now should be ignored to benefit few TiVo shareholders?


How is making more hardware choices available "ignoring 25 million users"? Don't you think that if there were more hardware options for your DBS provider of choice that they would be able to attract more customers (especially good customers too, since the service provider isn't on the hook for supplying them with hardware)?

Get a clue, nobody is saying that your hardware is just going to stop working - there are millions of non-cablecard cable STBs and DVRs out there happily doing their thing, and they'll continue to do so until the end users decide to return them to the cable company.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

RoyK said:


> You don't get around much in the boonies do you?


Yup, I sure do.

Back to the topic...


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

ah30k said:


> Just like GoHokies replying to my early correction of factual mis-statements with the "you're a tool" type of reply. No one likes a straight question I guess.


Are you seriously going to keep bring that up? You made a technically correct, but misleading post and I corrected you on it. Your inability to deal with it is your problem, not ours, so give it a rest.

You and bicker keep focusing on "monopolies" despite the fact that the relevant portion of the 1996 Telecom Act says absolutely nothing about them.

Once more:


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


The bottom line is to assure the ability of the consumer to "bring their own hardware" to the multichannel video provider of their choice. Not "everyone must use cablecards". Not "monopolies are bad". The mandate from Congress is "Allow 3rd party hardware to work on your system". Anything else is just noise to the conversation - while the DBS waiver may have been a good thing 12 years ago, its time is long past.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

GoHokies! said:


> Are you seriously going to keep bring that up? You made a technically correct, but misleading post and I corrected you on it. Your inability to deal with it is your problem, not ours, so give it a rest.


You accused me of blindly buying into NCTA propaganda and FUD for correcting a factual mis-statment, I will not forget it. Your response could have been "yes, you are correct but you failed to say that ..." Instead you called me a tool.



GoHokies! said:


> You and bicker keep focusing on "monopolies" despite the fact that the relevant portion of the 1996 Telecom Act says absolutely nothing about them.


Dude, go look at my first ever mention of monopoly (post #50). It was in response to someone claiming that they government should protect us from monopoly. I just asked a follow up question. So I did not bring monopoly into this discussion. In fact, every post of mine on monopolies were saying that they don't apply to this conversation. Had the person made an argument based on increasing availability of CE equipment, I'd have never entered the fray. I wish you would be a little more accurate in your posts, especially when calling me out as the wrong party.

So perhaps on both of your points, I am guilty of failing to let incorrect posts go unchallenged.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

ah30k said:


> You accused me of blindly buying into NCTA propaganda and FUD for correcting a factual mis-statment, I will not forget it. Your response could have been "yes, you are correct but you failed to say that ..." Instead you called me a tool.


I did no such thing. I said that you had bought into the cable company FUD - factual statement, since you quoted it directly in your post. Then, instead of just agreeing, you start a pissing contest, I let the matter drop and you continue to bring it up for not good reason. Give it a rest already.



> Dude, go look at my first ever mention of monopoly (post #50). It was in response to someone claiming that they government should protect us from monopoly. I just asked a follow up question. So I did not bring monopoly into this discussion. In fact, every post of mine on monopolies were saying that they don't apply to this conversation. Had the person made an argument based on increasing availability of CE equipment, I'd have never entered the fray. I wish you would be a little more accurate in your posts, especially when calling me out as the wrong party.


I called out you and bicker, because the last page or so has just been the two of you discussing monopolies, rather than the reasons for the DBS waiver.

Excuse me for trying to bring the discussion back on target.

If you've got anything to say that's actually on topic, I'm all ears. If not, go find someone else to bother.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

GoHokies! said:


> I did no such thing. I said that you had bought into the cable company FUD - factual statement, since you quoted it directly in your post.


Posting a document from CableLabs saying that CableCARDs are two-way does not mean buying into their FUD. How on earth is that a factual statement.



GoHokies! said:


> I called out you and bicker, because the last page or so has just been the two of you discussing monopolies, rather than the reasons for the DBS waiver.


Defending against asinine statements is more like it. In fact YOU even brought up the telecom act as a response to our discussion about monopolies. How come YOU are bringing incorrect info into it (you posted about the telecom act in post #62 responding to a monopoly discussion) then in post #70 you tell us it is irrelevant.

I had a really slow day at work yesterday and spent way too much time arguing this nonsense. Maybe today will be better.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

ah30k said:


> Defending against asinine statements is more like it. In fact YOU even brought up the telecom act as a response to our discussion about monopolies. How come YOU are bringing incorrect info into it (you posted about the telecom act in post #62 responding to a monopoly discussion) then in post #70 you tell us it is irrelevant.


You've got it all completely and utterly backwards.

Go back and look at the topic and first post of the thread. The topic we're discussing here is the desire to have people bring their own hardware to a DBS provider, which is something that was legislated in 1996 by Congress for *ALL* multichannel video programming providers, however the DBS providers were given a waiver by the FCC. I alluded to the 1996 telecom info in 62 because you said that congressional action was needed, when in fact the only congressional action that was required happened 12 years ago. Then, since it seems that you didn't get the point, I further explained myself in 70, explaining what the '96 telecom act actually said, pointing out that the continued discussion of monopolies was not relevant to making the DBS waiver go away.

I said nothing incorrect, or contradictory, despite your claims. Check your emotions at the door and read carefully, you'll get it.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

You conveniently ignored part #1 of my post about how you inferred my state of mind from a reference to a web site then called it a fact that I bought into FUD.

As for my saying congressional action was not necessary. We were talking about the bogus claims of monopoly protection against DBS. Had you been paying attention to the thread you would have seen that. I can pull the exact context if you want but it went something like
* Magnus says govt needs to protect us from monopolies taking over the industry
* I said 'what monopoly'
* What about a fictional town with no other TV but satellite and all satellite companies merged so that is a monopoly.
* I said that niche does not warrant congressional action
* you brought up the telecom act and said it already happened (in this context of monopoly protection)
* you said monopoly was not the gist of the telecom act.

Did I miss anything in reading this thread carefully?

Anyway, enough of this. You can have the last word on this, I am done.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

ah30k said:


> You conveniently ignored part #1 of my post about how you inferred my state of mind from a reference to a web site then called it a fact that I bought into FUD.


No, it just isn't relevant to the discussion at hand. You wouldn't post something if you didn't believe it, right? If you're really that worried about it, send me a PM.



> * OP says govt needs to protect us from monopolies taking over the industry


Wrong, the OP has NOTHING to do with a monoply. You're the one that started us down the wrong path in #4 by bringing up a monopoly.


> * I said 'what monopoly'
> * OP said there may be a fictional town with no other TV but satellite and all satellite companies merged so that is a monopoly.
> * I said that niche does not warrant congressional action


You keep saying OP. I don't think that word means what you think it does. The OP said no such thing, it was bicker that mentioned this small town. (hence my comment that you and bicker were barking up the wrong tree by talking about monopolies.


> * you brought up the telecom act and said it already happened (in this context of monopoly protection)


Completely and utterly wrong. Please stop distorting my words. I said that in the context of the fact that the only congressional action needed to bring about the actions that the OP is seeking (remember, we're talking about forcing the DBS providers to open up to 3rd party hardware, as the title and first post of this thread clearly describe).


> * you said monopoly was not the gist of the telecom act.


Yes, because it's clear that you didn't get my point the first time. Monopolies have nothing to do with the telecom act, or the point of the OP, which are closely related.


> Did I miss anything in reading this thread carefully?


Yep, I'd say that you completely and totally missed the point, without question.

Edit: Nice edit. My point still stands. I'll add Magnus to the list in my earlier post if it makes you feel better, but you're still the first person in the thread to raise the "M-word" in post #4.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

GoHokies! said:


> You and bicker keep focusing on "monopolies" despite the fact that the relevant portion of the 1996 Telecom Act says absolutely nothing about them.


Actually, I don't. *Other folks *erroneously attack the MSO as monopolies. That's the _*only*_ time I worry about that issue.



GoHokies! said:


> The bottom line is to assure the ability of the consumer to "bring their own hardware" to the multichannel video provider of their choice.


Go back and read my replies. I pointed out to you, back in message #44:Yup, the FCC crafted a regulation that provided a balance between the needs of consumers and business that results in *a situation that consumers, like us TiVo owners, find dissatisfying*. And the FCC granted satellite service providers waivers. They sure did. Neither was a mistake on their part. *Just dissatisfying*. That was my point.​
My problem with your points in this thread is (1) that you're trying to pin blame, attribute fault, and/or disparage the motivations of the cable companies, when your beef is wholly and exclusively with the FCC, and its _de facto_ decision to enforce a much less consumer-biased interpretation of the law, through the crafting of excessively vague regulations, enforced with less enthusiasm for the consumer than you'd like; and (2) that even with regard to the FCC, they're doing what "we the people" want, as evidenced by the kind of leaders we have elected, in ever-increasing numbers, since 1980.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

GoHokies! said:


> I said that you had bought into the cable company FUD - factual statement, since you quoted it directly in your post.


Here is another problem with your assertions: You decide that something is FUD, and then you presume to label your opinion in that regard as a "factual statement". Bullhokies. If any poster *ever* asserts that someone else has "bought into ... FUD" then that poster deserve to be trashed by that someone else in the same measure as the poster's assertion trashed the someone else. You brought ah30k's ire onto yourself, and it is fully justified.



GoHokies! said:


> Then, instead of just agreeing, you start a pissing contest, I let the matter drop and you continue to bring it up for not good reason. Give it a rest already.


Amazing how you see things only from your own perspective. ah30k gave you every opportunity to recant your attack on him, and you refused to do so. The way I see it, you started and have fostered whatever "pissing contest" there is here.



GoHokies! said:


> I called out you and bicker, because the last page or so has just been the two of you discussing monopolies, rather than the reasons for the DBS waiver.


This is not *your* thread. Other posters, who feel that they support your position, have injected their own comments into the thread. Their comments deserve our consideration and rebuttal just as much as your comments do.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

bicker said:


> Actually, I don't. *Other folks *erroneously attack the MSO as monopolies. That's the _*only*_ time I worry about that issue. [/s]


You've got a valid point there that I alluded to in my last post. You two were the ones discussing it most recently so I posted what I did. My comments are equally applicable to anyone discussing monopolies in this thread - NOT RELEVANT/DOESN'T MATTER. Sorry for any offense.



> Go back and read my replies. I pointed out to you, back in message #44:Yup, the FCC crafted a regulation that provided a balance between the needs of consumers and business that results in *a situation that consumers, like us TiVo owners, find dissatisfying*. And the FCC granted satellite service providers waivers. They sure did. Neither was a mistake on their part. *Just dissatisfying*. That was my point.​


Spot on - couldn't agree with you more. However, the DBS provider's don't need the protection of the waiver any more. As such, it needs to go away.



> My problem with your points in this thread is (1) that you're trying to pin blame, attribute fault, and/or disparage the motivations of the cable companies, when your beef is wholly and exclusively with the FCC, and its _de facto_ decision to enforce a much less consumer-biased interpretation of the law, through the crafting of excessively vague regulations, enforced with less enthusiasm for the consumer than you'd like...


Not from me, shipmate! (at least in this thread). For me the issue here is clearly between the FCC, Congress and the DBS providers. I'll gladly concede that the waiver was a good idea 12 years ago. However, the landscape is drastically different today. Is it your point that the DBS providers still need the protection put in place by the waiver, or is it that you just disagree with the entire subject of open access and think that the provisions of the '96 telecom act were flawed to begin with?



> (2) that even with regard to the FCC, they're doing what "we the people" want, as evidenced by the kind of leaders we have elected, in ever-increasing numbers, since 1980.


I do have a beef with that part. If the DBS exemption was the will of the people, either it would have been written into the bill in the first place, or the FCCs waiver would have been codified into law by Congress at some point in the last 12 years.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

bicker said:


> This is not *your* thread. Other posters, who feel that they support your position, have injected their own comments into the thread. Their comments deserve our consideration and rebuttal just as much as your comments do.


Never claimed it to be. Like you, I disagree with the posters that raise the "It's a monopoly that needs to be stopped!". But rather than needlessly trying to debate what is/isn't a monopoly, I'm actually trying to focus on what what the OP wanted to discuss.

Like I said to ah30k, I'm ignoring the first part of your post on purpose - it isn't relevant to the discussion of the FCC and the DBS waiver. What's said has been said and was water under the bridge until he keeps bringing it up. I think he was wrong, said as much and I don't particularly care what he thinks about it. I'll extend the same invitation to you as I did him - if it's that vitally important to you, send me a PM.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> that even with regard to the FCC, they're doing what "we the people" want, as evidenced by the kind of leaders we have elected, in ever-increasing numbers, since 1980.


so now we are bringing how the Supreme Court threw the presidential election into the debate  well at least we have all 3 branches of Govt. represented now

I must say - I see no reason why people want _less_ choices in hrdware to use with a broadcast service even if they do wnat less choices in elected leaders.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

GoHokies! said:


> Is it your point that the DBS providers still need the protection put in place by the waiver, or is it that you just disagree with the entire subject of open access and think that the provisions of the '96 telecom act were flawed to begin with?


Neither. My point regarding that specific waiver is that there isn't that strong of a reason to revoke it, and there is some reason to leave it in place.



GoHokies! said:


> I do have a beef with that part. If the DBS exemption was the will of the people, either it would have been written into the bill in the first place, or the FCCs waiver would have been codified into law by Congress at some point in the last 12 years.


That's simply not true. The law is one or two orders of magnitude less specific than the regulations. That's the way basically everything is with the FCC. The law outlines the basic parameters, and then the FCC converts that into operational polices and procedures.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> so now we are bringing how the Supreme Court threw the presidential election into the debate  well at least we have all 3 branches of Govt. represented now


To be fair, you've made a good point here. I often say how "even the Democrats are pro-business" now, but there was a Democrat for whom that label wouldn't apply. So we can see, even since then, the left has gone even further right.



ZeoTiVo said:


> I must say - I see no reason why people want _less_ choices in hrdware to use with a broadcast service even if they do wnat less choices in elected leaders.


It is very simple. The things folks typically complain about in these threads are practically irrelevant to the vast majority of people, including most of the folks who actually complain about them! Instead, when the rubber hits the road, they want what is best for their family, long-term. Since 1978 or so, and especially since 1980, there has been a steady trend towards folks seeing that the best for their family is less government regulation of business. Stronger businesses lead to a stronger economy, which leads to more good jobs than the alternative would, fostering a higher level of prosperity (if not necessarily evenly disbursed) than the alternative would, a slower rate of degradation of our standard of living than the alternative would, etc. I'm not trying to defend any of those assertions in this thread. I'm stating that so many people adopt those assertions as their perception of the reality that that drives how our country is run, and that in turn drives how subscription television is regulated (or not regulated, as the case may be). As a group, we have traded off consumer rights for better rates of return on our 401(k)s.

Well, okay, I guess that doesn't qualify as "very simple" after all.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> To be fair, you've made a good point here. I often say how "even the Democrats are pro-business" now, but there was a Democrat for whom that label wouldn't apply. So we can see, even since then, the left has gone even further right.


Obviously the sub-prime lending mess and other issues are meaking foir a shift back the other way. These things are always pendulums so I would suggest business plans prepare for a shift away from the right. Indeed the right is up in arms over the Republican Candidate and only keeping the noise down as they still want to see their party win. The moderate will be loking to set things straight that have run afoul in the lack of regulatory direction.

The left has also moderated but change is their motto now and you can bet the Democrats are going to come in swnging if their candidate gets elected.

whether either is effective is not a debate for this forum but still my main point is that the pendulum swing to the right is slowing and near ready to swing back the other way.


----------



## JohnBrowning (Jul 15, 2004)

Bonanzaair said:


> Ebonovic was right! Nothing from DirecTV about Tivo. I have waited long enough to put up with this situation. I have started a petition over at iPetition.com to have Congress and the FCC review the status of the satellite companies forcing it's customers to use in-house DVR boxes. The FCC forced cable to use the cablecard, maybe the same like thing should happen with satellite.
> 
> http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/satellitefreedom/
> 
> Bonanza


Congress has real work they should be doing - not mucking about in the SatTV business. Also, online petitions are a HUGE waste of time and energy.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

JohnBrowning said:


> Congress has real work they should be doing - not mucking about in the SatTV business. Also, online petitions are a HUGE waste of time and energy.


the point of the orignal bill on common access was to allow for innovation among 3rd parties which creates jobs and intellectual property for future business growth. That is indeed the job of Congress.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

I thought the 3 thjreads got merged so I wasnt watching this one-

So a lot to catch up on:

First the FCC DID already instructs Sirius and XM to create a universal receiver. (that ones even funnier- the FCC told them to work on it- they worked on it came up with a universal receiver and basically said- you told us to work on it not implement it so the design is done nanny nanny boo boo)- so that argument doesnt hold too much water. Sat radio is basically in exactly the same place as pay tv- half way done but clearly not open. I guess the end game there is a merger anyway.

Congress already acted and created the law- the FCC issued a waiver to dbs using their authority issued to them by congress. 

To me the waiver at his point is being violated in spirit if not word. The waiver says that since people can get a box at a retailer and use it anyplace in the US on the Directv or Dish system then the DBS people could have a waiver. If I recall that was based on dbs arguments at the time that they had boxes available for PURCHASE at retail and that such boxes were available form several brands with different feature sets. Well that is patently not the case anymore (at least with directv)- you cant BUY a box you have to lease it. And they only have one brand- their in house brand to go buy. Even if thats not violating the waiver regulation it sure seems to be violating the law. (and if I recall the dbs waiver isnt 12 years old it came along later).


Also- Im fairly sure that over directvs objections that the FCC DID in fact bestow the rights to create the POD standard on cablelabs. Directv if I am remembering correctly complained that it was not open to to join the NCTA or Cablelabs and said that ansi or someone unbiased should create it. The fcc said something like you arent going to have to comply so shut up. Fios is certainly feeling the pains of that though- they sort of have no choice but to follow cable labs standards yet they cant join cablelabs and have any say in those same standards.


----------



## RoyK (Oct 22, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> ...
> - you cant BUY a box (for DirectTv) you have to lease it. ...


Best Buy has them for sale....


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

RoyK said:


> Best Buy has them for sale....


is that current?

I thought you had to pay to lease them at best buy and the like?

I guess that's how they get around it.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

here's a link to the regulation that gave the exemption to dbs - it's found in 47 C.F.R. § 76.1204(a)(2).

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/....gpo.gov/cfr_2006/octqtr/pdf/47cfr76.1204.pdf



> The foregoing requirement shall
> not apply to a multichannel video programming
> distributor that supports
> the active use by subscribers of navigation
> ...


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

and here's the link to the fcc order that I think created all the enabling regulations

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1998/fcc98116.pdf

and here's the FCC press release about it.

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/News_Releases/1998/nrcb8013.html

quick scan of both seems to indicate that the FCC thought the intent of the law was to foster comptetiion in the set top box market. if that's the case then dbs recent actions seem completely contrary to that.

so quick snippets (might be opposite pointing things- haven't read through all yet:



> This order will benefit consumers and further the Commission's goal of providing competition in the telecommunications marketplace by creating a major market for consumers to own equipment used to access video programming and other services in their homes.





> An exception is made for navigation devices that operate throughout the continental United States and are commercially available from unaffiliated sources, which includes direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers.





> The MVPDs covered include cable television, multichannel broadcast television, direct broadcast satellite ("DBS"), multichannel multipoint distribution service ("MMDS"), and satellite master antenna television ("SMATV"). The Commission determined that open video system operators are not covered as a consequence of the specific open video system provisions of the Communications Act which exclude open video system operators from certain regulations applicable to cable operators.





> Section 629 covers not just equipment used to receive video programming, but also equipment used to access "other services offered over multichannel video programming systems." Such equipment includes televisions, VCRs, cable set-top boxes, personal computers, program guide equipment, and cable modems. The focus of Section 629, however, is on cable television set-top boxes and cable modems, devices that have historically been available only on a lease basis from the service provider.


 - that's interesting - why then no ability yet to get the program guide - never mind other newer things like ppv/vod/ etc...



> 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





> In this Report and Order ("Order") we adopt rules to address the mandate expressed in Section
> 629 of the Communications Act to ensure the commercial availability of "navigation devices,"1 the equipment
> used to access video programming and other services from multichannel video programming systems. The
> purpose of Section 629 and the rules we adopt is to expand opportunities to purchase this equipment from
> sources other than the service provider.2





> The Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("1996 Act") established a fundamental premise for the
> direction of telecommunications markets.3 The amendments reflected in Section 629 are in keeping with the
> 1996 Act's general goal of "accelerat[ing] rapidly private sector deployment of advanced telecommunications
> and information technologies and services to all Americans by opening all telecommunications markets to
> competition."4


 ....hmm competition is the goal....



> The House Report noted that "competition in the manufacturing and distribution of consumer
> devices has always led to innovation, lower prices and higher quality. Clearly, consumers will benefit from
> having more choices among telecommunications subscription services arriving by various distribution
> sources."10


 .... hmmmm consumer benefits becasue of choices....



> we stated our belief that the overarching goal
> of this proceeding was to assure competition in the availability of set-top boxes...





> The competitive market for consumer equipment in the telephone context provides the model of
> a market we have sought to emulate in this proceeding.16 Previously, consumers leased telephones from their
> service provider and no marketplace existed for those wishing to purchase their own phone. The Carterfone
> decision allowed consumers to connect CPE to the telephone network if the connections did not cause harm.17
> ...





> We expect that entities outside of the membership of CableLabs will be able to participate in the
> eventual standards setting process.


 that's interesting...


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> and here's the link to the fcc order that I think created all the enabling regulations
> http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1998/fcc98116.pdf
> and here's the FCC press release about it.
> http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/News_Releases/1998/nrcb8013.html
> ...


Excellent information :up: it points up that the FCC had in mind all the thing proponents of dropping the waiver have been saying. Now if the FCC would just go back and read their own ruling


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

some other tidbits:



> There is further risk in moving to an environment where new devices are commercially available.
> With the technology and market developing, it is unclear how efficiently the market will respond if consumers
> purchase devices that may not perform all of the functions in the manner that the consumer envisioned. The
> ability of the consumer to adjust to separate functions of the manufacturer, service provider, and retailer,
> ...


they knew everyone pointing fingers about why cablecard doesn't work would be an issue 10 years ago....



> In addition to being directly restrained from attaching navigation equipment, consumers must also
> not be precluded from the possibility of obtaining equipment from commercial outlets by virtue of contractual
> or other restrictions on the availability of equipment that the service provider might seek to directly impose on
> suppliers of equipment. The rules (§76.1202) thus additionally enforce the right to attach by precluding
> ...


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

the meat an potatoes as to why dbs got an exemption are on pages 26,27,28 of the order.

I SNIPPED A BUNCH- so feel free to read the whole thing for context



> We believe, however, that differences in the marketplace for DBS equipment, where devices are
> available at retail and offer consumers a choice, as compared to equipment for other MVPD services,
> particularly cable operators, provide justification for not applying the rule requiring separation of security
> functions to DBS service.


no longer the case- there is no choice- you can get an SD box, and HD box, an SD DVR or an HD DVR (actually I guess there is the pro of that). Generally you have no choice and if you call them to get something they flat out wont let you pick or even know what you are getting.



> We are reluctant to implement a rule that could disrupt an evolving market that is
> already offering consumers the benefits that derive from competition. In the DBS environment, there are three
> service providers and at least ten equipment manufacturers competing to provide programming and ...


2 providers
one "brand" of equipment with the exact same features and menues although perhaps manufactureed in a different factory in china by a different corporation



> Additionally, DBS service providers are relatively new entrants in the MVPD service marketplace,
> particularly We note that in many instances, the Commission refrains from imposing regulations on new entrants.


that's clearly not an issue- Directv is only behind comcast now- right?



> Further, as noted, in requiring the separation of security functions, we seek to expand the
> portability of equipment, thereby permitting consumers to purchase navigation devices with some assurance
> that the equipment can be used beyond its present location. In DBS service, due to the means of signal
> delivery, a particular provider's equipment is already portable as to that provider across the continental United
> States because DBS operators offer services nationally.


that one bit is still true.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

btw- can a mod merge the 3 threads....


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

some very interesting reading- I'm at work- LOL- so I have to skim.

But they clearly blessed cablelabs- repeatedly.

They also completely run away from any thought of the FCC creating standards. 

also- I never really saw in print but they wanted 3rd party devices in retail for the Christmas 2000 shopping season- man did they ever blow those dates....


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

also- IANAL but looks like the fact that Directv doesn't have an ownership stake in the people that manufacture their boxes might mean they are "unaffiliated" and so even though their name is on the boxes that's how they dont count as being their one. This line of thinking also exmplains directv's move to NOT just hire all it's box production out to a thomson- by keeping other players involved they can argue there are in fact multiple manufactureres even if there is no choice and all the other warm and fuzzies implied.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

here's a good one:



> We are realistic, however, in comprehending that the present environment where incumbent cable
> operators dominate the MVPD market, and where consumers may not have ready access to information
> regarding equipment alternatives, may not easily evolve to a competitive market. We think it important to
> convey those circumstances that we believe will indicate where competition is faltering, and cause us to
> ...


basically if cablelabs standards dont bring tangible choice then the FCC should mandate standards.

Apparently the FCC forgot about that at some point....

expecially since they thought Christmas 2000 should start the flood of 3rd party devices....


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

RoyK said:


> Best Buy has them for sale....


you SURE about that?

just looked

bestbuy.com says it's a lease upgrade fee and you still have to pay monthly lease.

Circuitcity.com says same.

solidsignal.com same

looks like amazon doesn't sell directv themselves (seems to be links to all their "partners"

The smaller internet retailers might still be selling things but certainly the big boys aren't allowing anyone to purchase a box online. (maybe in their stors you get an option?)


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> you SURE about that?
> 
> just looked
> 
> ...


You can buy them. The price is like $799 for the HR-21. And you still pay the $5 monthly fee, but now it's a "mirror" fee instead of a "lease" fee. Almost no one wants to buy it, as anyone who has completed first grade math will realize that it's cheaper to lease. The receiver depreciates so rapidly that you won't be able to sell it for much on eBay, either.

I think this line of reasoning detracts from your argument. Most people don't want to keep the old D* receivers. They just recycle them. Just like people don't care if they get to keep the set-top boxes or the el cheapo DVRs.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

BobCamp1 said:


> I think this line of reasoning detracts from your argument. Most people don't want to keep the old D* receivers. They just recycle them. Just like people don't care if they get to keep the set-top boxes or the el cheapo DVRs.


precisely because it is good for nothing but hooking up to that one broadcast service. So if you move and do a different service or just want to switch broadcasters it will be of no service anymore.

Also technology does just get old - I could not give for free a pentium PC or a tube monitor to my elementary school anymore.

So sure there are people that could care less and will just want an installer to show up with everything and just show them how the remote works when done. Open access will still allow that to happen though. The idea is just that others can compete and that the broadcasters have to acknowledge there are choices besides their one stop stuff.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> also- IANAL but looks like the fact that Directv doesn't have an ownership stake in the people that manufacture their boxes might mean they are "unaffiliated" and so even though their name is on the boxes that's how they dont count as being their one.


It wouldn't count, IMO. So long as the boxes are branded DirecTV, sold though them, and have much the same UI, it would be a virtual monopoly.
A non-monopoly would have the boxes actually branded by the manufacturers, and marketed on their merits and possibly UI, and possibly diectly distributed by manufacturers. I believe early in DirecTV's days (after the first million RCA receivers), that was the case.



> This line of thinking also exmplains directv's move to NOT just hire all it's box production out to a thomson- by keeping other players involved they can argue there are in fact multiple manufactureres even if there is no choice and all the other warm and fuzzies implied.


Multiple manufacturers of essentially the same box allows more boxes to be made.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

BobCamp1 said:


> You can buy them. The price is like $799 for the HR-21. And you still pay the $5 monthly fee, but now it's a "mirror" fee instead of a "lease" fee. Almost no one wants to buy it, as anyone who has completed first grade math will realize that it's cheaper to lease. The receiver depreciates so rapidly that you won't be able to sell it for much on eBay, either.
> 
> I think this line of reasoning detracts from your argument. Most people don't want to keep the old D* receivers. They just recycle them. Just like people don't care if they get to keep the set-top boxes or the el cheapo DVRs.


interesting that you can buy them.

Personally I have no argument- I'm not even sure that buying is such a great thing- seems to me that renting dvr's is generally economically better for consumers (but does limit choice). My earlier point about it is the LAW intends for people to be able to PURCHASE boxes. The order goes on and on about "ownership". Apparently Direectv is well aware of this and that's why they allow purchases no matter how stupid it is.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

classicsat said:


> It wouldn't count, IMO. So long as the boxes are branded DirecTV, sold though them, and have much the same UI, it would be a virtual monopoly.
> A non-monopoly would have the boxes actually branded by the manufacturers, and marketed on their merits and possibly UI, and possibly diectly distributed by manufacturers. I believe early in DirecTV's days (after the first million RCA receivers), that was the case.
> ...


without using the monopoly word which sets some people off- I'd agree and say it's probably counter to the law and fcc's intent and give consumers choice and produce varying features and create competition in the hardware space.

The FCC specifically tried to define what "affiliated" means for the purpose of the law and they said this



> We have decided, for present purposes, to define affiliation based on common
> ownership or control as defined in the notes accompanying 47 C.F.R. § 76.501. This rule has been used in
> both the cable television and broadcast contexts and has the advantage of being used and understood by
> participants in these markets.


part of the key there is "present purposes" because in the paragraph before they said they thought the matter was pretty much moot based on how they intended to go about things. (for cable with the separable security mandate it does seem to be moot but since they exempted DBS it looks like the issue is not moot and needs to be more clearly defined.

Also you are correct that in the early years (about 2005 ) that there different brands, different fatures, marketed on the merits and distributed from manufacturers to the retailers.



classicsat said:


> ...
> Multiple manufacturers of essentially the same box allows more boxes to be made.


it could be- but I personally thing Thomson could make enough boxes to keep directv happy. I think it's more then that. They gave them a 5 year contract- I'd GUESS that Thomson would have been happy to make ALL the directv boxes for the period. I'm not even sure if they own all the plants that put the the boxes together- maybe they just sub it out to some chinese state factory like everyone else? It could be something that isn't nefarious like they want to keep thomson honest buy having other manufacturers. But seems to me that their effort to still "sell" receivers and not just lease them indicates they make choices based in part on keeping the fcc off their back.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Why not contact the FCC or your senator or representative instead of signing a Internet petition that will just be ignored?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

morac said:


> Why not contact the FCC or your senator or representative instead of signing a Internet petition that will just be ignored?


or do all of the above  Thanks for the good links though :up:


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> it could be- but I personally thing Thomson could make enough boxes to keep directv happy. I think it's more then that. They gave them a 5 year contract- I'd GUESS that Thomson would have been happy to make ALL the directv boxes for the period. I'm not even sure if they own all the plants that put the the boxes together- maybe they just sub it out to some chinese state factory like everyone else? It could be something that isn't nefarious like they want to keep thomson honest buy having other manufacturers. But seems to me that their effort to still "sell" receivers and not just lease them indicates they make choices based in part on keeping the fcc off their back.


Well, if your sole factory gets hit by a tornado, or your relationship suddenly sours, you're screwed. That's why D* has 3 different hardware manufacturers for the HD DVRs. To use an Easter theme, "never put all your eggs in one basket".

FYI, there is a class-action lawsuit (darn, I said it, now I can't collect the pool money) against D* and Best Buy claiming that the word "lease" isn't in bold enough font. Especially since one day people were BUYING the box and the very next day people were LEASING it for the same exact price!

My point is separable security isn't enough. There are so many other features you (and D*) would want your box to have that you'd simply have to establish a business relationship with D*. Like Tivo has done in the past.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

BobCamp1 said:


> Well, if your sole factory gets hit by a tornado, or your relationship suddenly sours, you're screwed. That's why D* has 3 different hardware manufacturers for the HD DVRs. To use an Easter theme, "never put all your eggs in one basket".
> 
> FYI, there is a class-action lawsuit (darn, I said it, now I can't collect the pool money) against D* and Best Buy claiming that the word "lease" isn't in bold enough font. Especially since one day people were BUYING the box and the very next day people were LEASING it for the same exact price!
> 
> My point is separable security isn't enough. There are so many other features you (and D*) would want your box to have that you'd simply have to establish a business relationship with D*. Like Tivo has done in the past.


some good points- but I think thomson probably has more then one tornado prone factory. In fact I'd bet the use the same chinese or mexican contract assemply plants that everyone else seems to use.

I guess the relationship could go sour but if your lawyers aren't boobs then they could control that in the contract.

But maybe they just like having several vendors so I'll cede that point.

Anyway- I have to think more but i really dont beleive that tivo needs a business relationship with directv if they could get separable security. Tivo doesn't have a business relationship with anyone else and the S2's and S3's/THD's all work just fine and have enough features that people use them. Why is directv different? What features do they need from directv that only a business relationship would produce- as near as I can tell it might be PPV and VOD- everything else is one way no? And similar to cable directv should have to open up and make a standard 2-way protocol so that people could build PPV and VOD ready boxes. Tivo gets along without those feautres on cable and without those on the s2's hooked to dbs. The guide can be purchased from tribune just like it is with every other provider and with the s2's connected to dbs.

If you needed a business relationship to make a stb for any single provider then there's absolutely no point in making cable be an open market either and I dont think many would argue that.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Here's the bottom line if you take everything else out of the mix:


What's different from DBS compared to cable in regards to why the set top box rules shouldn't be enforced? 

Why shouldn't dbs be forced to play by the same rules as cable? 

Earlier on the FCC found differences and probably were valid; DBS was young and fragile, DBS subs generally bought their own boxes and leasing was minimal, you could purchase the boxes for cheap and prices where dropping (directv bragged how STB's prices droped from like 600 bucks to 60 bucks)there were choices of manufactures (directv listed like 8-10 brands) and features sets and UI at retail, and you could buy a box anywhere in the us and use it on the same provider anywhere in the the US.

At this point I see no reason why they are treated differently. All the reasons for being treated differnt are gone with the exception of the fact you can generally use a box purchased anywhere in the us anyplace else- but with the other differences gone I dont think that alone is enough to have 2 sets of rules.

I guess i need to go look some more and how FIOS is regulated and see if they are given exemptions but on the surface it looks to me like FIOS gets treated like cable so why shouldn't DBS? FIOS truly is a young fragile competitor at this point where DBS is NOT.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> What features do they need from directv that only a business relationship would produce- as near as I can tell it might be PPV and VOD- everything else is one way no? And similar to cable directv should have to open up and make a standard 2-way protocol so that people could build PPV and VOD ready boxes.


and since today DBS basiaclly uses a phone call or modem in the receiver to do the two way part - TiVo could easily add in the two way part and what is left is how to display the DBS provider PPV/VOD stuff.

Seems like tru2way/OCAP can handle the display chores and allow DBS to control that piece of the UI and instead of a DOCIS modem talking back if cable is attached send the communication with "headend" via internet with boradband or modem dial up call jus tteh way DBS does it today.

If DBS wants to improve on their 2way with something more integrated then what better time to do that but with a standards body group.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

It's a question of who has the better lobbyists. Cable is required to use cable cards (or the equivalent) in their own boxes. FiOS got an exemption from that requirement.



MichaelK said:


> Here's the bottom line if you take everything else out of the mix:
> 
> What's different from DBS compared to cable in regards to why the set top box rules shouldn't be enforced?
> 
> ...


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

lew said:


> It's a question of who has the better lobbyists. Cable is required to use cable cards (or the equivalent) in their own boxes. FiOS got an exemption from that requirement.


FiOS got a delay and has to convert to separable security later this year.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

the delay to my understanding (mostly reading the ncta's rebuttals- cant find the fcc order) is ONLY for the ban and only for DVR's- meaning that fios has a year to get moto to make their custtom qam/ip dvr's with cablecard slots.

It does not exempt fios from the big picture that fios must comply eventually. From what i see fios must still provide cablecards to all who ask and therefor support 3rd party use of separable security. And at the end of the year has to either have downloadable security ready for 3rd party's or start buying cablecard devices themselves.

So big picture FIOS must comply at some point whereas DBS does NOT- EVER. How does that make any sense?

anyone know what the deal is with u-verse? It sounds like they dont even rent cablecards out- how are they in the pile with DBS and can thumb their noses at stb competition and Fios can't?


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Seems like tru2way/OCAP can handle the display chores and allow DBS to control that piece of the UI and instead of a DOCIS modem talking back if cable is attached send the communication with "headend" via internet with boradband or modem dial up call jus tteh way DBS does it today.


I think the waiver should remain until tru2way formally gets approved. There's no point in dropping it now. And if the FCC is pondering dropping the waiver, it needs to warn D* and E* ahead of time so it has inputs into tru2way. Which means forcing CableLabs to let them in.

Tru2way can probably handle most of the features (though there is usually some cool feature that has to be written natively). But who's writing these apps? Won't D* write native code and install it in their own boxes before they even start writing the tru2way version? Even if they are required to use tru2way, you might see something like the way SDV is implemented in CableCard boxes today.

And if tru2way is anything like Java, it's not really 100% platform independent. There could be some tweaking to get it working on your box and your competitor's boxes. Would you prefer to be in front of that line or in the back?

With tru2way, anyone can build a box. If you want to be successful at it and beat your competition, a business relationship with D* gives you all these perks. FYI, even before all this security was required, nobody has been successful at it.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> anyone know what the deal is with u-verse? It sounds like they dont even rent cablecards out- how are they in the pile with DBS and can thumb their noses at stb competition and Fios can't?


They are exempt. Any IPTV or QAM/IPTV hybrid (i.e. Verizon) system was exempt until July 1, 2008. Expect a waiver request from AT&T to extend the deadline further anytime now. They are exempt because no one has plans to make a third-party DVR that supports IPTV.

Also note that the FCC says the should work towards a downloadable security system and doesn't specify tru2way (though it is hinted). Imagine Tivo having an AT&T DVR, Verizon DVR, DirecTivo 3, DishTivo, and the S4?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

BobCamp1 said:


> I think the waiver should remain until tru2way formally gets approved. There's no point in dropping it now. And if the FCC is pondering dropping the waiver, it needs to warn D* and E* ahead of time so it has inputs into tru2way. Which means forcing CableLabs to let them in.
> 
> Tru2way can probably handle most of the features (though there is usually some cool feature that has to be written natively). But who's writing these apps? Won't D* write native code and install it in their own boxes before they even start writing the tru2way version? Even if they are required to use tru2way, you might see something like the way SDV is implemented in CableCard boxes today.
> 
> ...


way back when Directv complained that the FCC was allowing cablelabs to make the standards. Directv suggested a 3rd party standards agency do it like ansi. The FCC basically said that there was really no one out there with any standards to suggest and that since the rules at the time only were going to apply that cablelabs was the logical standard maker.

But they specifically said outsiders should be involved.

That said it seems pretty clear cablelabs does what the ncta tells them and screws over everyone else. I'm sure Fios is hating the FCC right now for that decision. They basically have to use cablelabs stuff but have no say input into the standards.

As far as a warning- I'm sure they would give DBS plenty of time- they gave cable 10 years....

I still dont see the need for a busines relationship- can you explain? The whole point of the law and regulations is that a business relationship should NOT be required at all (and is specifically prohibited from being a requirment to making a 3rd party box) . Obviously being the house brand (or house add on brand) is beneficial - like tivo's deal with comcast. But why is it so much more important with dbs then with cable?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

BobCamp1 said:


> They are exempt. Any IPTV or QAM/IPTV hybrid (i.e. Verizon) system was exempt until July 1, 2008. Expect a waiver request from AT&T to extend the deadline further anytime now. They are exempt because no one has plans to make a third-party DVR that supports IPTV.
> 
> Also note that the FCC says the should work towards a down-loadable security system and doesn't specify tru2way (though it is hinted). Imagine Tivo having an AT&T DVR, Verizon DVR, DirecTivo 3, DishTivo, and the S4?


there's 2 different types of exemption and I think they are bing confused all over in this thread (not anyone specifically)

there is a major overlying concept of the law to create competition in the stb market. The fcc said to facilitate that there must be separable security made available. To do this cable (and fios ) use cable cards. Anyone that asks has to be given a cablecard to rent or buy with very limited exemptions (tiny systems, analog only systems, etc) DBS IS COMPLETEY EXEMPT at all from this. Hence there is no such thing as dbs-card or anything. DBS got this exemption for a variety of reasons in 1998 - as above I'd argue the reasons no longer exist in this day and age so the exemption should be lifted. Fios did not get a blanket exemption of the entire thing like DBS did. I'm not sure if if was the FCC or Verizon that decided to use cablecards to comply. I would guess it was probably Verizon- because as you say is anyone really going to make a box for cable, one for Verizon, one for dbs, one for att? (the FCC never should have let cablelabs go it on their own....) And probably Verizon didn't want the next generation of "cable ready" tv's not working with their system- but that's just my guess.

For the players that are not exempted from the competitive box rules there is a second phase of rules. After a certain period the integration ban was to take effect. The integration ban says that those who are forced to comply with the separate security rules can no longer buy devices that don't use the separable security themselves. Originally I think it was to start in 2005 but the NCTA got the FCC to push the deadline back repeatedly. Finally July of last year the FCC said enough the deadline as a whole will stand. They offered individual limited exemptions. FIOS got one of those Limited exemptions for advanced equipment for 1 year because motorola apparently didn't have a version of their hybrid qam/ip dvr's that could take a cablecard ready. Cablevision also got a limited time exemption (I think 1 year) becasue they use smartcards- I forget the reasoning. I dont know of any other extension waivers that were granted (but there might have been small ones)

I think you, BobCamp, hit the nail on the head- I recall yet another rulling that IPTV was off the hook. so I think that's how ATT got free (for now)

Had the FCC listened to directv years ago then there would possible be one unbiased standards organization and someone could built a box or tv that worked with cable, fios, or dbs. And then market pressure would have gotten ATT and the iptv players to use it as a basis also.

Also- not to get even messier but I believe tru2way is independent of download-able security (DCAS). I think the first true2way devices coming out this year will use cablecards for security. 2 way is a whole 'nother issue. (and they should all have to agree on a standard for that too)

Hopefully fios and cable agree on a single DCAS system but I don't see anything from the FCC saying they have to either. (and for that matter maybe the DBS companies should be involved just in case they ever want or get mandated to go that route)

Man I just depressed myself how messed up this all is- the FCC really made a mess. At least maybe cable will wind up with a unified system....

Maybe in another 10 years they all sit down and make a universal standard that covers 2-way, download-able security, mpeg2+4+whatever encoding, and anything else new that comes along so people can but a tv or a tivo and it just works.


----------



## wierdo (Apr 7, 2002)

GoHokies! said:


> Please show me where "Cable Labs" is specified in that legislation anywhere? Nobody is saying that DBS providers need to join cable labs. They need to have an open standard that 3rd parties can build hardware to. Nothing more.


What many seem not to grasp is that they already have this. It exists. It's in use today. Both providers use open signalling standards for the multiswitches and standard (or mostly standard, in the case of DirecTV) CAMs and broadcasting on the satellite.

DBS has been compliant since before the law was passed, in a technical sense. Their only issue is a business one, that they refuse to supply access cards for third party devices.


----------



## wierdo (Apr 7, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> way back when Directv complained that the FCC was allowing cablelabs to make the standards. Directv suggested a 3rd party standards agency do it like ansi. The FCC basically said that there was really no one out there with any standards to suggest


Ah yes, the FCC, one of the largest victims of NIH (not invented here) syndrome. DVB and its associated CAM interface were finished before the Telecom Act was even passed.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> I still dont see the need for a busines relationship- can you explain? The whole point of the law and regulations is that a business relationship should NOT be required at all (and is specifically prohibited from being a requirment to making a 3rd party box) . Obviously being the house brand (or house add on brand) is beneficial - like tivo's deal with comcast. But why is it so much more important with dbs then with cable?


Yes, that's the whole point of regulations. But in reality, where businesses actually have to earn a profit, it would be nice if:

1. You knew what the future features were going to be BEFORE they were released, just in case your box needs to be changed. That way you can avoid having a bunch of people complain about SDV or scrambling to build yet another box to sit on top of your $600 box just so it can do something basic like tune channels. (And the box still doesn't support VoD and PPV)

2. The cable/satellite provider recommends your box as a preferred box. You get product placement in stores. Customer support of the service provider is willing to perform basic customer support for you. When you order new service over the phone, the operator mentions your box as a choice.

Just look at the "Designed for Windows" and "WiFi" logos on your computer hardware, for example. You can design to standards, but everyone takes liberties with them in order to provide more features so they can distinguish themselves and charge more. And sometimes the standard is missing something vital that your box needs to include. That's why CableLabs exists. You can design to tru2way all you want, but if your box doesn't get CableLabs approval for whatever reason it's not going to be allowed on any cable network.

It's not more important to have a business relationship with DBS than with cable -- it's just as important. It's just that this thread was focusing on DBS.

Also, I think the DirecTivo box was third-party. It's as "third-party" as any cell phone you buy. All service providers have input into the phone design, approve the design, and run their tests on your phone before they allow that phone on their network. Separable security (which GSM phones have) buys you nothing.

Tivo didn't understand this business model, and D* subsequently dropped them. Tivo is still allowed to use the existing separable security to continue making the S2 DirecTivos. But look what happened. D* switched to MPEG 4 for HD. They added VoD, more satellites, remote scheduling, media center, game lounge, etc. Almost no one wants the HR-10s anymore even though they still work (they'll stop getting all HD except for OTA later this year).

Finally, if you sue someone for $80 million and win like Tivo did to E*, don't expect them to give you the time of day, much less allow your boxes on their system.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

seems to me the only decent way to clean up this mess -

the FCC needs to start the future process now 
point to an open standards body like ANSI
compel *all* Multi Video broadcasters to be a part of it for the next gen of open access - assumed to be downloadable but they work that out in the open standards body

let verizon and AT&T roll onto cable cards as they are doing now

compel DBS to allow 3rd parties to use the access cards they have now and give them some limited time to form a small group to work out any issues and provide testing for 3rd party certification

ther is no direct analogy so I will try this simplistic one
the end goal - just like you buy a PC today and *know* you can hook it up to multiple internet providers because of ANSI standards on ISO networking stack you should be able to do the same with a DVR. Sure all the PCs are capable of different things(some MAC, some windows - some can run either now or maybe LINUX) and it is the market that decides the mix of those things not MAC having its own internet and touting it as better or leasing out hardware solely so you can get to iTunes..


----------



## wierdo (Apr 7, 2002)

BobCamp1 said:


> Also, I think the DirecTivo box was third-party. It's as "third-party" as any cell phone you buy. All service providers have input into the phone design, approve the design, and run their tests on your phone before they allow that phone on their network. Separable security (which GSM phones have) buys you nothing.


Since you brought it up, I can buy hundreds of GSM phones not approved or sold by AT&T (or T-Mobile, or one of the other small GSM carriers here in the US) and use it on their network, provided it supports the correct frequencies, which many do. Nokia, Sony-Ericsson, Samsung, Siemens, and the list goes on.

The only thing messing with that market is carrier subsidies (and SIM locking) for the ones they decide to sell, but it's certainly a far healthier market than the one for DBS or cable boxes in the US. If I'm in Chicago or NYC, I can even walk into the Nokia store and choose from at least 50 phones that aren't sold by any carrier here, along with a couple that are. In Europe, of course, there's quite a healthy market even for DBS boxes, since the providers will supply you with a CAM to use with whatever DVB-compliant equipment the user desires.

So yeah, thanks for bringing it up..satellite boxes should be like GSM. (and they would be, if the providers would change their business practices)

Edited to add: And just FWIW, Verizon and Alltel have long been willing to activate CDMA phones not sold by them, if you can get in contact with the right person who knows how to add the ESN to their database. Even Cricket will do it now. They can do this because there's a standard. Sprint, on the other hand, adamantly refuses. It's harder than it is with GSM, but it can be done.

Personally, I think we'd be far better off if we joined in the worldwide standards in all of these technologies. Economies of scale, and all that.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

wierdo said:


> Personally, I think we'd be far better off if we joined in the worldwide standards in all of these technologies. Economies of scale, and all that.


sshh, you will give the FCC a heart attack 

though of course that is my arguments for dropping the waiver taken to its logical endpoint :up:


----------



## wierdo (Apr 7, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> sshh, you will give the FCC a heart attack


I wasn't previously aware of this, but apparently DirecTV is using DVB-S2 for their MPEG-4 channels, so even they are moving closer to international standards. Of course, all the old sats are still using DSS, but at least they're moving in that direction.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

wierdo said:


> Since you brought it up, I can buy hundreds of GSM phones not approved or sold by AT&T (or T-Mobile, or one of the other small GSM carriers here in the US) and use it on their network....


I worked in the cell phone industry for one of those companies you mentioned above. I'm using an AT&T designed phone on T-Mobile. (the phone came right off the assembly line and was NEVER SIM locked). I can do basic stuff like make calls and send text messages. Actually, that's all I can do. I don't have access to any of the fancier features that have grown to be part of what a cell phone does. If this phone were sold as I'm using it, no one would buy it. I use it because I acquired it for free, so I'm getting what I paid for.

Because of SIM/phone locking, you have to search for an unlocked phone, and chances are that LEGAL unlocked phones are very expensive, used, or "very" old. And "finding the right person to activate your ESN" doesn't sound like something that is robustly supported or advertised. As you said, Sprint flat out refuses. And if you buy a new phone, you're locked into a two-year agreement because the phone is subsidized. For all of these reasons, the advantage separable security gives you is useless. (To let you in on a secret, carriers absolutely HATE the SIM card and U.S. cell phone makers don't love it, either. We had so many problems with our GSM products that we didn't have with our CDMA products).

And all of those phones in the Nokia store were at one time made for and approved by one of the U.S. carriers (yes, you can bring over a phone over from Europe or Asia, but that's pretty rare, and Europe is rapidly migrating to the U.S. model). It doesn't change the fact Nokia has to work with service providers in order to get the phone designs approved and make sure they support the latest features. Also, only major cities have Nokia stores. Where I live, you have to buy the phone through the carrier or Ebay. And all the phones on Ebay that have U.S. sellers were definitely designed for a U.S. carrier. Know how I can tell? Quick, look at the front of your phone. Whose logo is on the front? For my wife's phone, it's T-Mobile andSamsung. For my phone, it's AT&T and where I used to work. How did the carrier's name get there?

Finally, I obviously can't take a GSM phone and activate it on Verizon's network. And combination phones flop because they were too big and expensive (I remember the GSM/AMPS product -- the phone had two different phone numbers!) So if you own a D* DVR, it'll only ever work with D*. Same with E*. And AT&T. And maybe Verizon in the future if they fully switch to IPTV. Separable security (which D* and E* already have) doesn't buy you anything. D* still needs to activate/pair (read: approve) the card and your receiver first. Even with cable, most companies require a truck roll to install the CableCard. Why? To make sure you don't screw it up, and to make sure you're plugging it into something that's been approved by CableLabs (that's the theory anyway -- reality is a little different).


----------



## wierdo (Apr 7, 2002)

BobCamp1 said:


> I worked in the cell phone industry for one of those companies you mentioned above. I'm using an AT&T designed phone on T-Mobile. (the phone came right off the assembly line and was NEVER SIM locked). I can do basic stuff like make calls and send text messages. Actually, that's all I can do. I don't have access to any of the fancier features that have grown to be part of what a cell phone does. If this phone were sold as I'm using it, no one would buy it. I use it because I acquired it for free, so I'm getting what I paid for.
> 
> Because of SIM/phone locking, you have to search for an unlocked phone, and chances are that LEGAL unlocked phones are very expensive, used, or "very" old. And "finding the right person to activate your ESN" doesn't sound like something that is robustly supported or advertised. As you said, Sprint flat out refuses. And if you buy a new phone, you're locked into a two-year agreement because the phone is subsidized. For all of these reasons, the advantage separable security gives you is useless. (To let you in on a secret, carriers absolutely HATE the SIM card and U.S. cell phone makers don't love it, either. We had so many problems with our GSM products that we didn't have with our CDMA products).
> 
> And all of those phones in the Nokia store were at one time made for and approved by one of the U.S. carriers


No, they weren't. They were approved by the FCC, but that's it. No US carrier is interested in the E50, or the E90, or until recently even the N95. Relatively mainstream mail order houses (PC Mall, TigerDirect, etc.) are now selling Euro-spec phones that will never see the light of day on any carrier.

Legal is not an operative word when it comes to unlocking one's cell phone. Not that it's hard to get AT&T to unlock a phone they sold you. But even if they're uninterested in helping you, one of the three letter agencies made it clear several months ago that there's nothing illegal about unlocking phones.

As far as using one carrier's phone on another network and not getting all the features, that's news to me. Every phone I've had lets you set the MMS and GPRS settings so that they can be used on any carrier. Nokia (as an example that I'm familar with), even provides a utility on their website that will send your phone an SMS that will configure all its settings for whatever carrier you desire. I used to have an E61. It was never sold by any US carrier (Cingular forced Nokia to come up with a bastardized version of it, the E62), yet I somehow managed to use all its features on Cingular. I don't know what kind of phone you're using, but it sounds like you need to visit the T-Mobile support site and set up your phone properly. Or visit the manufacturer's site and have them send you the proper settings.

Yes, a brand new unlocked phone is expensive. That's because your carrier isn't subsidizing it to the tune of a few hundred bucks. Even then, I was surprised at the reasonableness of the prices of most of the phones at the Nokia store when I was there. Only a few were over $400.

Oh, and contracts? Most carriers have decided in the last few months to let you bring your own phone with no contract, probably due to Google's yammering on about getting into the market. Cingular allowed that for a very long while, then didn't for about a year, and are now (as AT&T) allowing no contract activations. Of course, finding a person in a store to do the activation is a different story, as the employees ignore policy because they don't get a commission for no contract activations, while they get a couple hundred bucks if they can convince you to take a two year contract. That's not a failing of policy, that's a failing of the employees. Sort of like getting a third party phone activated on Verizon or Alltel.



> Finally, I obviously can't take a GSM phone and activate it on Verizon's network. And combination phones flop because they were too big and expensive (I remember the GSM/AMPS product -- the phone had two different phone numbers!) So if you own a D* DVR, it'll only ever work with D*. Same with E*. And AT&T. And maybe Verizon in the future if they fully switch to IPTV. Separable security (which D* and E* already have) doesn't buy you anything. D* still needs to activate/pair (read: approve) the card and your receiver first. Even with cable, most companies require a truck roll to install the CableCard. Why? To make sure you don't screw it up, and to make sure you're plugging it into something that's been approved by CableLabs (that's the theory anyway -- reality is a little different).


You can thank the FCC for deciding to give up on standards on cell phones. I probably wouldn't have the one I want had they forced a standard, but at least it would make the phones interoperable.

In the case of DirecTV and Dish, it would be nearly trivial to make a receiver that worked for both. The main difference between DSS and DVB is just the program tables. The hardware can be identical. The receiver would just have to determine whether it was receiving DVB or DSS formatted streams and decode appropriately. Soon enough, when DirecTV lets DSS rot (probably inside of 10 years), they will be 100% compatible.


----------



## madbeachcat (Jan 31, 2002)

Excuse me if this has already been brought up or dismissed as stupid. But when Directv comes out with the HDPC ( hopefully this year), what is there to keep Tivo, or anyone else, for that matter, from writing software for the PC to put their GUI on your computer to use for your recording.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> the point of the orignal bill on common access was to allow for innovation among 3rd parties which creates jobs and intellectual property for future business growth. That is indeed the job of Congress.


JohnBrowning's point, though, is likely that there are more efficient ways of creating jobs and fostering business growth. This is an important issue for us, here, but not to as many others as would be necessary to grant this domain any specific priority over others.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> basically if cablelabs standards dont bring tangible choice then the FCC should mandate standards.


An expressed opinion. It didn't carry the weight of law.



MichaelK said:


> Apparently the FCC forgot about that at some point....


Or didn't really mean it. Perhaps they just wanted to say it, so it would look like they were concerned about it.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

morac said:


> Why not contact the FCC or your senator or representative instead of signing a Internet petition that will just be ignored?


This is a great point; the answer, of course, is that few of _those _folks really care about this stuff. And that's really the issue. If folks want these issues to be looked-at with the same concern as many folks here look at them, then what is necessary is making the issues involve more important to the average person. More television enthusiasts means more priority placed on television.

Just to keep this in perspective....

I'm participating in discussions, right now, regarding problems folks are having with Closed Captioning. This isn't a matter of what box you use to receive programming or how much you have to pay each month to use it... This is a matter of actually being able to understand the content of the programming you're paying for. And we cannot get even _that_ issue raised to a high-enough level of priority, in the hearts and minds of the American people, so as to support the regulatory and legal relief necessary. We cannot get the FCC to impose stringent enough requirements, nor get them to enforce the requirements they have imposed. And again, I'm referring to accommodation for a legally-protected handicap, not something which is comparatively discretionary, as in the case of the DBS waiver we're talking about in this thread.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> JohnBrowning's point, though, is likely that there are more efficient ways of creating jobs and fostering business growth. This is an important issue for us, here, but not to as many others as would be necessary to grant this domain any specific priority over others.


No - I think he just did not want Govt. meddling in such stuff at all.

And sure it obviously has not been a priority since the telcom act. Either some business (larger than TiVo ) or enough constituents have to make it a priority.
At this point I imagine most beltway workers and Politician are more concerned about what change is coming for next year and how best to deal with it.

My outlook is one of noise now and see what change, or not, finally comes to Washington that will set the tone for the next 4 years.


----------



## Bonanzaair (Aug 26, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> My outlook is one of noise now and see what change, or not, finally comes to Washington that will set the tone for the next 4 years.


Yes...I'm looking forward to that too.

Great discussion everyone - Thanks to everyone for sharing the knowledge!

Bonanza


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Sorry, I don't want to get this too far off topic, so I'll just reply to a few things and that's it.



wierdo said:


> No, they weren't. They were approved by the FCC, but that's it. No US carrier is interested in the E50, or the E90....
> 
> I used to have an E61. It was never sold by any US carrier (Cingular forced Nokia to come up with a bastardized version of it, the E62)....
> 
> ...


So you're essentially agreeing with me. It is not physically impossible to get a non-approved phone activated with no contract. It is just very, very difficult. 99% of the people just get the phone through their provider with their limited choices and a two-year contract.

Also, Cingular made Nokia change the E61 to an E62. That happens with every single carrier with almost every phone. We once had a CDMA phone that had both a Verizon and Sprint variant. The software and hardware were different in both phones. We didn't bother making the "generic" version of the phone after that -- what's the point?

My job used to be going through and disabling things customers didn't want. Nobody wanted the phone to allow pictures from the camera phone to be transferred directly to the PC, so I disabled that. For Sprint, we were not allowed to sell the USB cable for data connectivity for the longest time, or allow such a connection over Bluetooth. (We sneaked something in there anyway...shhhh  ).

Do you think cell phone manufacturers have millions of customers? No one in the industry thinks that. In the U.S., they have two customers for CDMA (Sprint and Verizon) and two for GSM (T-Mobile and AT&T). That's it. That's who they are really designing the phones for. The end-user is not the customer -- he is an afterthought. If you don't get customer approval and allow the real customers to have a say in your design, you won't have enough volume to stay in the business very long.

Does Tivo have enough resources to make a satellite Tivo, an IPTV Tivo, and a cable Tivo? Not today. Considering D* doesn't want them and E* hates their guts, I think satellite is on the bottom of that list. So while there are technically only a few things stopping a DirecTivo 3 from existing, some of them are huge and have nothing to do with FCC regulations or technology.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

BobCamp1 said:


> Does Tivo have enough resources to make a satellite Tivo, an IPTV Tivo, and a cable Tivo? Not today. Considering D* doesn't want them and E* hates their guts, I think satellite is on the bottom of that list. So while there are technically only a few things stopping a DirecTivo 3 from existing, some of them are huge and have nothing to do with FCC regulations or technology.


first off - The Cable TiVo can do IP downloads in many forms and it would not take much more to have it work with specific IPTV broadcasters if they allowed it. So really that third distinction is not real.

*And if the FCC forced a open access on DBS then it would not matter one iota if DirectTV or DISH wanted a DBS TiVo; That is kinda the whole point of mandated open access.*

Then TiVo or a TV maker or something no one has thought of yet could decide if it fit their business model to make something that accessed DBS. Again the whole point of mandated open access.

You can bet there would be no TiVo/Comcast deal without the mandated acces.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> first off - The Cable TiVo can do IP downloads in many forms and it would not take much more to have it work with specific IPTV broadcasters if they allowed it. So really that third distinction is not real.
> 
> *And if the FCC forced a open access on DBS then it would not matter one iota if DirectTV or DISH wanted a DBS TiVo; That is kinda the whole point of mandated open access.*
> 
> ...


I assumed that the IPTivo would be different because they could drop the QAM tuner, DOICS modem, etc. and a few other chips to save money. But the more I think about it, maybe the box I'm thinking of is just a PC, so who would bother to compete here? Maybe this is a job for Microsoft and Dell and not companies like Sony and Tivo. So maybe there are just two categories here as far as Tivo is concerned.

I don't remember there being an FCC mandate for a DirecTivo, yet it did exist. So why is an FCC mandate needed for a Comcast/Tivo deal? And even if one of those related mandates helped that deal a little, shouldn't we have seen a TWC/Tivo DVR by now? Why aren't any of the other 20 cable companies scared of the FCC like Comcast is? Comcast isn't scared, they just wanted the Tivo GUI on their DVR.

All service providers (D*, E*, cable, etc.) care what devices plug into their service. They may ban certain devices on their network if they are causing a lot of problems. Otherwise, they then have spend extra to support somebody else's crappy product, and that bad product makes their service look bad!

But that's what CableLabs is for, right? Shouldn't they be filtering out the bad products? Well, they are only (supposedly) testing to the standard. There are always gray areas in the standards or required functionality that simply isn't spelled out. If you waited until the standards were perfect, they'd never be released. So they are released as-is, and you ask each service provider how they implemented the missing/questionable stuff in the standard. And they say, "we'll tell you, but first, could you add a button to your remote? It's for a feature we are putting in later. If you do, we'll also recommend your product when someone signs up for service." Then before you know it, the market evolves to the cell-phone market, where *the most successful companies cater to the service providers' needs * even though access is more or less completely open.

The good news is that the current Tivo CEO gets it. Tivo is now getting into bed with the cable companies. Tivo has embraced tru2way where they used to oppose it. That is why the S4 will be tru2way and not DCR+ (DCR+ is destined to fail -- it's not supported by cable companies). This is also why the SDV box is being created for Tivo, even though it's financially a loss for the cable company. It keeps Tivo focused on the S4 (and quiet about SDV and DCR+ as well).

Believe it or not, innovation comes from both the service provider and the equipment provider. For the service providers' ideas to reach the customer, the smart equipment provider incorporates these ideas into their design. The not-so-smart ones struggle.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

BobCamp1 said:


> I don't remember there being an FCC mandate for a DirecTivo, yet it did exist. So why is an FCC mandate needed for a Comcast/Tivo deal?


 DISH had taken a DVR leap forward by getting at TiVo IP property. DirectTV wisely saw they needed a DVR quickly as well to compete with DISH so they went to the company best able to deliver quality fast.

Cable companies did not have to compete in that same way as early on they all had bad DVRs  If there had been no common access mandate then the cable companies would have stayed closed off and done the slow and steady DVR upgrades. With the mandate in place and TiVo obviously going to make a DVR that would do dual tuner HD Comcast did the smart thing and loked to make money off that versus just compete.

Now Comcast is working SDV and tru2way on their own terms and TiVo is happy to go along for the ride as they get the universal 2 way that TiVo needs. It was not Comcast scared by the FCC but just seeing the writing on the wall and having the resources to get a jump on everyone else.

The other cable companies are looking at going along with tru2way as easy enough and keeping the FCC off their backs as well. Also a standard gives them something to setup the tests around so they can do what they can to keep crappy products off the wire. Of course even the standards do not go smooth - eg Cable cards - that is just life.

and of course the current CEO gets it. He turend TiVo toward working with Comcast as he saw that Comcast had the clout to get done what Tivo needed and that Comcast understood how to keep the FCC happy at the same time. The win win I posted about 4 pages ago in this very thread.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

> DISH had taken a DVR leap forward by getting at TiVo IP property. DirectTV wisely saw they needed a DVR quickly as well to compete with DISH so they went to the company best able to deliver quality fast.


Your satellite DVR history lesson is not correct.
The way it went - Dish and Microsoft were pioneers with a DishPlayer. It was developed in a same time TiVo was and was in retail about 3 months before TiVo (Sears had Dishplayer on sale early summer but did not have TiVo until Sep'99 - I bought very first TiVo sold in my local Sears store). First DishPlayer had been developed by Microsoft and Dish and had nothing to do with TiVo IP. Then Microsoft made a deal with DirecTV to develop Ultimate TV that was based on DishPlayer but had dual tuner. It pissed Charlie off and he decided to do his own DVR (and as 12 technically illiterate people and a judge that rules 80% in favor of patent holders concluded - he infringed on TiVo patent doing that). DirecTV also made a deal with TiVo. But first dual tuner DirecTV DVR was Ultimate TV, TiVo did not activate the second tuner until almost a year later.


----------



## CharlesH (Aug 29, 2002)

wierdo said:


> Legal is not an operative word when it comes to unlocking one's cell phone. Not that it's hard to get AT&T to unlock a phone they sold you. But even if they're uninterested in helping you, one of the three letter agencies made it clear several months ago that there's nothing illegal about unlocking phones.


 The agency that made this ruling was the Library of Congress, which stated that unlocking a phone for the purpose of getting it to work on another provider was not a DMCA violation. The DMCA law designates the Library of Congress as the agency to decide such issues. They didn't require that the provider assist you in unlocking their phones, just that the provider couldn't have you hauled up for violating the DMCA if you did it. And they didn't require that any other provider had to activate the (now unlocked) phone.


----------



## DeathRider (Dec 30, 2006)

ah30k said:


> Satellite TV would never exist today if they followed you advice. Comparing the launch of satellite TV to nuts and bolts seem a bit of an un-natural comparison to you?


Really? If no such thing as standards, how could broadcast TV develop (you don't think there would be more than just PAL and NTSC?? How about HDTV?

How about the PC, ie VESA, (ISA, PCI, AGP, PCIe - we all know what happened to Microchannel when IBM tried to make it on their own)? Programming languages? Program interoperability?

Memory chips like PC66/100/133, DDR? DDR2? DDR3?

The internet as we know it? The WWW is not a standard?

As far as SAT TV, does it really matter. End result, it has to be able to "transmit" to the TV, so for all intent and purpose, the end result/outcome is the same.

Joe consumer isn't buying a TV that is only compatible with SAT or Cable or OTA. It works with any/all. So, anything attached between the wall and the TV should work as well.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

DeathRider, what are you talking about and how does it relate to my post that you quoted?

None of your words are properly formed sentences or questions so I'm not sure of your intent. Are you asking me if there are standards in the world? Obviously, yes there are and they are darn appropriate in the proper context.

My point was that going to the hardware store for nuts and bolts is a completely different context than launching a satellite television system. Also, the major satellite systems would likely not have gotten off the ground had they been required to support CableCARDs.


----------



## DeathRider (Dec 30, 2006)

bicker said:


> The role of government in this is to balance the needs of consumers and businesses, by regulating interstate and foreign commerce. Note that the role of government is only to provide for what *it *considers reasonable access to services at what *it *considers reasonable prices. Period.


Technically, doesn't SATTV fall under interstate commerce, since there are no borders from where you can receive a SAT signal?


----------



## DeathRider (Dec 30, 2006)

samo said:


> And how does "will of the people" benefit me and another 25 million DBS users?
> Except for the few TiVo stockholders, how many people will benefit from implementing cable card like system for DBS?
> In my case, between DirecTV and Dish I have 9 DVRs (not counting 2 SA TiVos that are collecting dust). I spent quite a bit of money for this hardware. You are telling me that I will benefit if I will have to buy 5 TiVos and 5 subscriptions (assuming that TiVo will work with both providers using cable card like device)
> Right now my subscription cost $6/month for 4 DirecTV DVRs and $5/month for VIP622 (4 of my 508 are free).
> My DVRs work fine including 2 DirecTivos (although I prefer DBS provider's DVRs). Why best interests of 25 million DBS users who are perfectly happy with the hardware they have now should be ignored to benefit few TiVo shareholders?


How much would a landline cost me? Or can I set it up for local only? I know it would still be less than what a multiple sub to TiVo would be (haven't had a landline in over 10 years)

I also know my landlady would frown upon me for installing a dish of any kind on her property


----------



## DeathRider (Dec 30, 2006)

ah30k said:


> DeathRider, what are you talking about and how does it relate to my post that you quoted?
> 
> None of your words are properly formed sentences or questions so I'm not sure of your intent. Are you asking me if there are standards in the world? Obviously, yes there are and they are darn appropriate in the proper context.
> 
> My point was that going to the hardware store for nuts and bolts is a completely different context than launching a satellite television system. Also, the major satellite systems would likely not have gotten off the ground had they been required to support CableCARDs.


Sorry if this forum doesn't automatically do multiquotes.

You were answering a post about plumbing "standards"...which i would think most took as an analogy

Cable cards were not around when SAT was launched. Sorry if I didn't post complete sentences. I didn't think I needed them to convey my point.

SAT has been launched. They have had many years to become "standardized"

From reading more of this thread, I don't think cable cards, whether being 2 way or not has any significance.

Why?

Because, other than a few TVs, how many two-way devices has CableLabs certified??? As was posted, they have to be OCAP/Tru2way before they can even be certified. Then the device just becomes a generic dumb piece of hardware that has the cable's software/guide on it. Granted, if the TiVo/Comcast box takes off, it may be a boon for TiVo, more so than if DBS ever does take TiVo back into it's fold.

There is the "Spirit of the Law," as opposed to the "Letter of the Law." But I guess it's whether your left brain or right brain which one you'd favor...

If you think I may be off on another tangent, you should be able to guess which side of the brain I use most


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

DeathRider said:


> Technically, doesn't SATTV fall under interstate commerce, since there are no borders from where you can receive a SAT signal?


The government *does *have the power to regulate DBS. They simply choose to waive the applicable regulations.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

DeathRider said:


> There is the "Spirit of the Law," as opposed to the "Letter of the Law."


I've found that, generally, people use the term "spirit of the law" to refer to their personal perspective with regard to something.

Regardless, the reality is that the law itself is a dynamic entity, changing with the winds of national (not personal) discretion. Nothing is clearer, today, than the fact that our country objects to government regulation and finds in favor of business in such situations whenever it possibly can.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> Regardless, the reality is that the law itself is a dynamic entity, changing with the winds of national (not personal) discretion. Nothing is clearer, today, than the fact that our country objects to government regulation and finds in favor of business in such situations whenever it possibly can.


to quote a national campaign of the moment
"It's time for a change"


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

DeathRider said:


> As far as SAT TV, does it really matter. End result, it has to be able to "transmit" to the TV, so for all intent and purpose, the end result/outcome is the same.


The point is that (in the USA) there is no "standard" for the in between bits from the wall to the TV, to the point anybody can make a device that can do what the provides box can do, or whatever the developer/manufacturer wants, without having to work a deal with the provider.

That matters, primarily, in that consumers have no choice but the provider's DVR for satellite HD, unlike for cable, customers have the choice to use a TiVo HD DVR.


----------



## Bonanzaair (Aug 26, 2006)

classicsat said:


> That matters, primarily, in that consumers have no choice but the provider's DVR for satellite HD, unlike for cable, customers have the choice to use a TiVo HD DVR.


Ok - Up to a whopping 80 signatures for the petition. Any suggestions on what websites to post to get a larger audience? Everyone is welcome to push this petition along.

Bonanza


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

Bonanzaair said:


> Ok - Up to a whopping 80 signatures for the petition. Any suggestions on what websites to post to get a larger audience? Everyone is welcome to push this petition along.
> 
> Bonanza


What do you expect to happen from this? Specifically, who will send the results of the petition to whom? (I always get who/whom mixed up  )


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

what makes anyone think that even after tru2way is available as a standard that enough people will want to buy their own box to support a third party box industry selling boxes direct to consumers? Even if it supported Cable, Dish, and Directv. Isn't that exactly what Tivo failed at doing for the last 8 years? Tivo has already concluded that trying to sell standalone boxes is not worth banging their head against the wall for another 8 years. Yet this request seems aimed squarely at Tivo doing what they have decided is not a profitable strategy.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

HiDefGator said:


> what makes anyone think that even after tru2way is available as a standard that enough people will want to buy their own box to support a third party box industry selling boxes direct to consumers? Even if it supported Cable, Dish, and Directv. Isn't that exactly what Tivo failed at doing for the last 8 years? Tivo has already concluded that trying to sell standalone boxes is not worth banging their head against the wall for another 8 years. Yet this request seems aimed squarely at Tivo doing what they have decided is not a profitable strategy.


single tuner Analog SD and klunky IR balster or spotty serial cable
just can not be compared to dual tuner digital/HD all in one box

oh and the other odd thing is that TiVo may get on the band wagon of dropping cbale cards if Tru2way did not really need them


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> the point of the orignal bill on common access was to allow for innovation among 3rd parties which creates jobs and intellectual property for future business growth. That is indeed the job of Congress.


I agree with you. How would it be if each radio station required it's own receiver? And to throw another iron in the fire...WTH is with two HD broadcast formats? QAM and ATSC? Couldn't we decide on one for both OTA and cable? At some point we'll probably have a third for Sat broadcasters...


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> to quote a national campaign of the moment
> "It's time for a change"


Yes, let's wait and see if he wins.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> Yes, let's wait and see if he wins.


Yep, I love the irony of the facthe will have to go old school and win in the smoky back rooms of the convention itself.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

Stormspace said:


> I agree with you. How would it be if each radio station required it's own receiver? And to throw another iron in the fire...WTH is with two HD broadcast formats? QAM and ATSC? Couldn't we decide on one for both OTA and cable? At some point we'll probably have a third for Sat broadcasters...


They are digital. HD by its nature is digitally carried, but digital is not necessarily HD.,

ATSC, accurately, is an end-to-end digital system for OTA digital TV. Specifically, it uses 8VSB modulation, which is the analog to QAM on cable. 8VSB is used because it works much better in open air than QAM does. QAM is designed for a closed cable that doesn't have the vagaries an open air signal has to deal with.


----------



## wierdo (Apr 7, 2002)

BobCamp1 said:


> Sorry, I don't want to get this too far off topic, so I'll just reply to a few things and that's it.
> 
> So you're essentially agreeing with me. It is not physically impossible to get a non-approved phone activated with no contract. It is just very, very difficult. 99% of the people just get the phone through their provider with their limited choices and a two-year contract.
> 
> ...


Your experience in a company making mostly CDMA phones for US consumption gives you a distorted view of the handset market. It is true that here, sadly, most handsets are sold through carriers. You are applying that same view to the satellite market. In the rest of the world, it is not so, and it is becoming less so here in the US. Some handset makers (Nokia and SE both, plus others in a less directed manner) are working very hard to turn the US market around. I can only hope that someone will do the same with the satellite market someday.

If TiVo wanted to make a DVB-based DVR, it wouldn't take much effort at all. Some off the shelf chips and a bit of UI that they mostly already have in the form of the DirecTiVo. They would be stupid to do it today, though, as Dish Network wouldn't supply access cards for it. The FCC should require differently, IMO.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

HiDefGator said:


> what makes anyone think that even after tru2way is available as a standard that enough people will want to buy their own box to support a third party box industry selling boxes direct to consumers? Even if it supported Cable, Dish, and Directv. Isn't that exactly what Tivo failed at doing for the last 8 years? Tivo has already concluded that trying to sell standalone boxes is not worth banging their head against the wall for another 8 years. Yet this request seems aimed squarely at Tivo doing what they have decided is not a profitable strategy.


I'm not all that sure there will be a huge market for 3rd party set top boxes, but in my mind there will be plenty of TV's that integrate the appropriate tuner if such a standard became widely availible. Panasonic seems to think it will be worth their while- but i guess time will tell what will happen.

But if the tv with the tuner built in market is robust that will allow niche players like tivo to build devices to connect to the standards based cable system.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

wierdo said:


> Your experience in a company making mostly CDMA phones for US consumption gives you a distorted view of the handset market. It is true that here, sadly, most handsets are sold through carriers. You are applying that same view to the satellite market. In the rest of the world, it is not so, and it is becoming less so here in the US.


Actually, my company made both equally worldwide. And both GSM and CDMA phones were heavily customized. More so in the U.S. than Europe, but the European carriers were starting to ask to be involved early on in the design process as well.

Look at the GSM cell phone companies who have done well in Europe, then look at the GSM carriers who have done well in the U.S. Except for Motorola (who does customize), it's not the same, is it? The WSJ had a good article on this last Thursday, about how Nokia is now letting the carriers into their early design phases for comments. It is needed as Nokia does not have a U.S. market presence. What works in one market does not work in another market.

I apply the U.S. cellular market to satellite because it's the closest example there is. There is already separable security. And this market is in the U.S. Service providers in general have figured out that they need (or would heavily prefer) a say in the interface that the end-user will see. Either they make the boxes on their own (like satellite does) or they want to be heavily involved (which is why there is no DirecTivo anymore). The days of a "pure" third-party box are over.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Not sure it really matters what works best or not (having the government mandate standards or allow industry to do what they think is best). That debate goes on and on in many threads here daily. Not sure there&#8217;s ever going to be a consensus.

I think in this case (and in the case of cell phones too)- it's a matter of what the government is or is not going to regulate. So far for cable there are half baked attempts to regulate standards(whatever the intent of the half baked approach), for DBS there is no regulation to mandate openness, and for cell phones currently there is no regulation but there is apparently some grumbling from the government that the wireless carriers should open their networks. (google with all it's money and power wants open wireless networks, verizon has voluntarily said they will- reportedly because of google's threats and/or fcc grumbling- or maybe because they think it's good business, and if I understand correctly some of the better licenses recently auctioned off to reuse the analog tv spectrum had FCC restrictions that the networks built MUST be open to all). 

My personal thought about the cable and dbs thing is that if it's supposed to be mandated for cable tv then why isn't it mandated for DBS? And if the government doesn't intend to mandate it for either at this juncture then why still saddle cable with damaging regulations? We can argue which is better- regulated or not. But to me what's worse is right now the dbs company's are getting an unfair advantage because they are unregulated in this manner while cable is regulated and in my mind the government should endeavor to create an equal playing field for all and not favor one player or another. Depending on who you listen too the amounts differ but I don&#8217;t see anyone arguing that the forced use of cablecards for cable is free. So why should cable have to pay a regulatory &#8220;tax&#8221; for every single box they deploy when dbs doesn&#8217;t have to? IF it&#8217;s beneficial for society then it&#8217;s beneficial and all should comply, if it&#8217;s a wasteful &#8220;tax&#8221; that shouldn&#8217;t be imposed then it shouldn&#8217;t be imposed on any. But it shouldn&#8217;t be half way.

The earlier assumptions the FCC used seem for the most part to be basically false at this time- so why is DBS still allowed this free pass that is damaging the competitive balance between them and cable. Why is tiny (in market share) little FIOS forced to comply with 3rd party rules when DBS isn&#8217;t if one of the reasons DBS wasn&#8217;t originally regulated because they were a young new competitor? If the FCC has decided that DBS should continue to have an exemption because they are still at some other disadvantage (lots of reasonable arguments could probably be made) then shouldn&#8217;t the government be open and honest and disclose that? Or is it just a case of DBS has a better lobby then cable and verizon?

No one seems to want to weigh in why TODAY cable and fios is regulated this way and dbs is not...


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> So far for cable there are half baked attempts to regulate open standards(whatever the intent of the half baked approach).


The standards aren't exactly "open". They are just standards, to one degree or another.


> My personal thought about the cable and dbs thing is that if it's supposed to be mandated for cable tv then why isn't it mandated for DBS?


IIRC DBS got a perpetual waiver, because they were "emerging". IMO, then would have been the time to build a common (to a point) platform, so not as many receivers need be changed out.But that is hindsight.


> Why is tiny (in market share) little FIOS forced to comply with 3rd party rules when DBS isnt if one of the reasons DBS wasnt originally regulated because they were a young new competitor?


AFAIK, They aren't being forced to, they are choosing to. They aren't even a member of CableLabs.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

classicsat said:


> The standards aren't exactly "open". They are just standards, to one degree or another.
> ...


sorry- you are correct- i edited that out of the original post.



classicsat said:


> ...
> 
> IIRC DBS got a perpetual waiver, because they were "emerging". IMO, then would have been the time to build a common (to a point) platform, so not as many receivers need be changed out.But that is hindsight.
> ...


actually NO. or not exactly. The FCC exempted them by regulation. Regulations can get changed. And the law specifically told the FCC to use regulations to carry out the law. THe FCC has already made changes repeatedly to these regulations.

see post 94 right in this thread- http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=6086533#post6086533 -I already quoted the reasons the FCC gave the exemption.

to paraphrase off the top of my head- there were 4 reasons:

1)DBS was new and the fcc acknowledged this would be expensive and didn't want to damage the new players in the market. 
*Directv is second only to comcast at this point- right? Regardless DBS is no longer young and fragile- so this is no longer true*

2) most DBS subs purchased receivers at the time
*again no longer true- in fact Directv at least (not sure of DISH) actively has policies to discourage purchases over leasing*

3) you could purchase a variety of brands with a variety of UI's and features sets at retail back then from either dbs provider
*again no longer true- you have no say at all if you buy a receiver from directv. You get one UI. You can get one set of features. Your basic choice is SD or HD and DVR or no DVR. No choice of feautures what so ever*

4) if you did buy a Directv (or DISH) receiver it would work anywhere in the country for Directv (or Dish)
*this one is currently still true but since #2 is false and Directv actively attempts to stop purchases it's sort of moot. *

so why are they still exempt?

Why is verizon the new fragile competitor not given the benefit of #1? (True verizon is backed by a huge rich company, buy GM/Hughes wasn't exactly poor and under funded when Directv started)



classicsat said:


> ...
> ....
> AFAIK, They _(Verizon)_aren't being forced to, they are choosing to. They aren't even a member of CableLabs.


again - you can read my earlier posts in this thread- but essentially there are the basic regulations require basically EVERYONE but DBS to seperate their security to allow 3rd party boxes. A further step in the regulations required that proividers not only allow the use of separable security in 3rd party devices but bans the use of boxes with integrated security functions- in effect forcing the provider to use the same seperable security themselves.

Verizon MUST comply with the big picture and allow 3rd party devices on their systems with separable security. That's why you can demand a cablecard from verizon to use a cablecard ready Tivo. But they currently have a waiver for the second part and needn't use the separable security themselves (YET). Their waiver was of limited time and issued becasue they said motorolla didn't yet have a qam with IP based box with cablecards and since they use qam and IP they had no options. Verizon got a LIMITED time waiver for that.

True they aren't even a member of cablelabs- but that's because cablelabs WONT ALLOW anyone but a cable company to join. True verizon probably made a business decision to use the cablelabs solution rather then create a whole 'nother set of separable security at new expense. But I'm not really sure there is much other realistic choice in the matter. Never mind the cost of creating a whole new system, but would the FCC even approve it if verizon made a new system - clearly their current market share is so small no CE company would buit a TV or STB with a "verizoncard" slot in it- so verizon could make a new standard but it wouldn't result in the ability for anyone to buy a 3rd party device and actually use it on the verison network. If you read through my earlier posts the FCC basically crowned cablelabs the standards organization (against the protests of Directv and the CE company's who wanted an independed standards based orgainization like ansi to come up with the rules) becasue there really was no one else at that moment in time with any standards to suggest. The argument against it was that company's like verizon in the future would get stuck being forced to use the cable defacto standard without any say in the matter. And it looks like that was exactly what has happened to verizon.

So again there were 4 reasons for DBS to get an exemption. 3 completely dont exist today. The 4th reason is of questionable validity since the first 3 dont exist. So why is dbs exempt and cable has to play? What's fair about that under the current situation?

anyone care to say? I'm curious why people think this still exists? Or why anyone would think it's OK to be unfair like that? Not looking for a fight about it but all I can figure is DBS gives better junkets out so cable looses.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

That seems like a good bet, to me, Michael.


----------

