# TiVo Gives Cable Both Barrels



## Generic (Dec 27, 2005)

> TiVo Inc. (Nasdaq: TIVO) has attacked one of its more promising subscriber growth partners, the cable industry, claiming that MSOs discriminate against third-party box providers by imposing licenses and conditions that limit product design and wrest control of the "look, feel, and content, of the graphical user interface."


http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=186144&site=cdn&


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

"Claiming"? The charges are undeniable.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

First, with regard to your assertion, it is inaccurate. I'm referring to your words, the way you've expressed your point.

Second, with regard to TiVo's assertion, the charges are not only deniable -- and not only debatable -- but also both unproven and practically unprovable. TiVo wants a door to someone else's business opened to their exploitation, and they are trying to cast the manner in which those businesses ensure that they are fairly treated under the law in a negative light. If the government wants to socialize cable pipelines, then it has to grow some balls and admit that... otherwise it has to live by the rules of capitalism that it claims to acknowledge.


----------



## SNJpage1 (May 25, 2006)

We went thru this many years ago with the phone company. The government finially made them co operate with 3rd party companies and now we have a lot of devices we never would have had.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I was there at the phone company back then. They opened the market up to multiple suppliers for service, in every municipality in the nation. For us, at AT&T Long Lines, we suddenly had competition from MCI and Sprint -- three competitors vying for your business.

We *already *have multiple suppliers for subscription television, providing service in every municipality in the nation.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

bicker said:


> I was there at the phone company back then. They opened the market up to multiple suppliers for service, in every municipality in the nation. For us, at AT&T Long Lines, we suddenly had competition from MCI and Sprint -- three competitors vying for your business.
> 
> We *already *have multiple suppliers for subscription television, providing service in every municipality in the nation.


I have ONE cable company in my area, Time-Warner. If I want Comcast, I have to move elsewhere. Admittedly, I have two satellite providers, but if I couldn't use satellite (trees,evil landlord,whatever), I'd be stuck with a monopoly.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

allan said:


> I have ONE cable company in my area, Time-Warner.


And two satellite systems also serve your locality. That's what constitutes a competitive marketplace.



allan said:


> Admittedly, I have two satellite providers, but if I couldn't use satellite (trees,evil landlord,whatever), I'd be stuck with a monopoly.


Incorrect. You're just simply wrong about what a monopoly is.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Isn't this about the new CableCARD standard that says the cableco gets to upload the same crappy UI to every device? 


As in it drives Comcast nuts that some of us don't have 1/3 of the TV screen for the guide filled with ads and don't have to see channels we don't get and don't like.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

bicker said:


> TiVo wants a door to someone else's business opened to their exploitation, and they are trying to cast the manner in which those businesses ensure that they are fairly treated under the law in a negative light. If the government wants to socialize cable pipelines, then it has to grow some balls and admit that... otherwise it has to live by the rules of capitalism that it claims to acknowledge.


TiVo wants to see the Telecom Act of 1996 fully implemented to "to maximize open competition in the market for all features, functions, protocols, and other product and service options of converter boxes and other cable converters unrelated to the descrambling or decryption of cable television signals." That's the law of the land, not some whim of TiVo's. The FCC has allowed foot-dragging and deception by the cable industry to delay that for over a decade.

The cable industry has placed requirements in their Tru2Way system that restrict features, functions, and protocols in ways that prevent the open competition that congress is seeking with the telecom act. The cable industry had their opportunity to collaborate on a solution that met those goals and failed. It's time to put them in the corner and start from scratch.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

And while we're at it, make the satco's do the same. Get rid of their stupid exemption from regulation and have them open access as well.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

bicker said:


> And two satellite systems also serve your locality. That's what constitutes a competitive marketplace.


Whether that constitutes the "fully competitive" market that congress is seeking is questionable. A substantial portion of the market doesn't have a satellite option.

But that's largely irrelevant to the point that TiVo is addressing. Even if one were to argue that the satellite providers make the market for pay TV services competitive, the market for set top boxes is by no means competitive. The cable and satellite industry have made sure of that.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

nrc said:


> TiVo wants to see the Telecom Act of 1996 fully implemented to "to maximize open competition in the market for all features, functions, protocols, and other product and service options of converter boxes and other cable converters unrelated to the descrambling or decryption of cable television signals." That's the law of the land, not some whim of TiVo's.


And reasonable people disagree whether or not the law is effectively implemented. The standard practice by many people, assuming that it isn't, just because they don't like the end-result of the implementation of the law, is nothing more than self-centered consumerist bias.



slowbiscuit said:


> And while we're at it, make the satco's do the same. Get rid of their stupid exemption from regulation and have them open access as well.


Good point: The refusal by some to *first *pursue remediation of the *clear *variance from the law (unequivocally clear because it is the product of an explicit waiver), on the part of satellite providers, before they pursue their petty concerns about *how *others *have already complied* is the best evidence that those people are not engaging the issue in a fair and reasonable manner.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

nrc said:


> Whether that constitutes the "fully competitive" market that congress is seeking is questionable. A substantial portion of the market doesn't have a satellite option.


Please provide a link to a report, with adequate support for its assertions, that details: Which DMAs in the country don't have a satellite option?

None? None of the markets qualify under what you were saying? Okay, how about municipalities... Which municipalities in the country don't have a satellite option?

The law doesn't ensure every individual has access to things; it ensures that every market does.

EDITED: Besides, for the individual's situation that we were discussing, there are two satellite services available.



nrc said:


> But that's largely irrelevant to the point that TiVo is addressing. Even if one were to argue that the satellite providers make the market for pay TV services competitive, the market for set top boxes is by no means competitive. The cable and satellite industry have made sure of that.


That's nothing more than one opinion. Others disagree. Back to stalemate. You don't have proof for your assertion, because it is just a reflection of your subjective judgment, while they have proof of the things they've done, things that a reasonable person, unclouded by consumerist bias, would acknowledge represent effectively compliance with the law.

I think part of the problem is that some folks thing that individuals who comply with their responsibilities under the law are responsible for the accomplishment of some societal objective (and remember, the meaning of the objective, itself, may actually be a matter of opinion). The government is responsible for passing laws that satisfy objectives. The individuals and entities complying with the law are only responsible for doing what they are personally responsible for. If some folks have a problem with how things have worked out, despite the fact that these companies have done their part to comply to the extent that they were responsible to do so, as they have, then their beef is with the government and the government alone. In this case, the government has practically admitted that they passed a law that wasn't structured well-enough to achieve the objectives they wanted to achieve. (And we've talked, before, about why they did so -- they were pressured to pass a law many years before the situation was clear enough to pass a good law.)

The government does this all the time, allowing the blindly swinging flow of public opinion force them to do stupid things. This new commercial loudness law is a great example. I'll bet that we'll be having a discussion just like this one a few years from now, regarding that law. Poorly structured, practically unenforceable. Anyone who thinks that that law is going to achieve any reasonable interpretation of its intent is smoking something. And there, as well, many of the complainers will blame the broadcasters. Wrong! The fault will rest with the government and by extension all of us, because "we" forced them to take action without the power of rational logic driving the construction of the law. It is even more grievous this time, since they probably could have put together a good law, if they deferred to some audio engineers.

I suppose a lot of folks feel that attacking companies is more fun than attacking the government... that's the only way I can account for what I see. It may get someone's rocks off to complain about big companies, but their ire is misdirected in cases like this.


----------



## HeatherA (Jan 10, 2002)

allan said:


> I have ONE cable company in my area, Time-Warner. If I want Comcast, I have to move elsewhere. Admittedly, I have two satellite providers, but if I couldn't use satellite (trees,evil landlord,whatever), I'd be stuck with a monopoly.


I agree! We're stuck with ONE cable company (Insight) in our area. We have no other options besides Satellite or AT&T Uverse. No option to choose Time Warner or WoW which are other local cable companies. Until everyone has choice we are still captive to the ones that own the wires in our area.


----------



## dwgsp (Aug 28, 2005)

bicker said:


> I was there at the phone company back then. They opened the market up to multiple suppliers for service, in every municipality in the nation. For us, at AT&T Long Lines, we suddenly had competition from MCI and Sprint -- three competitors vying for your business.


I believe that SNJpage1 was referring to the time period when the Bell System did not allow customers to connect third party equipment to "their" phone line. If you wanted a phone, you rented it from the phone company.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> ..............
> I think part of the problem is that some folks thing that individuals who comply with their responsibilities under the law are responsible for the accomplishment of some societal objective (and remember, the meaning of the objective, itself, may actually be a matter of opinion). The government is responsible for passing laws that satisfy objectives. The individuals and entities complying with the law are only responsible for doing what they are personally responsible for. If some folks have a problem with how things have worked out, despite the fact that these companies have done their part to comply to the extent that they were responsible to do so, as they have, then their beef is with the government and the government alone. In this case, the government has practically admitted that they passed a law that wasn't structured well-enough to achieve the objectives they wanted to achieve. (And we've talked, before, about why they did so -- they were pressured to pass a law many years before the situation was clear enough to pass a good law.)
> 
> The government does this all the time, allowing the blindly swinging flow of public opinion force them to do stupid things. This new commercial loudness law is a great example. I'll bet that we'll be having a discussion just like this one a few years from now, regarding that law. Poorly structured, practically unenforceable. Anyone who thinks that that law is going to achieve any reasonable interpretation of its intent is smoking something. And there, as well, many of the complainers will blame the broadcasters. Wrong! The fault will rest with the government and by extension all of us, because "we" forced them to take action without the power of rational logic driving the construction of the law. It is even more grievous this time, since they probably could have put together a good law, if they deferred to some audio engineers.
> ............


+1 :up: I agree with this so much I'm considering going vegetarian! 

People tend to expect industry to obey the spirit of the law rather than just the letter, but this is an unrealistic expectation for many reasons, one of which is that the spirit of the law is subject to interpretation by every beholder. Competition and obligation to the stockholders provide other strong disincentives to going beyond the letter of the law in most cases.

As pogo used to say "we have met the enemy and he is us"  We collectively are responsibile for what our government does (fortunately).


----------



## parzec (Jun 21, 2002)

Cable Companies, in fact all business, exist due to the generosity of the people/consumers that allowed them corporate/person status in the first place. Furthermore, cable companies, in particular, through the use of public right-of-ways to deliver their content, are even more in debt to the largesse of the consumer for the existence of their business. So any attempt to dismiss criticism of CableCo's practices as "consumerist-centrist" is rendered impotent by the fact that the CableCo's really do exist at the pleasure of the consumers they serve.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

bicker said:


> Please provide a link to a report, with adequate support for its assertions, that details: Which DMAs in the country don't have a satellite option?


I'm not talking about DMA's I'm talking about individuals. For many people (like myself) it's impossible or at least impractical to get satellite service.



> The law doesn't ensure every individual has access to things; it ensures that every market does.


The law calls for the market to be "fully competitive" for both services and equipment. No reasonable person would believe that's that case right now.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

The spirit vs the letter is a good description of the two camps. Listening to how you type Bicker, I am kind of curious as to your profession. You come across as a lawyer looking for us all to prove things which every bit of legal documentation we can find.

As discussed in another thread, I am conversational and I suspect many others are as well. These forums are like talk radio and we are expressing opinion which I hope is closer to the spirit of the law.

For example if I were to say the cable companies are wrong, you would say since they found a loophole around something that they are not wrong.

Also, You commented earlier that 3 businesses in a market defines competition. However if those companies make it very difficult for new companies to enter a market such as exclusive cable franchises because they paid the city off in some fashion (franchise fees) then I consider competition to be somewhat stunted. Similarly in the hardware arena as was mentioned earlier when phone companies would only let you use acoustic modems versus today when the government forced them to allow open up to third parties that was true competition. 

Not to get political but it seems the government of the last decade allowed competition to be reduced to 3 companies in many markets via all the mergers. We need to see competition increased not decreased.

Flame on - I got my suit ready.


----------



## gastrof (Oct 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> First, with regard to your assertion, it is inaccurate. I'm referring to your words, the way you've expressed your point...


Why am I not surprised to see Bicker flying to the defense of the evil slobbering fiend that is the cable industry?

​


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 8, 2008)

nrc said:


> The law calls for the market to be "fully competitive" for both services and equipment. No reasonable person would believe that's that case right now.


Agreed, but then this is a sore subject for me. For me the cable companies are monopolies that delayed and forced cable cards down my throat so that they could work around the telecom act of 1996 and protect themselves from a more open solution.

Now that the cable card solution has been deemed anti-competitive by the FCC I hear crying of false entitlement. As a cable company customer, my custom is not owned by anyone but me. And the more the cable companies push this agenda, the unhappier I am with them. So unhappy, I might vote for anyone running for office who promised changes in the law that would punish the cable companies -- just out of the spite I have built up over the last 20 or so years.


----------



## tivogurl (Dec 16, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> Now that the cable card solution has been deemed anti-competitive by the FCC I hear crying of false entitlement.


I assume that FCC ruling is exactly what the cablecos wanted. It offers pretext for them to dump cablecards, which they didn't want in the first place.


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

tivogurl said:


> I assume that FCC ruling is exactly what the cablecos wanted. It offers pretext for them to dump cablecards, which they didn't want in the first place.


Cablecards were proposed by the cable industry to forestall the FCC mandating even more open policies regarding customer equipment. The idea was that people hated set top boxes (added complexity/rental fees) and must be allowed to hook up a cable straight to their TV and tune channels with its tuning controls. Most TVs were expected to have cablecard slots, not just DVRs.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

parzec said:


> Cable Companies, in fact all business, exist due to the generosity of the people/consumers that allowed them corporate/person status in the first place.


And the people/consumers set forth the rules by which corporations can exist and can continue to exist. It is *unreasonable *for individual consumers to expect their own personal preferences will be treated as requirements on the operations of corporations.

Let's go even further: Many folks invest in corporations because of the corporations stated (read: promised) objective. Practically all corporations have as one of those most sacred commitments the maximization of shareholder value. This is what these entities are obligated - honor-bound - to pursue. It would be not only irresponsible but also a violation of the law - breach of fiduciary responsibility - for corporations to fail to live up to the commitments they've made to their owners.



parzec said:


> Furthermore, cable companies, in particular, through the use of public right-of-ways to deliver their content, are even more in debt to the largesse of the consumer for the existence of their business.


Another case where the consumers/people outlined specific obligations that the companies needed to live up to in return for that "largess", typically financial contributions to the municipal treasury, provision of complementary service to municipal agencies and schools, etc. Again, it is *unreasonable *for individual consumers to expect companies to do anything other than what their government has set forth as the compensation for that "largess".



parzec said:


> So any attempt to dismiss criticism of CableCo's practices as "consumerist-centrist" is rendered impotent by the fact that the CableCo's really do exist at the pleasure of the consumers they serve.


Ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous. None of what you outlined was generosity -- it was all _quid pro quo_. Cable companies live up to their side of the bargain that was struck -- you're trying to weasel out of your side of the bargain by demanding more and more and more. You're expressing, on behalf of all consumers, an outrageously greedy perspective, while trying to accuse the companies, onto which you are trying to impose your own greed, of being greedy, when the reality is the *opposite*.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

nrc said:


> I'm not talking about DMA's I'm talking about individuals.


Then you're not talking about monopolies.



nrc said:


> For many people (like myself) it's impossible or at least impractical to get satellite service.


The marketplace doesn't exist to serve you, or anyone, personally. We each make our own decisions regarding where we live, what we're going to spend our money on, etc. Those are personal decisions and there is no relevance of those decisions with regard to expectations you might place on others.



nrc said:


> The law calls for the market to be "fully competitive" for both services and equipment.


There are specifications for what entities within society have to do to do their part to serve that objective. It sounds like, like parzec above, you want to go beyond the specific requirements that were outlined, and impose your own brand of greed on the companies that provide employment and economic activity in our society. That kind of rampant consumerist greed is a great way to flush our standard of living down the toilet.



nrc said:


> No reasonable person would believe that's that case right now.


And the FCC has recognized that the fault rests with their poorly structured regulations. Why can't you accept that?


----------



## tivogurl (Dec 16, 2004)

vman41 said:


> Cablecards were proposed by the cable industry to forestall the FCC mandating even more open policies regarding customer equipment.


Yes, and they've tried to pervert the FCC's intent every step of the way. That's why I suggested "Anti-competitive? We'll get rid of it". It's a totally perverse interpretation of the FCC's new ruling, which is why it would appeal to the cablecos.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

zalusky said:


> The spirit vs the letter is a good description of the two camps.


The proper place for the spirit of the law is in crafting the law. Once the law is crafted, expectations are that people will comply with the letter of the law. If the letter of the law does not adequately cover the spirit, then *the fault rests with the crafting of the law*.

You sound like you want a "do-over". You (meaning the government acting in what you think should have been your own personal best interest -- more on that later) put forward a law, and now you're unhappy about how the "game" has gone. You aren't "winning" the way you define that, and so you want to change the rules. It is a distinctly immature approach to running an economy, which is why it won't get any traction in Congress or the courts.

Going back to the government acting in your own personal best interest... That's another element of the confusion here that you're highlighting. The government acts in society's best interests. *Consumers are not the totality of society.* Indeed, consumption of products and services is very low in priority in society. A society that consumes is weaker -- less viable long term -- than a society that produces. Production is a major priority. Employing people, giving them productive work that fosters their ability to afford the necessities of life. That's a major priority. In our country, the respect for private property and the ability for each of us to protect our lives and our assets, both physical and intangible, is a high priority.

Consumption is not venerated, the way many folks in these threads seem to indicate they want it to be.

So I don't even think that it is only a matter of the spirit of the law versus the letter. I think a lot of folks here don't really understand the spirit of the law, that it was always intended to be a balance between the desires of consumers and the needs of the economy and of industry -- not the placation of the desire to consume products and services.



zalusky said:


> Also, You commented earlier that 3 businesses in a market defines competition.


No, that's not what I said. Three suppliers can indeed, however, can constitute a competitive marketplace.



zalusky said:


> However if those companies make it very difficult for new companies to enter a market such as exclusive cable franchises


Buzz! Thanks for playing. It is not permitted for municipalities to sign exclusive franchise agreements any longer.



zalusky said:


> Similarly in the hardware arena as was mentioned earlier when phone companies would only let you use acoustic modems versus today when the government forced them to allow open up to third parties that was true competition.


CableCARD provides a means of opening the host devices up to competition. And before you start equivocating about CableCARD -- don't. If you (through your government) have failed to set forth clear metrics for gauging efficacy, then fix that first, and demonstrate that you're doing your part by having enforcement take action against suppliers that fail to satisfy those stated requirements. STATED requirements. You cannot take action against a company because you're unhappy. That's acting like spoiled children do. Instead, you can only take action against a company because they actually, clearly, and specifically did something wrong or didn't do something they were actually, clearly, and specifically required to do. Stop trying to rationalize the inadequate actions of the people through their government.

Step 1: Get rid of the waiver for satellite services.

Step 2: Set forth engineering and legal specifications that satisfaction of will constitute what you consider the spirit of the law.

Step 3: Execute and enforce.

THEN you can come back and report your progress.



zalusky said:


> Not to get political but it seems the government of the last decade allowed competition to be reduced to 3 companies in many markets via all the mergers. We need to see competition increased not decreased.


You have a business expert here in front of you... if you want to know how to increase competition, why don't you ask me? Answer: Because you don't want to hear the answer, which you already know. Competition stems from *incentive *-- profit motive -- not from whiny consumers stamping their feet and bemoaning their own personal lack of options to their liking. Don't even think of trying "carrot and stick" because business can get its carrots somewhere else.

I've said it dozens of times here: Every dollar invested must compete with *every other way that dollar can be invested*. If you want more competition, you need to make the marketplace *the most lucrative place to invest*. Nothing, short of socialism, will overcome that reality.



zalusky said:


> Flame on - I got my suit ready.


Good instincts!


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

gastrof said:


> Why am I not surprised to see Bicker flying to the defense of the evil slobbering fiend that is the cable industry?


Why am I not surprised to see gastrof posting a pointless personal attack instead of actually dealing with the issue being discussed maturely, like most of the rest of the people in the thread?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> For me the cable companies are monopolies that delayed and forced cable cards down my throat so that they could work around the telecom act of 1996 and protect themselves from a more open solution. Now that the cable card solution has been deemed anti-competitive by the FCC I hear crying of false entitlement.


Error 1: Cable companies aren't monopolies. There is effective competition for subscription television in every market in the nation. The US Court of Appeals has spanked the FCC for doing what you've done here, ignoring the competition cable companies have from satellite services.

Error 2: Cable companies didn't force CableCARDs down your throat. You voluntarily decided to use your own host equipment, and cable companies provided a means for you to do so, in accordance with the law. Your personal preferences don't trump the law.

Error 3: CableCARD has not been "deemed anti-competitive by the FCC". You made that up, and it has no basis in fact whatsoever.



[email protected] said:


> As a cable company customer, my custom is not owned by anyone but me.


The first true thing you posted in that message.



[email protected] said:


> And the more the cable companies push this agenda, the unhappier I am with them. So unhappy, I might vote for anyone running for office who promised changes in the law that would punish the cable companies -- just out of the spite I have built up over the last 20 or so years.


Your prerogative. Ask yourself, though, why there aren't any such people. It isn't, as the conspiracy theorists and arch-consumerists would have you believe, that there is some vast conspiracy with payoffs and such. Instead, people running for office actually generally do understand the law and matters of business and the economy, so they won't suggest anything like what you've suggested, because they know that their opponents will effectively shoot down such a self-serving and ill-advised bit of consumerist advocacy.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

*bicker* has it right.

Government sets the rules of the "game" and is supposed to enforce them. If you don't like the outcome you can do several things to change it:

1. Vote with your buying power (e.g., go to satellite, or go OTA, or go with VOD, or just stop watching TV).
2. Use your voting power to vote for politicians who will change the rules the way you want them.
3. Complain/pressure the government to change the rules, or to enforce existing rules better (e.g., submit an FCC complaint form, or form a political action group ).

You can vent your emotions via posts here, which may make you feel better, and/or you can post constructive discussion that is consistent with the realities that *bicker* presents, and thus might at least help clarify thinking to apply to the three actions listed above.

I don't mean to pontificate -- I've done my share of venting.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

bicker said:


> Then you're not talking about monopolies.


As much as you like to debate "monopolies" that's irrelevant to the topic. The law calls for the market for services and equipment to be fully competitive which it is not.



> The marketplace doesn't exist to serve you, or anyone, personally. We each make our own decisions regarding where we live, what we're going to spend our money on, etc. Those are personal decisions and there is no relevance of those decisions with regard to expectations you might place on others.


Ignore the point and focus on me. Typical. No market where people have to base their decision on where to live around finding choices for pay television could be argued to be fully competitive.



> It sounds like, like parzec above, you want to go beyond the specific requirements that were outlined, and impose your own brand of greed on the companies that provide employment and economic activity in our society. That kind of rampant consumerist greed is a great way to flush our standard of living down the toilet.


I simply want the end state that the Telecom Act calls for, a fully competitive market for pay TV services and equipment.



> And the FCC has recognized that the fault rests with their poorly structured regulations. Why can't you accept that?


I'm not sure why you think I don't accept that. I'm thrilled about that. The FCC appears to recognize that the reason for their poorly structured regulations is that they allowed a group that was absolutely opposed to their goals too great a voice in crafting those regulations and that since then they've allowed them to circumvent and foil them.

The funny thing about your endless battle to defend the anti-competitive behavior of the pay television industry is that the kind of new regulations that the FCC appears to be contemplating may be the only thing that saves them from becoming little more than an Ethernet utility company in the long run.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

nrc said:


> The law calls for the market for services and equipment to be fully competitive which it is not.


And the FCC effectively has acknowledged that they deserve the blame.



nrc said:


> Ignore the point and focus on me.


No. Your personal situation is not something that justifies the aspersions you're making.



nrc said:


> No market where people have to base their decision on where to live around finding choices for pay television could be argued to be fully competitive.


It is utterly ridiculous for you to assert that the crafting of a competitive marketplace must accommodate personal decisions that individuals might make. Utterly completely ridiculous.



nrc said:


> I simply want the end state that the Telecom Act calls for, a fully competitive market for pay TV services and equipment.


I bring up the idea that it isn't as simple as declaring competition by fiat, and you predictably fall into a "make it so" attitude, like this. Well that's not the real world. As with practically everything else in life, they have to design the reality that they (you) want achieved -- it is not just a matter of declaring it.



nrc said:


> The FCC appears to recognize that the reason for their poorly structured regulations is that they allowed a group that was absolutely opposed to their goals too great a voice in crafting those regulations and that since then they've allowed them to circumvent and foil them.


What an incredibly baseless and self-serving distortion of the reality. The FCC has not said anything of the sort. Get a grip.



nrc said:


> The funny thing about your endless battle to defend the anti-competitive behavior of the pay television industry is that the kind of new regulations that the FCC appears to be contemplating may be the only thing that saves them from becoming little more than an Ethernet utility company in the long run.


I hope I'm able to remember to figuratively shove these words back down your throat when what the FCC ends up doing in response to this situation is nothing even close to what you're alluding to here. The FCC balances the interests of various stakeholders and you can rest assured that their second attempt at providing open access *with* asset protection will not be what you would have it be. Mark my words.


----------



## wperry1 (Feb 23, 2007)

bicker said:


> And two satellite systems also serve your locality. That's what constitutes a competitive marketplace.


I had DISH for a couple of years then I moved and Found myself on the north facing side of an apartment building. I had exactly 1 option, Comcast. There are places where satellite is not an option. Those areas may be small but the cable co's do have a monopoly in those areas.


----------



## DBLClick (Aug 20, 2007)

Well as a former cable subscriber I can tell you they relegate you to second tier customer when you ask for cable cards. My formal cable company raised their rates for cable cards from $1.99 to $10.99 (the same as a box) by renaming the service. Just to chase you out of using them.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

dlfl said:


> 3. Complain/pressure the government to change the rules, or to enforce existing rules better (e.g., submit an FCC complaint form, or form a political action group ).


I'm pretty sure that's what we're doing.



> You can vent your emotions via posts here, which may make you feel better, and/or you can post constructive discussion that is consistent with the realities that *bicker* presents, and thus might at least help clarify thinking to apply to the three actions listed above.


The reality is that cable card has failed to accomplish the goals of the telecom act of 1996. The FCC recognizes this and appears to be seeking some other solution. That's the reality we're discussing here.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

nrc said:


> .........The law calls for the market for services and equipment to be fully competitive which it is not.


Can you define "fully competitive"? I suspect whatever would satisfy you either (1) would NOT satisfy many other people OR (2) would be practically unrealizable in a free (i.e., non-socialist, non-dictatorship) country.


nrc said:


> ..........No market where people have to base their decision on where to live around finding choices for pay television could be argued to be fully competitive.


People usually consider many factors (e.g., job availability and salary, commute time, taxes, neighborhood desirability, school system, cultural amenities, taxes, climate and perhaps even pay TV choices). It would be rare not to have to make trade-offs between these factors. I hope you're not in favor of the government trying to control all these factors so they aren't anti-competitive. By your logic you might say "No market where people have to base their decision on where to live on <schools | taxes | commute time | etc.> could be argued to be fully competitive". So what? Life is full of compromises. I don't want a government that tries to level all these playing fields, and I fear one that is powerful enough to do so.


----------



## wkearney99 (Dec 5, 2003)

bicker said:


> Error 1: Cable companies aren't monopolies. There is effective competition for subscription television in every market in the nation. The US Court of Appeals has spanked the FCC for doing what you've done here, ignoring the competition cable companies have from satellite services.


Which leaves you trapped into using their proprietary boxes. Not exactly effective competition from a consumer's perspective. And certainly not from Tivo's.

That and it's inaccurate to conflate cable with satellite services. There's quite a lot that terrestrial services can provide that satellite can't. Decent network latency being the biggest problem. So don't try to support your argument with such a weak position, it just isn't true.


----------



## wkearney99 (Dec 5, 2003)

nrc said:


> The funny thing about your endless battle to...


No, the real point is his ceaseless crusade to argue against anything anyone else likes. "Bicker" is a telling nick to be using. It's sad, really.


----------



## Marconi (Sep 8, 2001)

bicker said:


> And two satellite systems also serve your locality. That's what constitutes a competitive marketplace.


While satellite may _compete_ with cable, the two are not equivalent. I have 9 DVRs at 6 locations throughout my home. With cable, I can add an inexpensive splitter and put another DVR or TV anywhere I like. With satellite, the cost to be able to simultaneously record 9 different shows (as I can with cable) is considerably more costly than with cable.

So, while satellite providers may compete with cable, no satellite provider can be competitive with my cable provider for _my_ business. So while theoretically, cable and satellite are competing for my business, it's really no contest. Only another cable provider could be competitive for my business.

Yet I have one and only one cable provider and I have no say over which cable provider my municipality chooses to serve me. Can you say "exclusive franchise?"

In a truly competitive environment, I'd have multiple cable providers from which to choose or, at the very least, other cable providers would be free to come into this service area and provide service. They cannot. Government sees to that.

At best, it is _*limited*_ competition.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

wperry1 said:


> There are places where satellite is not an option. Those areas may be small but the cable co's do have a monopoly in those areas.


No. A side of a building is not a market, and so the *accusation *of "monopoly" (which is the manner that the word is being used) is incorrect.



wkearney99 said:


> Which leaves you trapped into using [the satellite service's] proprietary boxes. Not exactly effective competition from a consumer's perspective.


I agree. Let's fix that.

But "noooooo" -- many people don't want to pursue that approach. They want to place even more onerous regulations on the part of the marketplace that is already substantially complying with the intention, while giving the part of the marketplace that isn't comply *at all *Carte Blanche to continue to operate in a completely non-competitive manner. Why? The only thing I can think of is that the folks who complain about cable either are exclusively focused on their own personal situation, and therefore have practically nothing useful to say regarding what the _society's_ laws should be, or are lazy, trying to follow the path of least resistance, rather than pursuing the most grievous offenses against the objective.



wkearney99 said:


> That and it's inaccurate to conflate cable with satellite services. There's quite a lot that terrestrial services can provide that satellite can't.


*Nothing* within the context of what is relevant to this issue.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

wkearney99 said:


> No, the real point is his ceaseless crusade to argue against anything anyone else likes. "Bicker" is a telling nick to be using. It's sad, really.


More messages containing nothing but pointless personal attacks. Ridiculous.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

wkearney99 said:


> No, the real point is his ceaseless crusade to argue against anything anyone else likes. "Bicker" is a telling nick to be using. It's sad, really.


Oh indeed! Here's a sampling of some of his recent mean-spirited posts:

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=7675486#post7675486

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=7673796#post7673796

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=7673076#post7673076

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=7671770#post7671770

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=7669419#post7669419

Looks like his "ceaseless crusade" wasn't ceaseless after all. 

I think it's your post thats "sad". (Sorry for defending you Bicker. I know it probably irritates the hell out of you. Maybe subconsciously that's why I did it.  )


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Marconi said:


> While satellite may _compete_ with cable, the two are not equivalent.


They don't need to be to fulfill the objective that people are putting forward as the objective being pursued.



Marconi said:


> With cable, I can add an inexpensive splitter and put another DVR or TV anywhere I like. With satellite, the cost to be able to simultaneously record 9 different shows (as I can with cable) is considerably more costly than with cable.


So what you're saying is that cable provides service in a manner better than satellite.

And you want to _punish _them for that.



In the real world, they should be rewarded for that. Financially rewarded. And given the gravity of the difference you're pointing out, that reward should be substantial. Effectively you can get 9 time the value with cable, so you should be willing to pay 9 times as much. That's the way markets work. If someone says that they want a competitive marketplace, but they're not willing to pay 9 times as much for 9 times as much value, then they're not a rational participant in the marketplace.



Marconi said:


> At best, it is _*limited*_ competition.


Some folks have used the term triopoly. That's a fabrication, but at least it is accurate, and it avoids the careless aspersion aspect that the erroneous use of the word "monopoly" engenders.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dlfl said:


> wkearney99 said:
> 
> 
> > No, the real point is his ceaseless crusade to argue against anything anyone else likes. "Bicker" is a telling nick to be using. It's sad, really.
> ...


Hehe... The real issue here is that folks likw wkearney want an unrebutted soap-box for their self-focused consumerist perspective. They don't like that there are a number of folks in our society that believe we should be a nation of producers instead of a nation of consumers.

They try to intimidate anyone who presents an opposing perspective, seeking to use as a bludgeon against us, the fact that so many of the people posting are similarly consumerist in perspective, thinking that that means that they have the right to be relieved of the opposing viewpoint -- the opposing viewpoint that happens to be the one that is most well-reflected in the reality casual readers will encounter. As much as many people talk a good consumerist game, here online, when the rubber hits the road, they vote for people who support a different perspective. Neither Republicans nor Democrats generally support consumption over production.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

bicker said:


> And the FCC effectively has acknowledged that they deserve the blame.


Yes, the FCC is ultimately responsible. If it makes you feel better to believe that they don't know where they went wrong then be my guest. It will make the new regulations all that much more shocking and disappointing for you when they arrive.



> It is utterly ridiculous for you to assert that the crafting of a competitive marketplace must accommodate personal decisions that individuals might make. Utterly completely ridiculous.


Liberal use of adjectives doesn't make what you're saying any more correct. When large numbers of people have no practical choice for their pay TV service the market is not fully competitive. It's cute that you're outraged, though.



> I hope I'm able to remember to figuratively shove these words back down your throat when what the FCC ends up doing in response to this situation is nothing even close to what you're alluding to here. The FCC balances the interests of various stakeholders and you can rest assured that their second attempt at providing open access *with* asset protection will not be what you would have it be. Mark my words.


I always know you're cornered when you start bolding. 

I'm not sure what "asset protection" you think will be included that is going to bother me. The only asset of the cable industry that I want to see removed is their ability to prevent a fully competitive market for services and equipment.

The wind is blowing and the cable industry can either bend with it or eventually break. The open standards being suggested will likely be the only effective means for the cable industry to compete in the future. Resistance will only hurt them in the long run. You're battling for Comcast's right to become the next AT&T Long Distance.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

nrc said:


> Yes, the FCC is ultimately responsible. If it makes you feel better to believe that they don't know where they went wrong then be my guest. It will make the new regulations all that much more shocking and disappointing for you when they arrive.


I definitely have got to remember this thread, for rehashing later. Let's set a date, nrc... by what date do you believe your grand vision for consumerist glory will be achieved?



nrc said:


> Liberal use of adjectives doesn't make what you're saying any more correct.


It is correct in its own right. Liberal use of adjectives makes it clear that my point was that what _you _wrote had no merit whatsoever.



nrc said:


> I always know you're cornered when you start bolding.


I cannot wait to shove these words down you throat. Set a date, *Consumerist Avenger*. Let's see how many decades into the future you have to push it to avoid having to defend your misguided perspective.



nrc said:


> I'm not sure what "asset protection" you think will be included that is going to bother me.


Why do you think CableCARD was necessary in the first place? Do you even understand the mechanics of the issue here?



nrc said:


> The wind is blowing and the cable industry can either bend with it or eventually break.


This wind *is* blowing, but the entities within the industry to which the wind is blowing generally have *more *anti-consumerist policies and practices than cable does. Imagine that.



nrc said:


> The open standards being suggested will likely be the only effective means for the cable industry to compete in the future.


Be specific: Which specific standard, or what specifically will the standard require, and by what date will it be effectively implemented so you can glory in your accomplishment? Again be specific, because at this point, all I see is a lot of consumerist hot air.


----------



## Marconi (Sep 8, 2001)

bicker said:


> They don't need to be to fulfill the objective that people are putting forward as the objective being pursued.


I know not what objective you have in mind. I simply stated: It's not a truly competitive marketplace.



> So what you're saying is that cable provides service in a manner better than satellite.


No, I said no such thing. Here, I'll spell it out for you: Cable provides a _different_ service than satellite. Cable is a better choice, for me, given my current situation. No one should say that 'A' is better then 'B' without some qualifiers. YMMV, etc. Everyone's needs are different, so it would be foolish to say: "cable provides service in a manner better than satellite" as a categorical fact. It's very much a subjective thing.

Infer what you like from what I write, but please don't attempt to translate it into a "so-what-you're-saying is... " for others, eh?



bicker said:


> And you want to _punish _them for that.


Again, you're inferring things unsaid. I confined my post to the issue of competitiveness and what constitutes competition. I'm not taking sides in any conflict between TiVo and cable companies. I never even mentioned either. 


bicker said:


>


You should get that looked at.



bicker said:


> In the real world, they should be rewarded for that. Financially rewarded. And given the gravity of the difference you're pointing out, that reward should be substantial. Effectively you can get 9 time the value with cable, so you should be willing to pay 9 times as much.


Nonsense. You totally miss the point of a competitive marketplace -- in which the same thing -- dinner, for example -- is available from a variety of providers for a variety of prices, to suit individual budgets, tastes and whims.

And you are not sufficiently informed as to determine what value I place on my cable compared to satellite. Using your simplistic multiplication valuation method, a six-passenger Kia should cost three times what a two-seater BMW Z4 does. After all, BMW and Kia compete for auto buyers, do they not? Now, a Kia may have more _value as a people hauler_ than the BMW but the BMW has more value in other ways. "Value" does not always go with price. As stated previously, it's never that simplistic and it varies from person to person. If I need to haul many people, the Kia may be better suited and thus more "valuable" for that particular purpose. I would hesitate to make the statement, however: "A Kia Sedona is more valuable than a BMW Z4."

Let's put your multiplication valuation method to the test: I'm willing to give you a brand new, fully-loaded Kia Sedona in exchange for three new BMW Z4s. Deal? 


bicker said:


> That's the way markets work. If someone says that they want a competitive marketplace, but they're not willing to pay 9 times as much for 9 times as much value, then they're not a rational participant in the marketplace.


 And if someone thinks they are qualified to determine the "value" of things for anyone but themselves, he's not a rational participant in any discussion of competitiveness and competition.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Marconi said:


> I know not what objective you have in mind. I simply stated: It's not a truly competitive marketplace.


A statement which is useless without details.



Marconi said:


> No, I said no such thing.


You outlined a means by which cable charges you a small fraction of what satellite would charge you for the same thing, (despite claims to the contrary) putting it forward as justification for attacks on cable. Attacking cable based on the info you relayed is ridiculous.



Marconi said:


> Again, you're inferring things unsaid. I confined my post to the issue of competitiveness and what constitutes competition. I'm not taking sides in any conflict between TiVo and cable companies.


Sorry but a casual reader would interpret your comments as supporting a certain side of the argument into which you stepped in the middle of, so I'm going to consider your comments intended as those casual readers would interpret them. Start another thread if you want to make comments insulated from the context of an argument currently going on in a thread.



Marconi said:


> Nonsense. You totally miss the point of a competitive marketplace -- in which the same thing -- dinner, for example -- is available from a variety of providers for a variety of prices, to suit individual budgets, tastes and whims.


So what you're saying is that the example you gave demonstrates that there is a competitive marketplace, since you have multiple suppliers, each offer services in a variety of ways.

Thanks for supporting my point. 

Again, if you want your comments insulated from an argument going on within a specific thread, post them in a different thread.



Marconi said:


> And you are not sufficiently informed as to determine what value I place on my cable compared to satellite.


You were gracious enough to provide that information.



Marconi said:


> Using your simplistic multiplication valuation method, a six-passenger Kia should cost three times what a two-seater BMW Z4 does.


First, your examples are inane. Cable is not a Kia, and satellite is not a BMW by comparison. If you want to make an analogy where the two cars are in the same class, and then make the point that a four seater is not twice as valuable as a two seater, then we can talk. However, you're still talking about a substantial multiplier going from one to the other, even if it is not 2:1. So given that your original multiple was 9, let's how about admitting that you were getting at least a 3:1 advantage in value. But no, you won't, I suspect, because you are trying to support the consumerist perspective, whereby you need to demonstrate that cable is bad. That being the case, you shouldn't have brought up your example because it belies the point you "claim" you were not trying to make.



Marconi said:


> As stated previously, it's never that simplistic and it varies from person to person.


I agree, but in the end, mass-market offerings in a competitive marketplace are not customized for each consumer based on that consumer's own perception of value, but rather represent the interaction of supply and demand reflecting the assessment of value by the typical consumer.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

bicker said:


> More messages containing nothing but pointless personal attacks. Ridiculous.


Perhaps it has something to do with your choice of *nom de plume.* It might be harder to bicker with someone named AmiableGuy.

Edit: perhaps I should have said *nom de guerre* instead of *nom de plume*?


----------



## Marconi (Sep 8, 2001)

bicker said:


> You outlined a means by which cable charges you a small fraction of what satellite would charge you for the same thing, (despite claims to the contrary)


But it's not the "same thing." It is arguably a similar thing but not the same thing. A satellite provider would be supplying multiple receivers and amps, maybe multiple dishes for all I know. I don't know a lot about satellite but I'm pretty sure the marginal cost to continue adding outlets with satellite is higher than with cable. It's because satellite providers actually do have to supply more. That's why it costs more. That's why they would have to charge more for "the same" thing I get from cable.

The marginal cost for the cable co to add an outlet is zero. I provide my own splitter or amp and cable, even the labor -- the whole ball of wax. I'm the one adding value to my cable TV setup. The fact that I end up with more value is not due to the cable company and there's really no reason they should benefit from my investment and efforts. [/QUOTE]



bicker said:


> ... putting it forward as justification for attacks on cable.


Once again, you didn't read that in _my_ post.



bicker said:


> Attacking cable based on the info you relayed is ridiculous.


Saying I attacked cable is ridiculous. I like cable. Cable is much better for me than satellite. (I mention it now in case you casually missed my earlier mention.)



bicker said:


> Sorry but a casual reader would interpret your comments as supporting a certain side of the argument into which you stepped in the middle of,


Just because you don't even read what _you_ wrote ("..._argument into which you stepped in the middle of_..." sic) doesn't mean I'm going to cut you any slack for not reading what _I_ wrote. If you're only going to read _casually_, stop pretending to be a serious contributor to the discussion. When you have read and actually _comprehended_ what we've written, then, maybe, you'll be ready to respond.

My support for "attacks on cable" is the product only of your fevered brow.


bicker said:


> so I'm going to consider your comments intended as those casual readers would interpret them.


Even the most casual of readers will have noted that I replied to your statement (which I quoted): "_And two satellite systems also serve your locality. That's what constitutes a competitive marketplace_" thereby _providing context_ for my statements. You _REALLY_ do need to read posts before responding to them. 


bicker said:


> So what you're saying is ...


There he goes again!



bicker said:


> ... that the example you gave demonstrates that there is a competitive marketplace, since you have multiple suppliers, each offer services in a variety of ways.


The non-casual reader will have noted that I was talking about suppliers of "dinner."



bicker said:


>


So the condition's chronic, eh? You really should get that looked at.



bicker said:


> First, your examples are inane.


So what you're saying is you didn't "get" it, that it was over your head. (See? How do _you_ like it?)

My Kia-BMW example served to show that "value" as you perceive it is not the same as others may perceive it (and that you are in no position to determine the "value" of my cable service). It also showed quite dramatically that value and price are not directly related. If you failed to get that....

That "_Cable is not a Kia_" is irrelevant. I chose an example to which everyone can relate. It served to make my points. I wasn't comparing apples to oranges or even satellite to cable. I suspect that most readers, even the casual kind, "got" it.



bicker said:


> ... you are trying to support the consumerist perspective, whereby you need to demonstrate that cable is bad.


I'm doing no such thing. I _like_ my cable. It's not nice to impute to me motives which I have not stated.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> Perhaps it has something to do with your choice of *nom de plume.* It might be harder to bicker with someone named AmiableGuy.


Nah; it's _just _a matter of my not towing the blindly consumerist line.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Marconi said:


> But it's not the "same thing." It is arguably a similar thing but not the same thing.


Again with that "it isn't but it is". Ridiculous.



Marconi said:


> The marginal cost for the cable co to add an outlet is zero.


Only *suckers* price based on cost. Responsible businesses that respect their owners price based on the value that they deliver.



Marconi said:


> Just because you don't even read what _you_ wrote


Ridiculous. I read what you wrote and what I wrote, and was very very very very deliberate in the wording of the statement that you questioned.



Marconi said:


> If you're only going to read _casually_, stop pretending to be a serious contributor to the discussion.


I am a serious contributor to the discussion, while you're engaging in distraction tactics, as I detailed above.



Marconi said:


> So the condition's chronic, eh? You really should get that looked at.


More distraction tactics.



Marconi said:


> So what you're saying is you didn't "get" it, that it was over your head. (See? How do _you_ like it?)


You're not defending a perspective, you're just engaging in more distraction.



Marconi said:


> I'm doing no such thing.


Bull.


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

It gets back to the basic conflict that the cable company wants to be seen as a content provider and the consumer looks at cable as a delivery service for content provided by others.


----------



## mlcarson (Dec 31, 2007)

So, which cable company is Bicker a shill for? I think I missed it. I think its pretty obvious that the consumer didn't really have a seat at the table when the FCC drafted its regulations regarding cablecards --the cable companies didn't want them or any form of competition that could occur as the result of them so did everything in their power to make sure they failed.

Most people have a choice of 1 cable company and 2 satellite companies. The cable company is a monopoly and the satellite companies are an oligopoly. The cable company has the advantage in that it's the ONLY internet provider for some. It's also the only one of the 3 that's been mandated to provide 3rd party access via cable card to their video distribution. They also had the advantage in being able to provide local channels from neighboring DMA's in certain areas while satellite was restricted from this.

As a consumer, I'll state that the cable company's set top boxes and DVR's suck in comparison to Moxi, Tivo, and Windows. They also suck in comparison to either satellite company's receiver. If the market was truly competitive, consumers would win and the cable company boxes would be a thing of the past. The cable companies make it so much more difficult and expensive to obtain a better product that people don't bother and take the easier path. Companies that don't care about the preferences of their customers will normally fail unless the customer has no real alternative -- which is the case in a monopoly. If you include the satellite companies as competition (which I don't think is fair since they cannot provide true broadband internet service) then at best you have an oligopoly. All of them basically raise rates at the same time to maximize profits. This is not much of a competitive environment.

I stick with cable because it's my only source of Internet so I need it for that in any case. Bundling then creates a price advantage for cable. I purchased a TivoHD so I have invested cost in this and the lifetime subscription. I've also already gone through all of the hurdles that the cable company made me do to get my cable card working. This cost me hours of vacation time because the cable company required a truck roll (which they charged for) rather than just allowing me to pick up a card. It took multiple attempts because nobody at the cable company knew what they were doing. They don't schedule an appointment at a specific time so each attempt basically meant at least a half day missed from work. This process is how the cable company persuades you that it's best to simply take their box. 

I believe Cablelabs (made up of cable companies) made sure that the devices of competitors such as Tivo were one-way devices while cable boxes were two-way. I'm not sure exactly how this was done but have not seen any newer devices for the PC that were two-way either but all cable company equipment appears to be. Two-way devices would have eliminated problems with SDV, enabled PPV, and made troubleshooting easier. I don't think it's just coincidence that cable company devices have that capability and no others do.

And the satellite operators are worse with respect to 3rd party equipment. In Europe, they seem to allow 3rd party equipment and handle security simply via subscription cards. Neither satellite provider in the US or Canada will allow this so the market demand goes underground to piracy.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

mlcarson said:


> I believe Cablelabs (made up of cable companies) made sure that the devices of competitors such as Tivo were one-way devices while cable boxes were two-way. I'm not sure exactly how this was done but have not seen any newer devices for the PC that were two-way either but all cable company equipment appears to be. Two-way devices would have eliminated problems with SDV, enabled PPV, and made troubleshooting easier. I don't think it's just coincidence that cable company devices have that capability and no others do.


At least 3 manufacturers (Panasonic, Samsung and Philips) have TVs that are certified as Host 2.0 by cablelabs. Nothing stops TiVo or any other manufacturer from developing and certifying 2 way host. Of course it would cost money and there is no market for such devices, but it can be done with existing M-cards.


> And the satellite operators are worse with respect to 3rd party equipment. In Europe, they seem to allow 3rd party equipment and handle security simply via subscription cards. Neither satellite provider in the US or Canada will allow this so the market demand goes underground to piracy.


Most ridiculous defence of piracy I ever heard.


----------



## rv65 (Aug 30, 2008)

Samsung has about 4 tru2way TV's that have yet to be sold.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

vman41 said:


> It gets back to the basic conflict that the cable company wants to be seen as a content provider and the consumer looks at cable as a delivery service for content provided by others.


I don't think cable companies, _in general,_ want to be seen as content providers. Rather, they want to be seen as a value-added service, so that they can best serve their obligations to their owners.



mlcarson said:


> So, which cable company is Bicker a shill for?


What does that make you? A shill for blind consumerism?

The reality is that I'm simply presenting a balanced perspective, rather than the horribly consumer-biased perspective that you would perhaps prefer seeing get an unrebutted soap-box here.

Instead, you are subjected to a differing perspective, one that strikes a chord, perhaps, because it varies from what you like, *and *it actually very closely matches the way things have been and will continue to be. That sharp, cold shock of reality.



mlcarson said:


> I think its pretty obvious that the consumer didn't really have a seat at the table when the FCC drafted its regulations regarding cablecards


No: What's "pretty obvious" is that the consumer had *only one* seat at the table. Also sitting there were American *citizens*, American *workers*, American *investors*, etc.



mlcarson said:


> Most people have a choice of 1 cable company and 2 satellite companies. The cable company is a monopoly and the satellite companies are an oligopoly.


Wrong. Together, cable and satellite service providers are an oligopoly. Period. No matter how many times you try to present bald-faced falsehood, it won't make that falsehood any less false, and I'll correct you every time, I promise, to forestall any casual reader perhaps reading just that one message and developing the erroneous understanding of the reality from what you've posted.



mlcarson said:


> If the market was truly competitive, consumers would win [the way mlcarson thinks they should win] and the cable company boxes would be a thing of the past.


Wrong. There is nothing about competition that ensures your own person image of what consumers winning would look like comes about. You're essentially making up the rules after-the-fact and then claiming that others had not followed the rules. That's ridiculous.

Regardless, competition isn't about just one stakeholder at the table winning. Competition is about balancing the interests of *all* the stakeholders at the table, including American *citizens*, American *workers*, American *investors*, etc., and coming up with the best result overall.



mlcarson said:


> All of them basically raise rates at the same time to maximize profits.


They raise rates to match the increase in perceived value and thereby take advantage of the good work they've done. This is part of fulfilling their overriding responsibility to their workers and their investors. Again, you're looking at things as a blind consumerist, instead of taking in the totality of the situation.


----------



## Marconi (Sep 8, 2001)

bicker said:


> Again with that "it isn't but it is". Ridiculous.


Not what I said. You said the two were the same. I said not. Similar at best. 


bicker said:


> Only *suckers* price based on cost. Responsible businesses that respect their owners price based on the value that they deliver.


It is ridiculous to think that price is unrelated to cost.



bicker said:


> I read what you wrote and what I wrote, and was very very very very deliberate in the wording of the statement that you questioned.


Then your responses are all the sadder.



> I am a serious contributor to the discussion,


Oh, please, roll your eyes for me Mr. Serious Contributor.

I'm outta here. You are beyond help.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Marconi said:


> It is ridiculous to think that price is unrelated to cost.


You seem to know too little about the realities of business to be involved in a discussion like this. Again: Only suckers price based on cost. Responsible businesses that respect their owners price based on the value that they deliver.

If value is less than cost, then the responsible thing for a business to do is to stop offering the product. Practically speaking, they won't do so immediately. Instead, they will still set price based on value, *not cost*, (because only customers who are idiots will pay for something if the price is higher than the value). They will still price based on value, even though that means that they are losing money. Meanwhile, they will be *attempting *to cut costs and/or increase the perceived value so that they can get to a point where they are indeed able to make profit.

Only suckers price based on cost -- not responsible businesses.



Marconi said:


> Then your responses are all the sadder.


I realize that the reality of the situation *saddens *you. I would hope that you would be more mature about your responses to the realities I've outlined.



Marconi said:


> I'm outta here. You are beyond help.


In other words, you weren't able to make a cogent argument against a reality that *saddens *you and so you're trying to save face by making it sound like something occurred in our discussion other than what actually happened.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

wperry1 said:


> I had DISH for a couple of years then I moved and Found myself on the north facing side of an apartment building. I had exactly 1 option, Comcast. There are places where satellite is not an option. Those areas may be small but the cable co's do have a monopoly in those areas.


I agree with your overall point.

But you just "found yourself" there one day? Like someone drugged you and you woke up with all your stuff in the new apartment? And someone forced you at gunpoint to sign a one year lease agreement there? And (gasp) forced you to sign up for cable? Which you absolutely had to have to keep living?

People pick their houses based on the local schools. And the neighborhood. And other things that are not directly related to the house itself. If satellite TV access is also very important to you, then it's part of your "critical criteria" and you should exclude places that don't allow it. Otherwise, you're the one who pigeon-holed yourself into cable TV. So quit complaining about it.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

bicker said:


> I don't think cable companies, _in general,_ want to be seen as content providers. Rather, they want to be seen as a value-added service, so that they can best serve their obligations to their owners.


In general, perhaps, but this may be changing with the largest cableCo buying NBC.

I agree with most of your other comments here - although people might want to think that franchise agreements mean cable has a monopoly on wired service, that's not correct. Other companies can sign franchise agreements to serve your house, and laws have been passed to ensure companies like AT&T can serve entire states without having to make agreements with every county and burg.

Now, does this mean there is effective competition for wired service? Of course not, because of the high barriers to entry (cost to run all those wires). But I'm not sure what gov't can do to encourage someone else to run those wires short of subsidies.

The satellite exemption from open access requirements is an ancient artifact that needs to be eliminated. The FCC should mandate that they go to the same DBS security scheme that Europe uses (or a similar system), as someone else posted. Level the playing field between sat and cable.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

slowbiscuit said:


> In general, perhaps, but this may be changing with the largest cableCo buying NBC.


I'm not so sure. My best guess is that they are not looking to become, as you said, a "content provider". That's way too *narrow* for the undertaking that they've initiated, in the acquisition of NBCU. Individual divisions may have (comparatively) "petty" concerns like that, but at the level of a Comcast/NBCU, it is more about managing business units as assets. Indeed, Comcast, alone, is already at this level, though clearly, as it is now, being a service provider dominates their perspective (but does not override the broader view).



slowbiscuit said:


> although people might want to think that franchise agreements mean cable has a monopoly on wired service, that's not correct.


Yes, that's not correct: It's like saying that McDonald's has a "monopoly" on the Big Mac.

In another thread this morning, I was prompted to do some research through some recent FCC orders, and found one where the FCC, unequivocally, declared that DBS (Dish Network and DirecTV), *all by themselves*, are effective competition for the legacy cable provider, in that specific area, which happens to be a portion of the NY DMA that is so far from the city that it doesn't afford the folks there a reasonable opportunity for over-the-air antenna reception. I don't doubt that people who have substantial consumerist bent will do everything they can to try to deny it, or distract from the reality whenever I highlight it, but there it is, in black-and-white: DBS all by itself can be effective competition for cable.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

bicker said:


> but there it is, in black-and-white: DBS all by itself *can be* effective competition for cable.


I doesn't sound like they are sure about that statement.
If they were, the statement would read "DBS all by itself *is* effective competition for cable".


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

bicker said:


> I don't think cable companies, _in general,_ want to be seen as content providers. Rather, they want to be seen as a value-added service, so that they can best serve their obligations to their owners.
> 
> .... Together, cable and satellite service providers are an oligopoly.


This is correct for each locality. But the type of competition in an oligopoly is completely different than the one you find in a completely open market. I think this is where everyone is getting confused. It's competition, but it's not normal.

Economists don't even know how to describe the type of competition in an oligopoly, except to say that it is "imperfect". It's not based on cost as much as it is based on content and quality. And the major complaint people have with cable isn't that third-party boxes aren't allowed. It's the fact that #1 it's so expensive, and #2 costs keep climbing. That's because the content is controlled by another semi-dependent oligopoly (Disney, CBS, Comcast/NBC, News Corp, Time Warner). And the FCC has no control over THAT, except that forcing providers to do things gives the larger ones an excuse to raise rates even further and puts a large burden on the smaller providers. So by addressing the approx. #7 complaint, they could make the #1 and #2 complaints even worse. You can tell the FCC has been walking a tightrope with its semi-enforcement of the Telecom Act. And we all know the end results.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

bicker said:


> I definitely have got to remember this thread, for rehashing later. Let's set a date, nrc... by what date do you believe your grand vision for consumerist glory will be achieved?


I can't predict when new laws or regulations will actually arrive, but sometime in the next six months the FCC will present a plan to congress that will include new steps aimed at creating an open market for retail navigation devices.

At that point you'll privately rupture a spleen and likely go on medication for depression. Here on the forum you'll put on a brave face, say that it proves cable isn't a monopoly, and use the Chewbacca Defense to claim that I should eat my words.



> I cannot wait to shove these words down you throat. Set a date, *Consumerist Avenger*. Let's see how many decades into the future you have to push it to avoid having to defend your misguided perspective.


You're going to have to do better than "will not/will too" arguments to accomplish that. I don't see any predictions from you.

As I mentioned, I can't say for certain when any new laws or regulations will come into effect. I'm sure the cable industry will make every effort to foil them again. I doubt that they will be so successful this time. I expect that we'll see major changes in the current regulations that will benefit retail cable devices within the next five years.

Sometime within the next ten years I expect that the cable industry will recognize that choice in cable devices is going to be essential if they hope to maintain market share as pay TV providers and they'll actually stop fighting it and embrace it.



> Why do you think CableCARD was necessary in the first place? Do you even understand the mechanics of the issue here?


There is no "asset protection" provided by cable card that couldn't be provided by open protocols through retail devices.



> Be specific: Which specific standard, or what specifically will the standard require, and by what date will it be effectively implemented so you can glory in your accomplishment? Again be specific, because at this point, all I see is a lot of consumerist hot air.


Look, if you want professional services then you're going to have pay. If you want me to write you a standards proposal and implementation plan I'm going to need some cash up front.

If you just want predictions, nobody can predict the specifics of the standards that will be used at this point. There will be a variety of "consumerist" standards proposed they'll narrow that down and the NCTA will do it's very best to cripple the resulting standard as much as possible.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

nrc said:


> I can't predict when new laws or regulations will actually arrive, but sometime in the next six months the FCC will present a plan to congress that will include new steps aimed at creating an open market for retail navigation devices.


That's obvious. The question is whether it will look the way *you* seem to think it will look, or look the way *I* think it will look. _That's _what we've been discussing in this thread, btw.



nrc said:


> At that point you'll privately rupture a spleen and likely go on medication for depression.


*That* at least is a concrete assertion by you, that can be measured. So if I'm healthy six months from now, will you admit you were misguided?



nrc said:


> I don't see any predictions from you.


More of the same. Within six months, we'll have nothing more than intentions; within a year, we'll have nothing that much more specific than the original separable security mandate was, with almost the same level of flexibility (what you would call "loopholes") that service providers have used, that have been at the core of how things are now that disappoints you. More concretely: Asset protection will not go away. Either there will be some ambiguous future intention to establish a standard top-notch government administered electronic security mechanism, or some ambiguous future intention to establish rules for yet-another service-provider-defined scheme (possibly employing some kind of downloadable technology), giving service providers continued control over copying, pretty-much just as they have today.



nrc said:


> I'm sure the cable industry will make every effort to foil them again.


They didn't foil them the first time. They had their say just like your favored consumerists had their say, and the FCC struck a balance. That balance left a bit too much flexibility, which has caused a bit of a PR annoyance for the FCC, so they'll make sure that there is a little less flexibility next time, and try to keep a better lid on the PR side of it.



nrc said:


> I expect that we'll see major changes in the current regulations that will benefit retail cable devices within the next five years.


Define "major changes".



nrc said:


> Look, if you want professional services then you're going to have pay.


Oh boy you do think a lot of yourself!


----------



## mlcarson (Dec 31, 2007)

I'm still waiting for the disclosure of whom Bicker is working for. In my opinion, he represents everything that is wrong with business and it should be obvious to anybody reading his replies. I hope gets paid well for his posting.

I am a consumer so yep -- I'm the shill for consumerism.
The Bicker line appears to be that Consumers are a necessary evil that has to be tolerated for business to make obscene profits. Businesses used to exist to provide a good or service to consumers. The new definition apparently is that they exist only to make profit for shareholders and that desirable goods or services are no longer a necessity. Create a monopoly or oligopoly and you can screw the consumer.

It's amazing how companies can price based on perceived value when they have a monopoly but when there's a truly competitive market it's based on cost. The companies without a monopoly are suckers. And the cable company is a monopoly -- the satellite service is not a true competitor nor will they ever be until they can also offer internet service and phone service (which the laws of physics prohibits due to latency). Comcast and Charter would be competitors if they operated in the same areas. DirecTV and Dish Network are competitors. The cable company has no competition which is why it is a monopoly. You might as well say the broadcast stations are cable's competitor. If you insist on claiming that cable has an oligopoly -- it's a distinction without a lot of real meaning for the consumer.

Tivo had good reason to complain about the cable companies. Anybody who's had to deal with the cable companies with their TivoHD will understand this.



bicker said:


> What does that make you? A shill for blind consumerism?
> 
> The reality is that I'm simply presenting a balanced perspective, rather than the horribly consumer-biased perspective that you would perhaps prefer seeing get an unrebutted soap-box here.
> 
> Instead, you are subjected to a differing perspective, one that strikes a chord, perhaps, because it varies from what you like, *and *it actually very closely matches the way things have been and will continue to be. That sharp, cold shock of reality.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

mlcarson said:


> I'm still waiting for the disclosure of whom Bicker is working for. In my opinion, he represents everything that is wrong with business and it should be obvious to anybody reading his replies. I hope gets paid well for his posting.
> 
> I am a consumer so yep -- I'm the shill for consumerism.
> The Bicker line appears to be that Consumers are a necessary evil that has to be tolerated for business to make obscene profits. Businesses used to exist to provide a good or service to consumers. The new definition apparently is that they exist only to make profit for shareholders and that desirable goods or services are no longer a necessity. Create a monopoly or oligopoly and you can screw the consumer.
> ...


Yawn


----------



## cram501 (Oct 23, 2002)

bicker said:


> They didn't foil them the first time. They had their say just like your favored consumerists had their say, and the FCC struck a balance. That balance left a bit too much flexibility, which has caused a bit of a PR annoyance for the FCC, so they'll make sure that there is a little less flexibility next time, and try to keep a better lid on the PR side of it.


Cable Cards are more than a PR annoyance for the FCC. They are also an annoyance and hinderance for the cable systems, third party devices, and consumers. A new medium or protocol needs to be defined using open standards to avoid a slant towards the cable industry, third party devices, or consumers. All three groups would be better off.

Although the FCC may have left too much flexibility in the current mandates, the cable operators (through cable labs) did a poor job with their design, implementation, and validation process that ended up hindering third party products.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

mlcarson said:


> I'm still waiting for the disclosure of whom Bicker is working for.


I don't work for any broadcaster or service provider -- never have, and given my advancing age, likely never will! 



mlcarson said:


> In my opinion, he represents everything that is wrong with business and it should be obvious to anybody reading his replies.


At least you acknowledge and recognize that I do present a very accurate picture of the reality of the business world (that you and others *shall *experience whether you like it or not). If you're typical, then you're being disingenuous about your appraisal of the way business works in this country, but I'd have to gain full access to your investment and retirement account records in order to be able to see whether you're speaking with forked-tongue, or instead are one of the few exceptions.



mlcarson said:


> I hope gets paid well for his posting.


I don't get paid for posting. I actually pay for the privilege.



mlcarson said:


> I am a consumer so yep -- I'm the shill for consumerism.


Let me steal some of your ridiculously self-serving drivel, from above: mlcarson represents everything that is wrong with consumers and consumerism in the United States. However, you're in good company. I've said this before: Our nation used to be a nation of producers; now we're a nation of consumers. Which do you think represents a stronger base for building our future together?



mlcarson said:


> The Bicker line appears to be that Consumers are a necessary evil that has to be tolerated for business to make obscene profits.


Again, give me access to your financial records, and we'll see if you're one of the beneficiaries of those profits which you choose to call "obscene". While you're at it, let's see your parents' financial records going back to when you were elementary school -- let's see if you've been riding on the back of those so-called "obscene" profits all your life. And even if you, yourself, are one of the few exceptions, most people show can afford TiVo's are not exceptions, and they know that they've fully benefited from our capitalist society.

However, it isn't just about profit: I fill in three major gaps in these discussions, which tend to be dominated by rabid consumerists, as you've admitted to be: In additional to adding in the investors' perspective, I also provide the workers' perspective. Our nation made a commitment of honor eighty years ago to making full employment a priority for all matters regarding the economy. And that's not just everyone working at McDonald's -- rather, real jobs. Finally, I also provide the perspective what's good for our country, from a citizen's perspective. All three of these perspectives: citizen, worker and investor, are more important than the petty concerns of consumers. It escapes me where you, or anyone else, got the idea that *consumption* is a major national priority. It isn't. Rather, the real priorities, applicable to our discussion of these issues, is the strength of our nation, jobs, and healthy economic activity.



mlcarson said:


> Businesses used to exist to provide a good or service to consumers.


When? You're just making stuff up now to try to defend your baseless assertions. Our nation was never about consumption. It was about production.

You're simply wrong.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

cram501 said:


> Cable Cards are more than a PR annoyance for the FCC. They are also an annoyance and hinderance for the cable systems, third party devices, and consumers. A new medium or protocol needs to be defined using open standards to avoid a slant towards the cable industry, third party devices, or consumers. All three groups would be better off.


Yes, I agree. The question is whether or not such a medium or protocol could have been successfully designed and implemented at the time the separable security rules were put in place. Quite frankly, I'm not sure the technology for it, satisfying *all* of the requirements on the system coming from *all* the stakeholders in the system, could be designed and implemented *today *(but I do agree that, at worst, we're getting very close, technology-wise). While so many are so quick to criticize what has happened in the past, they've not presented, and cannot possible present, any proof that there was any better path to travel down. There is delusion that a lot of people share that there must always be a perfect answer to every quandary. That is simply not the case. Sometimes -- quite often actually -- there is no way to satisfy all the requirements for something.



cram501 said:


> Although the FCC may have left too much flexibility in the current mandates, the cable operators (through cable labs) did a poor job with their design, implementation, and validation process that ended up hindering third party products.


Easy to say, impossible to prove or disprove, so it is basically just smoke. The reality is that what was being asked was *difficult*, because of how many different and potentially conflicting requirements there were on the system.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> ........... The question is whether or not such a medium or protocol could have been successfully designed and implemented at the time the separable security rules were put in place. Quite frankly, I'm not sure the technology for it, satisfying *all* of the requirements on the system coming from *all* the stakeholders in the system, could be designed and implemented *today *(but I do agree that, at worst, we're getting very close, technology-wise). While so many are so quick to criticize what has happened in the past, they've not presented, and cannot possible present, any proof that there was any better path to travel down. There is delusion that a lot of people share that there must always be a perfect answer to every quandary. That is simply not the case. Sometimes -- quite often actually -- there is no way to satisfy all the requirements for something.
> 
> ........... The reality is that what was being asked was *difficult*, because of how many different and potentially conflicting requirements there were on the system.


+1 :up:

I've not followed the situation as long or as closely as *bicker* and some other posters here but I have been following the discussions on this forum for a while and I've been experiencing a TiVo HD with CableCARD's and Tuning Adapter on Time Warner Cable for six months or so. This summary of the situation smacks of reality to me.

It puzzles me that so many posters castigate businesses (e.g., cable cos.) for acting to maximize profits (i.e., based on value to the customer, or "what the market will bear") rather than altruistically price their services at just above their cost. Consider the example of selling your house or selling something on E-Bay. How many of you set a price based on the cost basis of the item being sold, rather than whatever the item is currently going for in the market (which is the value to the buyer)?

But there is the monopoly issue, you say, by which you mean, for example, the cable cos. make too much profit (or provide crappy service, poor value, etc.) because they have no competition. First, satellite does provide competition, although perhaps not as much as you would prefer. However, let's say for the sake of argument that cable actually has no competition. Whose fault is this? It's some combination of government and the high cost of entry, neither of which is controlled by the cable cos. It's not the cable cos. fault and it's unrealistic to expect them to want to correct it. If you were running the cable co. I doubt you would be altruistic enough to voluntarily give up profits you could legally realize. (And you wouldn't be running it long if you took that approach because the majority of your stockholders would not be that altruistic.)


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

bicker said:


> You seem to know too little about the realities of business to be involved in a discussion like this. Again: Only suckers price based on cost. Responsible businesses that respect their owners price based on the value that they deliver.


bicker keeps repeating the above point (which is a key point of the discussion), and he's right. So I'll repeat it once again:

*Only suckers price based on cost. Responsible businesses that respect their owners price based on the value that they deliver.*

As a high school teacher of mine used to say many years ago (on a different subject): "that is so important you can put a star by it" (in your notes). In this case I don't know offhand how to star it, so I used bold red instead.

Some people understand it, e.g. dlfl above:



dlfl said:


> Consider the example of selling your house or selling something on E-Bay. How many of you set a price based on the cost basis of the item being sold, rather than whatever the item is currently going for in the market (which is the value to the buyer)?


 but it's a difficult concept for "analytical" people (e.g. engineers like me) to fully embrace.


----------



## parzec (Jun 21, 2002)

With all the pontification about the supremacy of Capitalism, let me point out again that Cable was actually built on the principles of Socialism, in that the government had to take exclusive property rights from the consumer (individual) to provide the utilities (and now cable) the right-of-way and easements to make their services available to the collective. Having benefited from this government taking, the Cable Industry nevertheless perpetuates the fiction that they built their business on capitalistic principles and must operate at maximum profit. Must be nice to have it both ways...


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

parzec said:


> With all the pontification about the supremacy of Capitalism...


Whoa, friend. Let's not get into a capitalism vs. socialism debate. Please understand my comments, at least, as coming from the standpoint of acceptance that the United States is a capitalist country, and that our economy is a capitalist economy. I fully respect the right of socialists or those with socialist tendencies to advocate their socialistic agenda, as long as they are willing to admit that that is what they're doing, i.e., advocating a fundamental change in the economic system in this country toward a more socialistic perspective than has been the case in this country over the last thirty-plus years. What I object to is trying to pass off socialistic change as the way things should be, either "naturally" or as a reflection of how things are or have been.



parzec said:


> let me point out again that Cable was actually built on the principles of Socialism...


And thanks for being the first person advocating your point-of-view to admit that you're advocating for socialistic changes (though I disagree, entirely, with your assertion in this regard). What needs to be pointed out to you, though, is that all recent legislation -- most notably, The Telecommunications Act of 1996 -- have reflected explicit and deliberate "corrections" with regard to the proper balance between socialism and capitalism toward more capitalism. Note, even, that that The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was signed into law by a Democrat -- even many Democrats have become substantially capitalist. The Democrats even have a caucus full of members who are patently capitalist.

Again, this is not the place to have a political argument about whether more capitalism is better or more socialism is better. There are other forums for that. So all we can legitimately discuss here is what is the best reflection of our nation's stated intentions (i.e., what service providers and content providers, and such "should do"), and whether or not we personally *like* the way things are or are going (our own personal preferences are our own, and that's the extent of their relevance).


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

parzec said:


> With all the pontification about the supremacy of Capitalism, let me point out again that Cable was actually built on the principles of Socialism, in that the government had to take exclusive property rights from the consumer (individual) to provide the utilities (and now cable) the right-of-way and easements to make their services available to the collective. Having benefited from this government taking, the Cable Industry nevertheless perpetuates the fiction that they built their business on capitalistic principles and must operate at maximum profit. Must be nice to have it both ways...


You could say this about the Telcos as well, and they accept tax dollars for expansion.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

parzec said:


> With all the pontification about the supremacy of Capitalism, let me point out again that Cable was actually built on the principles of Socialism, in that the government had to take exclusive property rights from the consumer (individual) to provide the utilities (and now cable) the right-of-way and easements to make their services available to the collective. Having benefited from this government taking, the Cable Industry nevertheless perpetuates the fiction that they built their business on capitalistic principles and must operate at maximum profit. Must be nice to have it both ways...


Sounds like you're advocating a cable co. "profit czar".  The exclusive property rights you mention were deemed necessary based on cost of entry, the belief being that many areas would not get cable otherwise. Personally I'd prefer that private greed and market forces determine profits rather than politicians and bureaucrats (with their personal greed, power hunger and lack of domain knowledge in play as always). You can't have it both ways -- either government runs the cable cos. or private industry does. If you have some examples of *well run*, *efficient*, *customer-responsive *government enterprises, let me know.

If I'm understanding *bicker*'s earlier posts correctly, sole source cable franchising has been declared illegal anyway, so it's only the cost-of-entry barrier now.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

cram501 said:


> Cable Cards are more than a PR annoyance for the FCC. They are also an annoyance and hinderance for the cable systems, third party devices, and consumers. A new medium or protocol needs to be defined using open standards to avoid a slant towards the cable industry, third party devices, or consumers. All three groups would be better off.
> 
> Although the FCC may have left too much flexibility in the current mandates, the cable operators (through cable labs) did a poor job with their design, implementation, and validation process that ended up hindering third party products.


Only one group would clearly be better off. The handful of third-party set-top box makers would be better off. The TV mfrs. would get a neutral benefit -- they can add expensive electronics to their TVs, but I don't think they can profit much from it.

Cable operators would be worse off. They now have to deal with supporting third-party boxes they have absolutely no control over. They also now have to deal with angry customers whose boxes don't work, and the cable company has no control over them. This will cost them additional money in several ways. Not to mention that changing to yet another standard will cost them some R&D.

Consumers would not get much benefit. They would have access to third-party boxes. But what happens when they don't work? The cable operator and the box mfr. will point fingers at each other. The problem may take a year or more to solve (see FIOS pixelation issue), and in the mean time the consumer is left with an expensive box that he can't take back yet it doesn't quite work correctly.

What history has shown is that even when the standards are open, other market forces will creep in which will limit "openness". For example, there are exclusive deals like the iPhone and AT&T. Also, open standards continue to evolve and it's possible that incompatibilities might arise with older equipment. Or the provider will support "open" basic services, but all the good stuff is proprietary (CableCard vs. SDV, FIOS MoCA, etc.).

Either cable companies need to be heavily regulated, or not at all. The government isn't really helping today.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> A society that consumes is weaker -- less viable long term -- than a society that produces. Production is a major priority. Employing people, giving them productive work that fosters their ability to afford the necessities of life. That's a major priority. In our country, the respect for private property and the ability for each of us to protect our lives and our assets, both physical and intangible, is a high priority.


Let's start with this (which I agree with BTW).

- Congress gave the FCC a mandate to foster innovation and creation of new products/services/companies/jobs by figuring out how to open up MSO's signal and content to 3rd parties.
Agree or disagree?


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

BobCamp1 said:


> Cable operators would be worse off. They now have to deal with supporting third-party boxes they have absolutely no control over. They also now have to deal with angry customers whose boxes don't work, and the cable company has no control over them. This will cost them additional money in several ways. Not to mention that changing to yet another standard will cost them some R&D.
> 
> Consumers would not get much benefit. They would have access to third-party boxes. But what happens when they don't work? The cable operator and the box mfr. will point fingers at each other. The problem may take a year or more to solve (see FIOS pixelation issue), and in the mean time the consumer is left with an expensive box that he can't take back yet it doesn't quite work correctly.


I have said it before, the answer is simple;
Require the providers deploy their boxes in a provider neutral state, and cards or other mechanism separately and marry/configure them at the customers premises, no exceptions. Eventually require the provider deploy only the same boxes that customers can buy, and yes, deploy them.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

I have a better idea, ban cable companies from renting CPE equipment for video, then they would have to support CE. There is no reason for a the cable cos, to be renting equipment. Tru2way would be available nationwide the next day.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

dlfl said:


> It puzzles me that so many posters castigate businesses (e.g., cable cos.) for acting to maximize profits (i.e., based on value to the customer, or "what the market will bear") rather than altruistically price their services at just above their cost. Consider the example of selling your house or selling something on E-Bay. How many of you set a price based on the cost basis of the item being sold, rather than whatever the item is currently going for in the market (which is the value to the buyer)?


I don't think anyone wants the cable company to not make money. However "what the market will bear" is different in a market with limited competition. In markets with sufficient competition "customers" have a choice. (Note: customers can still be producers if they make product from the acquired good) A choice of products places limits on suppliers and spurs innovation as each supplier is looking to offer a product superior to it's competitors in some way. Cable has only innovated when it was threatened with regulations.

Separable security regs, cable innovates with SDV breaking separable security.

FCC threatens action (or start looking at SDV closely), cable company offers tuning adapter which does nothing for those people with cable card TVs.

Cable companies are being threatened again and what do we hear? Tru2way is the answer, keeping one step ahead of the third party device manufacturers.

Prior to cable card, there was cable ready. Not too long after cable ready sets were available set top boxes started appearing offering content that cable ready sets couldn't access. Towards the end of the cable ready life premium channels had all but been moved to STB's only.

The innovation that cable companies bring is that of breaking compatibility so they can remain free from regulation.

As for compettion, I Just did a quick check on some of these sites looking at the basic offerings..


```
Each is the price for 1 year

DirectTV.............29.99/Month ...29.99 Afterwards
Dish Network.........24.99/Month ...39.99 Afterwards
TWC..................49.95/Month ...Not disclosed
Comcast..............43.97/Month ...57.95 Afterwards
Cablevision..........29.95/Month ...Not disclosed 
BrightHouse..........63.49/Month ...63.49 Afterwards
FIOS.................47.99/Month ...Not disclosed
```
DirectTV and Dish are direct competitors and we can see that the pricing is reflective of that, being relatively low and similarly priced.

The cable providers here are on average quite a bit higher. Why is that? The services are the same, right? Wrong, the only reason I see is that they don't have any direct competitors with the same offerings. The wired services are typically local monopolies, the same as the power company. Satellite doesn't compete or it would have an effect on cable pricing.

As for cablevisions low rates, I suspect a densely populated area that actually has competition, but since I couldn't find any coverage maps for Cablevision...


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Congress gave the FCC a mandate to ... *by figuring out how to open up MSO's signal ... to 3rd parties*.


Incorrect. Congress didn't specify the highlighted text, as you implied.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Videodrome said:


> I have a better idea, ban cable companies from renting CPE equipment for video, then they would have to support CE. There is no reason for a the cable cos, to be renting equipment. Tru2way would be available nationwide the next day.


That would end the technology end run that cable companies employ to escape regulation. My guess though is that small firms would crop up offering rental of the more expensive equipment.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Stormspace said:


> I don't think anyone wants the cable company to not make money. However "what the market will bear" is different in a market with limited competition. In markets with sufficient competition "customers" have a choice. (Note: customers can still be producers if they make product from the acquired good) A choice of products places limits on suppliers and spurs innovation as each supplier is looking to offer a product superior to it's competitors in some way. Cable has only innovated when it was threatened with regulations.
> 
> Separable security regs, cable innovates with SDV breaking separable security.
> 
> ...


Sorry but I don't find your comparisons very meaningful. You have to go into more details such as number of HD channels included in whatever you're calling a "basic" offering. I've done (admitedly casual) comparisons to see what DirectTV package I would have to get to roughly equal what I now get from TWC and the prices are very comparable. To me it's obvious that TWC and Satellite are competitive in my area -- TWC even mentions satellite in their ads.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I agree. When I did my comparison, DirecTV and FiOS were pretty comparable in terms of price, while Comcast ran significantly lower, with the difference in what I care about provided by each pretty insignificant. I never did check out DirecTV, in my home, but FiOS and Comcast have comparable picture quality and reliability here in Mass. 

The biggest difference between the various providers, as far as I can tell, is their high-speed Internet service. It is the only thing that provided me a clear distinction on which to based a purchasing decision.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Let's start with this (which I agree with BTW).
> 
> - Congress gave the FCC a mandate to foster innovation and creation of new products/services/companies/jobs *by figuring out how to open up MSO's signal and content to 3rd parties*.
> Agree or disagree?





bicker said:


> Incorrect. Congress didn't specify the highlighted text, as you implied.


Ok - so what did they specify?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

bicker said:


> I agree. When I did my comparison, DirecTV and FiOS were pretty comparable in terms of price, while Comcast ran significantly lower, with the difference in what I care about provided by each pretty insignificant. I never did check out DirecTV, in my home, but FiOS and Comcast have comparable picture quality and reliability here in Mass.
> 
> The biggest difference between the various providers, as far as I can tell, is their high-speed Internet service. It is the only thing that provided me a clear distinction on which to based a purchasing decision.


Trying to compare Paid TV, Internet, & Telephone services is like trying to pull your own teeth possible but very painful. The February 2010 issue of Consumer Reports tries to do just that. The one thing that is clear is that the people who have access to WOW cable, Verizon FIOS, & AT&T U-verse (in that order) are happier than the rest of us.

Actually getting a price quote that has any resemblance to what you actually have to pay is nearly impossible, because of all the taxes and special add on fees.

Thanks,


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

dlfl said:


> Sorry but I don't find your comparisons very meaningful. You have to go into more details such as number of HD channels included in whatever you're calling a "basic" offering. I've done (admitedly casual) comparisons to see what DirectTV package I would have to get to roughly equal what I now get from TWC and the prices are very comparable. To me it's obvious that TWC and Satellite are competitive in my area -- TWC even mentions satellite in their ads.


These are the minimum basic offerings advertised on the associated web sites. everything else, including number of channels and free offerings are just items designed to confuse the buyer and not allow them to do a direct comparison. So you have to ignore those things and look at the bottom line, price. Otherwise you'll end up in an endless debate over which special feature has more value.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

Stormspace said:


> These are the minimum basic offerings advertised on the associated web sites. everything else, including number of channels and free offerings are just items designed to confuse the buyer and not allow them to do a direct comparison. So you have to ignore those things and look at the bottom line, price. Otherwise you'll end up in an endless debate over which special feature has more value.


That's a completely meaningless comparison you have there, if you consider apples and oranges to be the same thing!!!

But if you really insist on doing that comparison, then you have to include the lifeline cable options, which don't appear on the websites, for obvious reasons. They are regulated local rates for basic service. Locally, the rate is $17.75/month for about 30 channels (broadcast + PBS + local origination). Cable companies are in general required to offer this. Satellite service has no such package. Lifeline cable is cheaper almost everywhere than anything the satellite companies offer.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

CrispyCritter said:


> That's a completely meaningless comparison you have there, if you consider apples and oranges to be the same thing!!!
> 
> But if you really insist on doing that comparison, then you have to include the lifeline cable options, which don't appear on the websites, for obvious reasons. They are regulated local rates for basic service. Locally, the rate is $17.75/month for about 30 channels (broadcast + PBS + local origination). Cable companies are in general required to offer this. Satellite service has no such package. Lifeline cable is cheaper almost everywhere than anything the satellite companies offer.


It's not meaningless. What it does is show what I was trying to point out, and that is the effects of competition. With minimal overlap in service, cable companies charge on average about 20 dollars per month for service over sat. Satellite service is approximately the same price since competition keeps them competitive. What it doesn't show is how Sat pricing affects Cable.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Ok - so what did they specify?


That "video delivery systems in the United States must use boxes that separate out the content security technology from the boxs internal circuitry".


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

bicker said:


> That "video delivery systems in the United States must use boxes that separate out the content security technology from the boxs internal circuitry".


Okay so why is cable not complying ?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> The one thing that is clear is that the people who have access to WOW cable, Verizon FIOS, & AT&T U-verse (in that order) are happier than the rest of us.


I have to wonder how much of that is self-fulfilling. I switched from Comcast to FiOS, and, at least as far as television is concerned, I see no advantage of FiOS, and given the horrific billing problems FiOS customers have reported, far worse than anything I've seen regarding any cable company, along those lines, I'm not sure I would recommend switching, unless you take broadband into consideration (where FiOS is clearly superior to Comcast AFAIC).



atmuscarella said:


> Actually getting a price quote that has any resemblance to what you actually have to pay is nearly impossible, because of all the taxes and special add on fees.


That's the case with practically anything, anywhere, these days, it seems.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Videodrome said:


> Okay so why is cable not complying ?


{bicker looks at his entertainment center}

They *are* complying.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

bicker said:


> {bicker looks at his entertainment center}
> 
> They *are* complying.


So my non-cable card Motorola box is in compliance? Cables insistence on professional installs of cablecards. Every Tivo has access to internet. Did you notice what Tivo had mention about barriers to entrance because of Cable CE that barrier is the open door to internet video. Make the bar too high, and people go elsewhere.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Videodrome said:


> So my non-cable card Motorola box is in compliance? Cables insistence on professional installs of cablecards. Every Tivo has access to internet. Did you notice what Tivo had mention about barriers to entrance because of Cable CE that barrier is the open door to internet video. Make the bar too high, and people go elsewhere.


No. But how long have you had it? Cable did get the right to keep all current equipment in service and deplete existing stock before having to comply. Perhaps a visit to your cable co would fix it? Then again, I don't think they have to use a Cablecard device for simple tuners. I could be wrong.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Videodrome said:


> So my non-cable card Motorola box is in compliance?


Yes, because there are a lot more words that specify more specific details than the quick summary I gave you. This is the exact quote: "Commencing on July 1, 2007, no multichannel video programming distributor subject to this section shall place in service new navigation devices for sale, lease, or use that perform both conditional access and other functions in a single integrated device." Because it is a *law*, you must make sure you read that sentence the way a *law*yer would -- meaning that every word counts. Note especially "subject to this section" (which means that there may be companies *not subject to* the regulation). Also note "shall place in service" and especially in the context of the next word, "new" -- meaning that the regulation does not say anything about leaving in service old equipment -- that is unequivocally *not prohibited*. And so on... again, every word counts. Don't assume that the quickest and most consumer-friendly distortion of the law is what applies. That is never the case. Rather, the actual literal meaning of the law is what applies.

For full details, you can search for and read 47 CFR 76.1204, as well as all the other laws and orders and exceptions and conditions that may have impact on what that law means.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> Then again, I don't think they have to use a Cablecard device for simple tuners. I could be wrong.


In addition to the exclusions and conditions I alluded to above, that doesn't preclude *other* laws from providing exceptions and waivers. The key isn't the complexity of the tuners, though, as you speculated, but rather the complexity of the encryption that the box can handle. For the stronger encryption in use, the boxes do indeed have to have CableCARD (again, and always, for everything, subject to conditions -- research it fully if you want to know them all). There are some boxes from certain manufacturers within which weaker encryption is handled, and those don't need CableCARD.


----------



## cram501 (Oct 23, 2002)

BobCamp1 said:


> Only one group would clearly be better off. The handful of third-party set-top box makers would be better off. The TV mfrs. would get a neutral benefit -- they can add expensive electronics to their TVs, but I don't think they can profit much from it.


I disagree. I think in the long run the cable operators, consumers, and third party manufacturers would all be better off. I wasn't really considering the TV mfrs since I assumed they would be consuming a signal from another source (DVR, set top box, etc..).



BobCamp1 said:


> Cable operators would be worse off. They now have to deal with supporting third-party boxes they have absolutely no control over. They also now have to deal with angry customers whose boxes don't work, and the cable company has no control over them. This will cost them additional money in several ways. Not to mention that changing to yet another standard will cost them some R&D.


Cable operators would be better off in the long run by offering services through multiple types of devices. They already have to deal with angry customers with today's third party DVR's/cablecards/SDV implementations not to mention their own (IMO not very good) cable boxes. They may have to change the focus of their support over the long run.

They don't need control over the devices, they need to distribute to the home and allow a standard for distributing available services. The internet is provided by a device (ONT, Router, Cable Modem) and the equipment from that point on is the customers concern. A similar model could be developed (and I think that was the summary of the Tivo proposal) for cable distribution and other services.



BobCamp1 said:


> Consumers would not get much benefit. They would have access to third-party boxes. But what happens when they don't work? The cable operator and the box mfr. will point fingers at each other. The problem may take a year or more to solve (see FIOS pixelation issue), and in the mean time the consumer is left with an expensive box that he can't take back yet it doesn't quite work correctly.


Consumers have a huge potential for benefit. Third party devices can radically change how we view and use TV (Look at the DVR and how that has changed viewing habits).

The current support model of internet access is already established. What happens now when your internet doesn't work? What happens when you buy any electronic equipment and have problems?

This may also allow the cable operators to offer more choices in the DVRs that are available for rental and shift more of their R&D focus from set top software development to services development.  If the cable companies can focus on services using an established protocol, it should allow easier service development and hopefully spur innovation on what they can provide.



BobCamp1 said:


> What history has shown is that even when the standards are open, other market forces will creep in which will limit "openness". For example, there are exclusive deals like the iPhone and AT&T. Also, open standards continue to evolve and it's possible that incompatibilities might arise with older equipment. Or the provider will support "open" basic services, but all the good stuff is proprietary (CableCard vs. SDV, FIOS MoCA, etc.).


Open standards will continue to evolve. It's possible some devices will become inadequate over time which is to be expected. I used to use a 300 baud modem but I don't use it anymore. I'm sure it would still work on available dial up networks although it would be less than optimal.

The fact that AT&T has made an exclusive deal with Apple doesn't change the underlying protocol they are currently using (GSM? TDMA?), does not limit the other phones that can operate on their network, and has nothing to do with the distribution of the cell phone network (although it may cause some capacity issues unrelated to the discussion).

In fact the cable company can make a deal with the "must have device" manufacturer and rent/sell the item to attract customers.



BobCamp1 said:


> Either cable companies need to be heavily regulated, or not at all. The government isn't really helping today.


Although they are regulated to some extent now depending on the locality, how the signal arrives at the home is immaterial. What matters is how it's distributed and viewed in the home. Open standards there could open up the market for the home user, third party devices, and allow a baseline for cable operators to develop innovative services to make more money.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Consumers who cannot afford to buy host devices would not be better off. Service providers who would be inundated with support calls related to failures of equipment which they don't provide would not be better off, nor would the consumers who realize too late that their service provider will no longer provide them support for their equipment and instead they have to deal with typical consumer electronics manufacturer support processes. The days of just going into the local cable company office and trading out a "bad" box for a "good" box would be over, and that wouldn't be better for consumers. 

I could go on and on.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

bicker said:


> I have to wonder how much of that is self-fulfilling. I switched from Comcast to FiOS, and, at least as far as television is concerned, I see no advantage of FiOS, and given the horrific billing problems FiOS customers have reported, far worse than anything I've seen regarding any cable company, along those lines, I'm not sure I would recommend switching, unless you take broadband into consideration (where FiOS is clearly superior to Comcast AFAIC).


They mentioned the problems with FIOS billing as an issue and it was reflected in the ratings. The one that was very interesting was Wow cable they are a small operator (only in parts of Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, & Indiana) that seems to be doing what everyone wishes their provider(s) were. They were rated number 1 for each service (Internet, Phone, Television, and bundles).

Anyone here have Wow?

Thanks,


----------



## RealityCheck (Feb 15, 2007)

bicker said:


> Consumers who cannot afford to buy host devices would not be better off. Service providers who would be inundated with support calls related to failures of equipment which they don't provide would not be better off, nor would the consumers who realize too late that their service provider will no longer provide them support for their equipment and instead they have to deal with typical consumer electronics manufacturer support processes. The days of just going into the local cable company office and trading out a "bad" box for a "good" box would be over, and that wouldn't be better for consumers.
> 
> I could go on and on.


Addressable pole traps. Problem solved.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Are you willing to do the work to get every current subscriber to sign a contract agreeing to pay, though a special assessment, perhaps, the cost of installation of these traps, spread over, let's say, the next twelve months of service, including the cost of the devices themselves and the cost to have someone install them, as well as any costs associated with removing existing physical traps downstream from those new traps?

And before someone replies in haste: "The cost of doing business" means fronting the money for the equipment and installation work, and making back the cost plus some profit over a reasonable period of time, reasonable dictated by the realities of the business, most notably that every dollar that is to be spent must compete with every other possible way that dollar could be spent or invested instead, and the use of that dollar with the best return on investment wins.

Oh! And Addressable pole traps do not solve the problem of *restricting subscribers to a specific number of expanded digital outlets*, which is an essential part of rate fairness for folks who use only one such outlet. Price is based on value, and if value delivered now cannot be differentiated between one expanded digital outlet and two expanded digital outlets, that means that the folks who only use one such outlet are effectively subsidizing a portion of the value delivered to folks with two expanded digital outlets.

No, Addressable pole traps do not solve anything. All they do is benefit a subset of subscribers, at the expense of other subscribers.


----------



## RealityCheck (Feb 15, 2007)

Perhaps MVPDs should dump their current business plans and start selling fountain soda. Much better margins.

Addressable Pole Traps benefit customers, not MVPDs. It removes the STB Genie and the MVPD from utilizing the STB for targeted ads, VoD, and data mining. 

And yes, it's "the cost of doing business".


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

RealityCheck said:


> And yes, it's "the cost of doing business".


All expenses are a cost of doing business. However most business will not incur an expense unless they believe doing so will increase their profitability (over not incurring it) and for optional expenses (called investments) they will direct their money to what ever they believe will increase their profitability the most.

Thanks,


----------



## RealityCheck (Feb 15, 2007)

bicker said:


> Oh! And Addressable pole traps do not solve the problem of *restricting subscribers to a specific number of expanded digital outlets*, which is an essential part of rate fairness for folks who use only one such outlet.


Ah! The true reason for signal encryption. It's not just piracy by non-subs, but "theft of service" by paying customers unwilling to pay per set. MVPDs have been smarting about this since the early 1990s.


----------



## lvthunder (Apr 4, 2002)

bicker said:


> Consumers who cannot afford to buy host devices would not be better off. Service providers who would be inundated with support calls related to failures of equipment which they don't provide would not be better off, nor would the consumers who realize too late that their service provider will no longer provide them support for their equipment and instead they have to deal with typical consumer electronics manufacturer support processes. The days of just going into the local cable company office and trading out a "bad" box for a "good" box would be over, and that wouldn't be better for consumers.
> 
> I could go on and on.


We didn't have this problem with analog cable. The tuner was integrated into the TV and it rarely broke. The reason people have to trade out a "bad" box is because they are all a pile of junk.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lvthunder said:


> We didn't have this problem with analog cable. The tuner was integrated into the TV and it rarely broke. The reason people have to trade out a "bad" box is because they are all a pile of junk.


And given how much people complain about how much they pay for the cheap boxes, just imagine how much more they'd complain if they were provided superior boxes at a commensurately higher price.

And no, getting something better for the same price as something worse is not a reasonable expectation.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

RealityCheck said:


> Ah! The true reason for signal encryption.


One of several "true" reasons, actually (including asset protection, which you alluded to).

You didn't realize that?

Glad to be of assistance.


----------



## lvthunder (Apr 4, 2002)

bicker said:


> And given how much people complain about how much they pay for the cheap boxes, just imagine how much more they'd complain if they were provided superior boxes at a commensurately higher price.
> 
> And no, getting something better for the same price as something worse is not a reasonable expectation.


You haven't been around CE devices that long have you. Prices are always going down and quality goes up. Look at HDTV's and digital cameras.


----------



## RealityCheck (Feb 15, 2007)

bicker said:


> One of several "true" reasons, actually (including asset protection, which you alluded to).
> 
> You didn't realize that?
> 
> Glad to be of assistance.


Of course I knew that. I also remember the "cable ready tv" mandate being instituted at the behest of cable MSOs. I'll save you the "different times, different needs/reasons" followup.

Digital Cable isn't inherently better for non-HD video subs either. Analog Cablevision looked superior to iO (IMO) for years until 2006.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lvthunder said:


> You haven't been around CE devices that long have you.


Only since the 1980s when I worked for a Fortune 10 company that made consumer electronics equipment.



lvthunder said:


> Prices are always going down and quality goes up. Look at HDTV's and digital cameras.


Yup, that's true, but that takes time. You alluded to a *remedy*, not a *patient *wait for things to get better and less expensive.


----------



## lvthunder (Apr 4, 2002)

Well anything you do is going to take some time. My parents have a couple TV's that have cabe cards built in. You don't see those anymore because of all the hassle of cablecards. Those TV's weren't any more expensive then the TV's without them.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

lvthunder said:


> Well anything you do is going to take some time. My parents have a couple TV's that have cabe cards built in. You don't see those anymore because of all the hassle of cablecards. Those TV's weren't any more expensive then the TV's without them.


I hate to do this, but they were, at least as regards to cost. Cable Card added an expense to TV's that caused them to be priced 100-200 dollars more than sets without cable card. That fact, along with consumer ignorance about cable card in general is why Cable Card TV's failed. So TV manufacturers stopped supporting cable card.

Probably a good thing since SDV killed the cable card TV.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I purchased a non-CableCARD-equipped HDTV (when CableCARD-equipped HDTVs were for sale) because HDTVs don't have hard drives, and TiVo's do.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

bicker said:


> I purchased a non-CableCARD-equipped HDTV (when CableCARD-equipped HDTVs were for sale) because HDTVs don't have hard drives, and TiVo's do.


I hear you. I purchased a 42" monitor, because cable companies don't want me using a tuner they don't control.


----------



## Tsiehta (Jul 22, 2002)

I kind of get what Bicker is saying, and even if I think he's a bit gruff about it, it makes sense.

What I don't get is why my cable company isn't putting out a DVR that is more functionally sound. Is it because the majority of their subscribers aren't familiar with something like a Tivo, and are therefore just happy with whatever they are offered?

From that perspective, I would like to see more competition to drive improvement of the devices made available to me.


----------



## lvthunder (Apr 4, 2002)

The cable companies don't for two reasons. The people they buy the boxes from don't make them. Cox is where I live and all the SA boxes are crap and look like clock radios from the 80's. The other reason is no competition. TiVo is trying to compete with them, but most people don't know the difference between a TiVo and the cable company DVR. Also besides TiVo there is no competition that can be found at brick and motor stores.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> The days of just going into the local cable company office and trading out a "bad" box for a "good" box would be over, and that wouldn't be better for consumers.
> 
> I could go on and on.


wait - I thought it was not about consumers 

so that would be bad for *some* consumers but would it be bad for the market? Likely not as the market would be able to provide choices and the maker of those host devices would get revenue from the cable companies as well so the cable company/DBS/etc. could supply their own host device in a bundle deal that allowed anyhow for the "bring in bad to swap for good one". What the MSOs would have a time dealing with is how to charge to keep their revenue stream of per outlet still intact somehow.

I do not see how we need to suppress economic diversity and innovation simply because the companies currently in the market do not know how to efficiently and effectively deal with changes the FCC proposes and gives said companies time to be involved in the development of.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Let's start with this (which I agree with BTW).
> 
> - Congress gave the FCC a mandate to foster innovation and creation of new products/services/companies/jobs *by figuring out how to open up MSO's signal and content to 3rd parties*.
> Agree or disagree?





bicker said:


> Incorrect. Congress didn't specify the highlighted text, as you implied.


Ok - so what did they specify?


bicker said:


> That "video delivery systems in the United States must use boxes that separate out the content security technology from the box's internal circuitry".


and the reason the FCC had lawyers draft up that language and enact it as a rule was to meet the mandate from Congress to foster innovation and creation of new products/services/companies/jobs.
agree ?

that rule from the FCC and resulting bastardized cable cards and Tuning adapters and squabbling, by both sides, over tru2way and the waiver for DBS did not come close to meeting that mandate from congress.
agree?


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

bicker said:


> Yes, because there are a lot more words that specify more specific details than the quick summary I gave you. This is the exact quote: "Commencing on July 1, 2007, no multichannel video programming distributor subject to this section shall place in service new navigation devices for sale, lease, or use that perform both conditional access and other functions in a single integrated device." Because it is a *law*, you must make sure you read that sentence the way a *law*yer would -- meaning that every word counts. Note especially "subject to this section" (which means that there may be companies *not subject to* the regulation). Also note "shall place in service" and especially in the context of the next word, "new" -- meaning that the regulation does not say anything about leaving in service old equipment -- that is unequivocally *not prohibited*. And so on... again, every word counts. Don't assume that the quickest and most consumer-friendly distortion of the law is what applies. That is never the case. Rather, the actual literal meaning of the law is what applies.
> 
> For full details, you can search for and read 47 CFR 76.1204, as well as all the other laws and orders and exceptions and conditions that may have impact on what that law means.


But really , i just dont care..


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Tsiehta said:


> I kind of get what Bicker is saying, and even if I think he's a bit gruff about it, it makes sense.


"Gruff"! Yes, I like that!



Tsiehta said:


> What I don't get is why my cable company isn't putting out a DVR that is more functionally sound. Is it because the majority of their subscribers aren't familiar with something like a Tivo, and are therefore just happy with whatever they are offered?


I think a big part of it is that TiVo, as a stand-alone DVR, right now, cuts off VOD and PPV. Those are value-added and fee-based services of your cable company. There is more profit to be made from capitalizing on the value-added and the fees, than from spending a lot of money acquiring brand-new equipment, incurring massive technician training costs, incurring massive costs for establishing new procedures and work instructions to support this new equipment, etc. This numbers simply don't work out to support what you're advocating for.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> agree?


Disagree. If you want to blame someone, blame your Members of Congress for not putting in place a law that more clearly and explicitly is crafted to your personal advantage. Otherwise, accept that the manner in which the law was crafted and implemented is deliberately aimed at striking a fair balance between what you want and what other critical stakeholders in our society want.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Videodrome said:


> But really , i just dont care..


Yes, I have noted that quite often some folks simply want the reality to be to their personal benefit and "don't care" that the laws don't promise them what they might have hoped it would have promised them.

And indeed, your response really crystallizes why sometimes the best approach to threads like this is to simply say to someone presenting their hopes as something that they "deserve" that they're wrong, and offer no other avenues, since, as you say, they probably don't care. All that really matters is that casual readers* don't* get the idea that what that someone had hoped actually was "deserved".


----------



## lvthunder (Apr 4, 2002)

bicker said:


> I think a big part of it is that TiVo, as a stand-alone DVR, right now, cuts off VOD and PPV.


That's Cablelabs fault not TiVo's. Cablecard doesn't support it so TiVo couldn't provide it if they wanted to. If Cablecard was originally was properly designed it would support all that stuff.


----------



## WizarDru (Jan 18, 2005)

bicker said:


> There is more profit to be made from capitalizing on the value-added and the fees, than from spending a lot of money acquiring brand-new equipment, incurring massive technician training costs, incurring massive costs for establishing new procedures and work instructions to support this new equipment, etc.


Judging by my experiences for the last 30 years, I'd say that technician training costs have NEVER been something the cable companies are willing to spend money on.

I was under the impression (correctly or incorrectly) that a large part of the reason that TiVo didn't support PPV and VoD for the cable companies was because the cable companies didn't want to approve stuff like M-cards and then OpenCable or what have you, preventing TiVo from being able to access them. Is this the reality? Understand that I don't have a problem with the cable companies trying to make TiVo less attractive. It's clearly in their best interests to do so. But I'm not inclined to advocate a purely free-market approach to cable, both from my experiences in the local market and the perspective of both older market forces and recent market conditions. It's why we have regulatory bodies like the FCC in the first place...because businesses don't always act rationally or in the best interest of the market or consumers or often even themselves.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> Disagree. If you want to blame someone, blame your Members of Congress for not putting in place a law that more clearly and explicitly is crafted to your personal advantage. Otherwise, accept that the manner in which the law was crafted and implemented is deliberately aimed at striking a fair balance between what you want and what other critical stakeholders in our society want.


now you are not taking the time to really read my posts - I had not gotten to any blame part

I had agreed that the law was limited to simply encryption, I think it was limited thus by lawyers who needed something objectively enforceable.

So I asked a simple question I will put in one sentence.
Did the adoption of cable card as created from rules(and meeting those rules) enacted by the FCC meet the Mandate from Congress?
agree or disagree?


----------



## paulnelson20 (Oct 18, 2007)

a


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

lvthunder said:


> That's Cablelabs fault not TiVo's. Cablecard doesn't support it so TiVo couldn't provide it if they wanted to. If Cablecard was originally was properly designed it would support all that stuff.


Technically the CableCARD standard does support VOD/PPV since the cards are capable of working in boxes with 2-way communication (which is needed for VOD/PPV and SDV) The problem is that CableLabs punted on coming up with an official 2-way communication standard since that wasn't mandated and instead expected third party boxes like TiVo to support the three existing communication protocols that were in use at the time. The CE companies wouldn't do this, because not only would it add additional cost to those boxes, but without a standard there was no guarantee they would continue to work if the cable companies made changes on their end. To get the cards out by the mandated date the discussion on 2-way communication was postponed, so in order to get certifications from CableLABs, boxes had to be uni-directional. This effectively killed VOD/PPV on TiVo and caused problems when SDV deployment started.

The current flap is about the Cable Industries "solution" to this problem. 2-way communication protocol discussion picked up after the CableCARD standard was finished, but pretty much broke down immediately because Cable companies wanted complete control over what was displayed on any 2-way compatible devices (think of the TiVo UI looking like the cable DVR UI), while the CE companies to wanted maintain control. Eventually a compromise was made which resulted in the Tru2Way standard which turns CE boxes into a dichotomy, like having 2 completely separate devices in one box. The CE box manufacture can use it's own interface for anything that doesn't involve 2-way communication, but must use the cable companies interface for things like VOD and PPV and whatever other 2-way services the cable companies come up with in the future. TiVo wasn't happy about this, but agreed to it since it seemed like the best offer they were going to get from CableLabs.

Now that the FCC is basically calling a "do over" on the whole thing, TiVo is pushing to keep control of the GUI for their box. This makes perfect sense to me after all you don't see AT&T or Verizon controlling the interface on cell phones or any broadband companies controlling what your web browser looks like. Why should cable TV be any different?


----------



## dylanemcgregor (Jan 31, 2003)

morac said:


> after all you don't see AT&T or *Verizon* controlling the interface on cell phones


Ahh...agree with all the rest of your post, but until very, very recently (and possibly still on the majority of their non-smartphones) Verizon did just this. Freaking annoying, and almost enough for me to not use their service...but then I remember I don't pay for it and bit my tongue.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

cram501 said:


> Cable operators would be better off in the long run by offering services through multiple types of devices. They already have to deal with angry customers with today's third party DVR's/cablecards/SDV implementations not to mention their own (IMO not very good) cable boxes. They may have to change the focus of their support over the long run.


You aren't going to believe this, but the people using third-party boxes are in the minority. The majority of people are actually happy with the current lease model and quality of Motorola's and Cisco's DVRs. It's shocking, but true. I don't think there is any urgency there. They did build a tuning adapter, though (but not entirely out of the goodness of their heart).



cram501 said:


> They don't need control over the devices, they need to distribute to the home and allow a standard for distributing available services.


The real problem is that these standards keep changing, as they often do when the offered services are increasing. SDV wasn't implemented to work-around CableCards, it was created to maximize the limited bandwidth cable companies had to the house. When you do develop a new technology and need to get it out quickly, you need to pay someone to produce the first ones or build them yourself. Tivo didn't build SDV boxes for whatever reason. And with DBS suddenly deploying lots of HD, cable companies couldn't wait for Tivo and paid Motorola to build the SDV boxes instead.



cram501 said:


> Consumers have a huge potential for benefit. Third party devices can radically change how we view and use TV (Look at the DVR and how that has changed viewing habits).


You're assuming that the DVR and other devices would have never been invented without ReplayTV and Tivo, because the big bad cable companies have extremely narrow vision. That's a narrow view. The one kind of competition that an oligopoly DOES have is for new technical development. It's one of the few ways they can differentiate themselves. DBS and cable TV have been pushing each other for some time.



cram501 said:


> The fact that AT&T has made an exclusive deal with Apple doesn't change the underlying protocol they are currently using (GSM? TDMA?), does not limit the other phones that can operate on their network, and has nothing to do with the distribution of the cell phone network (although it may cause some capacity issues unrelated to the discussion).


Most cellular companies lock phones that are bought under contract, and almost all phones are bought under contract. And even if you did "cross-carrier" a phone, you'd only get basic services. The cool, advanced stuff is proprietary. Even my cheap prepaid unlocked phone has T-Mobile-only software in it. I wouldn't expect most of the advanced features to work on AT&T. Including downloading ring tones, which is something most people do and some would even consider to be basic.

There is a huge difference between standardization out of necessity and standardization out of government mandate. When cell phones were first invented, each country in Europe used their own proprietary method. This is typical of new development -- you first build the thing any way you can and see if there's a market. There was. The problem was that it was impossible to roam. So Europe got together out of necessity to build an open standard. Every player involved saw the huge money-making potential involved, and since it was brand new AND an upgrade from existing services, there was a lot of momentum behind it.

On the other hand, the FCC was credited with slowing down the evolution of cellular service in this country, because they were way too slow to react to the constant new developments.

With Tru2Way, I don't think that everyone will heavily profit. TV manufacturers are the only major player here (the two DVR makers are just piggy-backing), and I don't think they can charge an extra $300 for a TV that supports it. Cable and DBS already have systems that work -- Tru2Way is a nuisance and a duplication of effort.

It's all about enthusiasm, and I have no idea how the FCC can mandate that. Without it, any attempt will ultimately fail.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

morac said:


> Now that the FCC is basically calling a "do over" on the whole thing, TiVo is pushing to keep control of the GUI for their box. This makes perfect sense to me after all you don't see AT&T or Verizon controlling the interface on cell phones or any broadband companies controlling what your web browser looks like. Why should cable TV be any different?


In order to get permission to sell a phone in a Verizon store, a cell phone mfr. must:

1. Create a unique phone just for that carrier. They don't want a clone of the same phone with another carrier.

2. Get approval of the hardware design and GUI design.

3. They must add whatever features Verizon wants and disable other features that Verizon doesn't want. Did you ever wonder why you just can't transfer pictures directly to your computer? That's actually part of the open Bluetooth standard and the Bluetooth chipset in your phone. And yet that part doesn't work.

4. Pass the call quality test. You do the "can you here me now" test while driving a specific route where there is weak coverage. If the phone drops the call, you fail. You then reschedule in a month or two, show them what you did to improve performance, and try again.

Items 1 - 3 are for EVERY carrier, not just Verizon. In reality, cell phone mfrs. only have the carriers as their customers. They rarely sell directly to end users. Because the market has so few customers, the customers get a lot of influence.

Also, broadband providers encourage you to use their web mail, which had a proprietary interface. They also install their toolbars on your web browser as as well. Some used to go so far as to revamp the web interface entirely (see AOL).


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lvthunder said:


> That's xxx's fault not TiVo's.


Fault is irrelevant. I provided an _explanation_ why TiVo isn't the right tool for the job. I wasn't _accusing_ them of anything.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

WizarDru said:


> Judging by my experiences for the last 30 years, I'd say that technician training costs have NEVER been something the cable companies are willing to spend money on.


Judging by my experiences, back when I was working for a Big Six firm, consumers are notorious for underestimating how much it costs to provide things for them.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> now you are not taking the time to really read my posts - I had not gotten to any blame part


I was anticipating -- and not just anticipating what your response might be, but also what other folks' responses might be. I post preemptively when I have the foresight to do so.

You asked me if the adoption of CableCARD satisfied the requirements of the law? Yes, it did.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

BobCamp1 said:


> With Tru2Way, I don't think that everyone will heavily profit. TV manufacturers are the ongy-backing), and I don't think they can charge an extra $300 for a TV that supports it. Cable and DBS already have systems that work -- Tru2Way is a nuisance and a duplication of effort.
> 
> It's all about enthusiasm, and I have no idea how the FCC can mandate that. Without it, any attempt will ultimately fail.


So what you are saying is the FCC with its new staff should look at the mess created under the old FCC and perhaps come up with a better solution, with all the parties involved.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> now you are not taking the time to really read my posts - I had not gotten to any blame part
> 
> I had agreed that the law was limited to simply encryption, I think it was limited thus by lawyers who needed something objectively enforceable.
> 
> ...





bicker said:


> I was anticipating -- and not just anticipating what your response might be, but also what other folks' responses might be. I post preemptively when I have the foresight to do so.
> 
> You asked me if the adoption of CableCARD satisfied the requirements of the law? Yes, it did.


You know full well the mandate from Congress was to foster economic growth and innovation and not to just separate security like the rule was written by the FCC and cable cards did.
That is what I asked(bolded for your benefit) and if you do not want to answer the actual question that will give us the answer just as plainly.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> You know full well the mandate from Congress was to foster economic growth and innovation


That was imposed on the FCC. They've done many things to do that, one of which was the separable security mandate that the place on the industry.



ZeoTiVo said:


> and not to just separate security like the rule was written by the FCC and cable cards did.
> That is what I asked(bolded for your benefit) and if you do not want to answer the actual question that will give us the answer just as plainly.


Bull***. Your "question" assumed a prejudicial premise. In other words, you effectively engaged in deceptive manipulation. My rewrite remedied your deliberate and malicious deception.

The adoption of CableCARD satisfied the requirements of the law. Accept it. Stop trying to deceive people into thinking that it didn't.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> The adoption of CableCARD satisfied the requirements of the law. Accept it. Stop trying to deceive people into thinking that it didn't.


Then you agree that cable cards did nothing to foster economic diversity and innovation. I agree the fault is just not with anyone group.

You can try all the lawyer talk you want to so narrowly define the issue as to avoid the actual issue being addressed but I have now shown that for the BS it is.
Your Welcome. 

PS - I can go prejudicial when the Witness is hostile


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

BobCamp1 said:


> Items 1 - 3 are for EVERY carrier, not just Verizon. In reality, cell phone mfrs. only have the carriers as their customers. They rarely sell directly to end users. Because the market has so few customers, the customers get a lot of influence.


I'm sure the carriers test the phones to make sure they don't interfere with their network just the same as CableLabs tested the TiVo S3 before certifying it, but the carriers aren't designing the GUI for the phone manufacturers. I've had Verizon and AT&T and had the same exact phone model. Yes the phone hardware internals were different and one ran BREW and the other JAVA, but the actual GUI was virtually identical on both phones. Actually the phone I have with AT&T would work fine as a phone with any other carrier that uses GSM if I replaced the current SIM card with one from the other carrier.

But all of that is irrelevant since that's not my point. My point is that the GUIs for all AT&T phones don't look the same (iPhone doesn't look like Blackberry, etc) and all Verizon phones don't look the same. Hence AT&T and Verizon are not pushing their own GUI to the phones.

I'm pretty sure the issue here isn't about cable companies putting restrictions on what the boxes are allowed to do (for example taking the VOD stream and dumping it to the drive would almost certainly be prohibited), the issue is forcing the CE box GUIs to look exactly like the cable box GUIs.


----------



## dylanemcgregor (Jan 31, 2003)

morac said:


> Hence AT&T and Verizon are not pushing their own GUI to the phones.


Again, this is exactly what Verizon was doing. There was a sticky created at Howard Forums just so people could rant about what a crappy GUI it was and how much it sucked that they forced the phone manufactures to adopt it. Verizon said they did this to decrease support costs, this way when someone called them up and asked how to do something on their phone tech support didn't have to have that exact phone handy.

Makes sense, but still bloody annoying. I have a Samsung and a Casio Verizon phone on Verizon of the same vintage and the GUI is practically identical, and bad on both.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Then you agree that cable cards did nothing to foster economic diversity and innovation.


No, I don't. Stop putting *your *words in *my *mouth. If you cannot make your argument based on the strength of your own intellect and the available evidence, then accept that either your argument is *faulty* or that you're not smart enough.

I have made no judgment about whether CableCARDs have fostered economic diversity and innovation, and I *won't*. I don't think anyone has done enough research to determine how much positive impact CableCARD has had, but the chances of it having zero positive impact is practically zero itself, so if I were to give you that answer, you'd attack me for my assertion without sufficient evidence. Also, history proves that anti-business people would distort such judgment as condemnations against the companies who are responsibly fulfilling their obligations, instead of those critics accepting personal responsibility for their own lack of vision in convincing people for the need for *different parameters to be added to the laws*.

You should be ashamed of your *presumption*, your *deception*, and your assertion *without sufficient evidence*.



ZeoTiVo said:


> You can try all the lawyer talk you want to so narrowly define the issue as to avoid the actual issue being addressed but I have now shown that for the BS it is.


Back at you. It isn't lawyer-talk. It is reality. The fact is that you are trying to impose your own personal beliefs and values on to others. That's immoral, in my book. Keeping such judgments in your own mind is completely defensible, but when you try to make such assertions publicly, you deserve to be condemned.

Don't irresponsibly attack me for being responsible in what *I* post.


----------



## PPC1 (Sep 16, 2006)

I think Bicker's take on the "spirit of the law" issue is correct. The regulation was implemented to open up the market for digital tuning devices. Cable Cards were standardized, and adopted. But then cable pushed out the SDV that greatly (though not completely) undermined the efficacy of the third party cable card devices. I suspect that the decision was in part (although clearly not entirely) driven by the desire to impede the ability to compete. The dragging of the feet (at least based on my perception) in implementing cable cards and tuning adapters is some evidence of that intent. The timing of the big push for SDV (shortly after the seperable security order) came in to effect is also some. (Yes, Bicker, these facts only give rise to an inference, and no they are not conclusive evidence.) I believe the actions as a whole violate the spirit of the regulations. But, as Bicker rightly says, you really can't punish that; at least not without doing violence to the rule of law. It's only my (slightly educated) opinon that it violated the spirit of the regs. But I can't with a straight face argue that it actually violated the regs. In addition, there was clearly a technical beneift to consumers--many more channels with out substanial build out costs to upgrade the pipeline, which would result in increased costs to the consumer. Thus others can argue that it didn't violate the spirit. So what do you do?

All you can do is add more or modify existing regulations. Of course, those will be ineffective as soon as they are implemented, which leads to the regulation creep that I find so annoying anyway. Usually, regulations make things worse, not better. I have no doubt that's true in this industry, too.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

PPC1 said:


> All you can do is add more or modify existing regulations.


This is critical. It is irresponsible to abrogate society's responsibility to run *ahead of* the deployment of new technology. A society acting responsibly has an agency that keeps an eye on this industry, and issues regulations coincident with the need for such regulations. There is no excuse, whatsoever, for failure to do so. So either the FCC is a bunch of screw-ups (in which case *we *are at fault, because it is our actions and inaction that led to those folks being there), or they are responsibly reacting coincident with the need for new regulations, and the fact is that, in fulfilling their obligations to strike a reasonable balance, what we are experiencing is indeed what is reasonable to expect we would experiencing.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> I have made no judgment about whether CableCARDs have fostered economic diversity and innovation, and I *won't*.


 exactly - you just keep avoiding the real issue that it can be in the market's and the Country's best interest to open up the MSO's to 3rd party devices. A pipeline exists in this country and ways to more _productively_ use it within the framework of our capitalistic economy should be explored. You wish to ignore that and keep repeating that cable cards meet the letter of the FCC rules which is just kind of Duh. Of course they do, there is no action being asked for in that regard.



> I don't think anyone has done enough research to determine how much positive impact CableCARD has had, but the chances of it having zero positive impact is practically zero itself, so if I were to give you that answer, you'd attack me for my assertion without sufficient evidence.


 Neither of us has likely 'researched' this specific impact but it is clearly minimal. Looking at other market examples a potential clearly exists which is as yet untapped.


> Also, history proves that anti-business people would distort such judgment as condemnations against the companies who are responsibly fulfilling their obligations


 Sure, someone who is expressing their consumer interest will be biased toward the consumer. That is another Duh. By your statements it is also clear that cable companies do their part to protect their capital and resources. That is their responsibility and their right as long as they do not move into illegal collusions. Frankly I have agreed with the cable company statements that they need to protect their PPV/VOD assests and also that SDV is very strategic to cable staying competitive in an overall market of broadcasting that is indeed NOT a monopoly and clearly has competitive pressures.
Unless you can show how those pressures are going to open the broadband pipe for more market diversity and innovation then Government influence to move that along is appropriate and even necessary. You say things are moving but slowly as they should. Others see the oil barons of old or the Ma Bell stranglehold of voice network of recent memory. I see something in the middle of all that (eg no evil conspiracies).

Now the middle is messy, so no one likes to try and describe it. The cable company has worked within our capitalistic game rules and invested a LOT of Capital in the pipelines. They have worked out carriage deals to make revenue from premium content and have brought a big pipeline full of internet goodness to my house. They are actually to be admired as they bastion of the first wave of the innovation we all speak of. Until now they only allowed their own devices to hang off it save for the basic tuner and display itself.

Now it is time for them to let go of that grip and gear up for the next wave of innovation in which other 3rd party companies can also sell stuff for consumers to hang off the cable pipe. DBS and others need to be brought into this search for open standards as well. It clearly is in the best interest of the content market to do so. look at the innovation already when companies can use the open standards and be one device removed by sitting behind the cable or DSL modem.

So keep your narrow cable companies are complying with the rules focus Bicker. That focus will only have you and the cable companies left behind and wondering where their long term profits went.

TiVo is simply stating in the article that started this post - that Cable keeping such an iron grip on PPV/VOD display and its current way of making each digital outlet addressable and thus trackable is holding up that progress and making it hard as the lawyers need to write specific objective laws and can not bring "spirit of the law" violations to court. I think TiVo should go further and show how this iron grip is hurting the long term interests of the same companies. Consumers go where the value goes and already are doing end runs around cable broadcasters which also excludes DBS companies.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

bicker said:


> Yes, I have noted that quite often some folks simply want the reality to be to their personal benefit and "don't care" that the laws don't promise them what they might have hoped it would have promised them.
> 
> And indeed, your response really crystallizes why sometimes the best approach to threads like this is to simply say to someone presenting their hopes as something that they "deserve" that they're wrong, and offer no other avenues, since, as you say, they probably don't care. All that really matters is that casual readers* don't* get the idea that what that someone had hoped actually was "deserved".


No of course your wrong, Cable failed to support cable card, there are references all over the board of this. Apply things equally , and maybe i will consider your post relevant. Because you miss the point of most posts entirely.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> exactly - you just keep avoiding the real issue


Bull. You just don't like that I don't let you tell me what the "real" issue is. You don't get to impose onto others your own values. Each person has their own values, and has the right to have their values respected, especially with regard to their own perspectives.



ZeoTiVo said:


> Neither of us has likely 'researched' this specific impact but it is clearly minimal.


In other words, you have no real idea what you're talking about, but you're going to make an assumption that supports the side of the issue that you prefer, and then pretend that other things you say that are based on that baseless assumption are _instead _based on something of significance. That's exactly what I was talking about before. It's deception, plain and simple. And what's really offensive is that you expect me to play in the sandbox you've dirtied with your lack of concern about foundation.



ZeoTiVo said:


> Sure, someone who is expressing their consumer interest will be biased toward the consumer. That is another Duh.


The problem is that folks very quickly forget that bias and start building towers of condemnation against others based on that bias, totally ignoring the legitimacy of the alternative bias.

[lots of non-objectionable stuff omitted]



ZeoTiVo said:


> So keep your narrow cable companies are complying with the rules focus Bicker. That focus will only have you and the cable companies left behind and wondering where their long term profits went.


That's nothing but self-serving clap-trap. The reality is that no sector is "keeping" anything "narrow" nor is any sector being "left behind". These are meaningless aspersions you've output.



ZeoTiVo said:


> I think TiVo should go further and show how this iron grip is hurting the long term interests of the same companies.


That would be something, but your comment again presumes the conclusion you prefer, without any real foundation for assuming that is a legitimate conclusion.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Videodrome said:


> No of course your wrong


No, of course I'm correct. 



Videodrome said:


> Because you miss the point of most posts entirely.


I miss nothing significant. Rather, I simply don't grant that personal preferences of consumerism are the overriding priority for society.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

bicker said:


> No, of course I'm correct.
> 
> I miss nothing significant. Rather, I simply don't grant that personal preferences of consumerism are the overriding priority for society.


So comprehension means nothing ?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

That is not any part of what I wrote.


----------



## cram501 (Oct 23, 2002)

BobCamp1 said:


> You aren't going to believe this, but the people using third-party boxes are in the minority. The majority of people are actually happy with the current lease model and quality of Motorola's and Cisco's DVRs. It's shocking, but true. I don't think there is any urgency there. They did build a tuning adapter, though (but not entirely out of the goodness of their heart).


I believe the summary of what your saying is true because of the current state of things (ignorance and perceived cost of third party devices). If the third party market was more diverse and open, the majority of people would be better informed and more likely to investigate other options. I think they are happy with the lease model but I believe they are, in general, ignorant of the options and benefits of other third party devices out there (or lack thereof). A few factors play in to this including the options available in the third party boxes cable provides, knowledge of what is available, and cost.



BobCamp1 said:


> The real problem is that these standards keep changing, as they often do when the offered services are increasing. SDV wasn't implemented to work-around CableCards, it was created to maximize the limited bandwidth cable companies had to the house. When you do develop a new technology and need to get it out quickly, you need to pay someone to produce the first ones or build them yourself. Tivo didn't build SDV boxes for whatever reason. And with DBS suddenly deploying lots of HD, cable companies couldn't wait for Tivo and paid Motorola to build the SDV boxes instead.


The technology is going to change over time. This doesn't mean that current devices would be made defunct. It means that some features may not be available as devices age. The cable industry has to deal with this now with their current setup and update the boxes accordingly. If a standard communication protocol was available, third party devices like Tivo could do the same (tuning adapter).



BobCamp1 said:


> You're assuming that the DVR and other devices would have never been invented without ReplayTV and Tivo, because the big bad cable companies have extremely narrow vision. That's a narrow view. The one kind of competition that an oligopoly DOES have is for new technical development. It's one of the few ways they can differentiate themselves. DBS and cable TV have been pushing each other for some time.


I am assuming that. I don't remember seeing DVR's in the cable industry before replay and tivo were introduced. Third party access would spur innovation and competition. Ultimately I think this would make the cable companies more nimble in producing options to consumers (by worrying about the product rather than the underlying technology they would have to develop).



BobCamp1 said:


> Most cellular companies lock phones that are bought under contract, and almost all phones are bought under contract. And even if you did "cross-carrier" a phone, you'd only get basic services. The cool, advanced stuff is proprietary. Even my cheap prepaid unlocked phone has T-Mobile-only software in it. I wouldn't expect most of the advanced features to work on AT&T. Including downloading ring tones, which is something most people do and some would even consider to be basic.


That is changing. Verizon no longer places their UI on all purchased phones. New applications have been developed for instant messaging and other miscellaneous uses that were not available earlier because we are not as limited by the cell carriers. Look at how the iPhone and Blackberry have revolutionized how we use phones in the last few years.



BobCamp1 said:


> There is a huge difference between standardization out of necessity and standardization out of government mandate. When cell phones were first invented, each country in Europe used their own proprietary method. This is typical of new development -- you first build the thing any way you can and see if there's a market. There was. The problem was that it was impossible to roam. So Europe got together out of necessity to build an open standard. Every player involved saw the huge money-making potential involved, and since it was brand new AND an upgrade from existing services, there was a lot of momentum behind it.


I agree. In order to open up cable systems to third party devices I believe it is going to be necessary to have an open standard. I don't see the cable industry moving in this direction without a mandate from the FCC. Although there is limited competition, I don't believe there is enough competition to convince them to do it.



BobCamp1 said:


> With Tru2Way, I don't think that everyone will heavily profit. TV manufacturers are the only major player here (the two DVR makers are just piggy-backing), and I don't think they can charge an extra $300 for a TV that supports it. Cable and DBS already have systems that work -- Tru2Way is a nuisance and a duplication of effort.
> 
> It's all about enthusiasm, and I have no idea how the FCC can mandate that. Without it, any attempt will ultimately fail.


I think the TV manufacturers are the end point and although they will have TV's that integrate features, I think other third party device manufacturers are where the growth will materialize. The enthusiasm comes, not from the cable operators, but the smaller companies of third party devices that see a potential for money in a new market.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

BobCamp1 said:


> The real problem is that these standards keep changing, as they often do when the offered services are increasing. SDV wasn't implemented to work-around CableCards, it was created to maximize the limited bandwidth cable companies had to the house. When you do develop a new technology and need to get it out quickly, you need to pay someone to produce the first ones or build them yourself. Tivo didn't build SDV boxes for whatever reason. And with DBS suddenly deploying lots of HD, cable companies couldn't wait for Tivo and paid Motorola to build the SDV boxes instead.


Cable didn't have to wait for their own SDV boxes, the existing two-way boxes they have were/are SDV ready. They just need a minor firmware update.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> Bull. You just don't like that I don't let you tell me what the "real" issue is. You don't get to impose onto others your own values. Each person has their own values, and has the right to have their values respected, especially with regard to their own perspectives.


 Oh you are welcome to your perspective and I welcome your viewpoint that it is not just about consumers since this forum is 99% consumers and thus will lean that way. However when you present a narrow focus that avoids the real issue presented in this thread I get to call you on it.


> In other words, you have no real idea what you're talking about, but you're going to make an assumption that supports the side of the issue that you prefer, and then pretend that other things you say that are based on that baseless assumption are _instead _based on something of significance.


 so you are saying the FCC is most happy with how the rules worked and Congress is fully satisfied and cable companies are easily employing the required changes and no CE company is eitehr struggling with technical barriers or simply avoiding the market as too cumbersome and segmented, oh and DBS and FIOS are already working on adding in the changes to open up their infrastructure to 3rd party devices as well. I see now how off base I was.


> That's exactly what I was talking about before. It's deception, plain and simple. And what's really offensive is that you expect me to play in the sandbox you've dirtied with your lack of concern about foundation.


 since instead the FCC has called for a complete review, cable companies are feeling hemmed in by one way cable cards or else fear loosing control of the UI and DBS is not even on the radar for this open standards approach then I would ask the reader to decide who is employing deception and saying their hole in the ground is a sandbox full of wonderful sand.


> The problem is that folks very quickly forget that bias and start building towers of condemnation against others based on that bias, totally ignoring the legitimacy of the alternative bias.


 yes, I see how easily you have done that.


> That's nothing but self-serving clap-trap. The reality is that no sector is "keeping" anything "narrow" nor is any sector being "left behind". These are meaningless aspersions you've output.


 so show me the standards that let a 3rd party device hook up to my cable system and enjoy the full cable experience along with other services of my choosing.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

The cable companies are following the LETTER of the law. However, they aren't really following the SPIRIT of the law because the CableCard standard was shoved down their throats (nor are they required to). They were forced to come up with a standard, and they made it as palatable as they could, but it still tasted absolutely horrible. So they have been kicking and dragging their feet the entire time, hoping the problem will just go away. That is not an environment for success. And everyone acknowledges it has failed. 

In a positive environment, everyone sees the potential for making a huge amount of money. As there will be plenty of money to go around, this naturally makes companies more relaxed and agreeable to new ideas. This almost always happens at the dawn of some big technological breakthrough. Even then, even when open standards are created, there is a ton of additional effort behind the scenes that makes it all happen. IPR needs to be negotiated, the gray areas in the standards need to be worked out, de facto standards are born along side and within the open standards, etc. Also, the companies involved need to synchronize the product roadmaps with the service roadmaps to make sure the right products are sold at the right time. There is CONSTANT communication. In return for working with the service providers, they will start distributing the products in their channels, maximizing product exposure, and also minimizing the chance of any serious problems developing. But it all starts with the potential of an obscene amount of money out there just waiting to be made.

Can you build a cell phone that follows the standards and performs basic functions without any carrier input? Sure. The stores will even activate it for you. However, no one will buy it. If you want to make a PROFITABLE and SUCCESSFUL cell phone, you have to work hand-in-hand with the carriers. It helps if you know what new Java and Brew apps. will be coming out and any other new features they want, so you can develop and test them on your phone ahead of time. You also want to know of any complaints they have received regarding your product, and they want to know how to perform the basic functions on your phone so they can train their customer support team (they can reject your phone if they think it's too difficult to use). It helps to understand their vision so that you can start developing the next phone with the correct hardware and software requirements. It helps them because they know they'll have a product that will support the new features they are planning on rolling out, and they'll be likely to recommend your product over your competitors'. That's how you make money and stay in business. I should know. 

I have no doubt that Tru2Way in DVRs will be just like Brew/Java in cell phones. But cable TV has been around a while. Cable and DBS companies already have products that fulfill their needs and keep in step with their new services (for the most part). Furthermore, Tivo and Moxi have yet to show that there is a huge market for third-party DVRs, and TV mfrs. are nervous about putting all the hardware needed for Tru2Way in most of their product lines. Without full eager participation by all parties, Tru2Way is already doomed the same way CableCards were.

If I'm Tivo, I'd be very careful here. Tivo needs cable way more than cable need Tivos. Customers could suddenly have problems with CableCards and tuning adapters, if you know what I mean.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

cram501 said:


> I think they are happy with the lease model but I believe they are, in general, ignorant of the options and benefits of other third party devices out there (or lack thereof). A few factors play in to this including the options available in the third party boxes cable provides, knowledge of what is available, and cost.


I think it really boils down to complexity right now. It is hard to explain cable card in a sentence. Then you have 2 more paragraphs on SDV and maybe the locale employs it, maybe not. maybe they offer a TA, maybe not. maybe it works and if not maybe it is one of 3 pieces of the setup. etc..
Oh and no PPV/VOD... huh? why not?
Lets not even start on signal issues and who is at fault for bad recordings there.

This is partly because we are early adopters in a market that is not even clearly defined yet but has been around for a decade.

Still at the end of the day, I tell my Dad who lives 7 hours away and just wants to record some baseball games from digital to get a cable company DVR to save myself countless hours on the phone. To many folks it is simply not worth the tech hassles and they just defer all that to the cable company by paying whatever for whatever box they will get. They just want to watch some TV and relax.

Now if I could tell my Dad, take this 3rd party DVR, attach it to the cable and either call them and say you hooked it up or go to this web page and agree to the new billing status then he can make a choice based on features and not how much hassle.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

BobCamp1 said:


> However, they aren't really following the SPIRIT of the law because the CableCard standard was shoved down their throats (nor are they required to). They were forced to come up with a standard, and they made it as palatable as they could, but it still tasted absolutely horrible.


only separable security was shoved down their throats, not cable cards. They could have gone with downloaded security or addressable units or any other means. The cable companies wanted to have a physical piece of the security to increase their asset protection and thus it was cable cards *they* went with.
Cable companies could have also agreed to a standard for talking back to the headend for SDV so that it could be done internally versus the cable company having to supply the DOCIS modem on a rope kludge. The cable companies balked at that as well as taking too much time and meetings to do.

so I agree that this was indeed forced on cable companies but they clung to their old business model versus looking ofrward to the opportunities to be found in the risks. They simply would not take the risk and bend a little to the other parties involved.

Now they find themselves facing the FCC again and bracing for more being told what to do instead of counting the new ways to make revenue they could have reached instead with a little risk taking.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Oh you are welcome to your perspective and I welcome your viewpoint that it is not just about consumers since this forum is 99% consumers and thus will lean that way.


Precisely why I have to post 99 times as much as the normal poster!  Really only 49.5 times as much, since there are two of us, at least, who provide balance, here.



ZeoTiVo said:


> However when you present a narrow focus that avoids the real issue presented in this thread I get to call you on it.


The problem is that your narrow focus was *biased*. It was based on a biased premise. It was not the "real" issue... it was your issue, a reflection of your insistence on seeing things solely from a consumerist perspective.



ZeoTiVo said:


> so you are saying...


*Stop trying to reword what I am saying.* I am saying what *I* am saying, not what you might find it easier to argue against. Your repeated, overt disrespect for the right of others to have their own perspectives, is juvenile and indefensible. There is no "right to be able to easily pigeonhole other people into a black-and-white "for" or "against" your personal perspective", like you are implicitly insisting on. What is wrong with you just admitting that you simply don't like the way things are? Do you have so little respect for yourself and your personal preferences that you feel you need to distort things into making your personal preferences sound more important than they really are?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

BobCamp1 said:


> The cable companies are following the LETTER of the law. However, they aren't really following the SPIRIT of the law


The "spirit" of the law is not the law, and will vary from person to person. Saying that they're not complying with the "spirit" of the law is exactly the same as saying that you don't like the way they're complying with the law, and you wish you could force them to do what you like.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

bicker said:


> The "spirit" of the law is not the law, and will vary from person to person. Saying that they're not complying with the "spirit" of the law is exactly the same as saying that you don't like the way they're complying with the law, and you wish you could force them to do what you like.


The problem with the law is that there are legal hackers just like there computer hackers who find loopholes are undefined segments. Thats why we have so many shows on TV showing us stories of people who got away with stuff that just piss us off.

I know the response is fix the law but it all starts with people who are willing to say its WRONG and we need to do something about it. IE Bicker about about it.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

zalusky said:


> I know the response is fix the law but it all starts with people who are willing to say its WRONG and we need to do something about it. IE Bicker about about it.


It is critical, though, that folks understand what is *actually *"wrong" and project their direction forward towards addressing *that*. As you said, the "problem"* is with the law itself, and the path forward is to change the law. Looking to essentially "make your own law" and impose it on others is ridiculous, self-centered, and indefensible.

_________
* If you believe there is a problem -- I am not saying, and will not say, that I do or don't, because that's not any part of the value that I have to contribute, here.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> Precisely why I have to post 99 times as much as the normal poster!  Really only 49.5 times as much, since there are two of us, at least, who provide balance, here.





bicker said:


> The "spirit" of the law is not the law, and will vary from person to person. Saying that they're not complying with the "spirit" of the law is exactly the same as saying that you don't like the way they're complying with the law, and you wish you could force them to do what you like.


+1 :up: Normally wouldn't have posted this but since you're counting on me to share the load.....  (Unless you meant someone else.)


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Hehe... yup it was you I had in mind.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

zalusky said:


> .......I know the response is fix the law but it all starts with people who are willing to say its WRONG and we need to do something about it. IE Bicker about about it.


That points to a constructive role for these forums, i.e., to discuss what is wrong (essentially what we don't like) and constructive ideas for correction, which could involve new or modified laws. But we have to realize that everyone may have a different opinion of what is wrong, as well as how to fix it. I do think we would get a lot further if we didn't concentrate on what (we individually think) went wrong already in the context of placing blame, frequently leading to "constructive" suggestions as "the cablecos. should stop being so anti-competitive". The only practical blame placing must be in the form of "they violated the letter of the law" (in which case they would be subject to legal action). If we try to change our "game" to require obeying the spirit of the law, we devolve into a subjective mish-mash.

I think we have a real hard row to hoe here, given all the practical issues in the areas of politics and technology. If we did develop some strong consensus here on this forum (and perhaps I should just stop at this point ) what is the most effective way of achieving impact in the political process?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Good point! 

Perhaps the easiest way to scuttle progress is to go into an endeavor hell-bent on ignoring what everyone else cares about and just trying to get what you want. That almost always leads nowhere, except perhaps to more and deeper frustration. 

The most effective way of getting service providers to do something you would want them to do is to make it the most profitable thing they could possibly do. That's the magic bullet.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> The problem is that your narrow focus was *biased*. It was based on a biased premise. It was not the "real" issue... it was your issue, a reflection of your insistence on seeing things solely from a consumerist perspective.


You may want to alert the FCC to this then since they are doing a full review specifically because the laws do not meet the goals set out that informed the crafting of the laws.
I disagree that my postings in this thread with you are from a consumerist viewpoint. I do of course have one, being a consumer like we all are - but I can separate that from what the Congress and the FCC are trying to do from a productivity/economic point of view and and have been specifically applying that productivity/economic POV and you have been specifically and pointedly and repeatedly trying to avoid that POV.
Fine by me, you can avoid it in your posts all you want but the reality is there and I can keep bringing it to the thread.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> You may want to alert the FCC to this then since they are doing a full review specifically because *the laws do not meet the goals* set out that informed the crafting of the laws.


*Read what you wrote!!!!*

Read it again.

And keep reading it until you get the message.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

bicker said:


> Good point!
> 
> Perhaps the easiest way to scuttle progress is to go into an endeavor hell-bent on ignoring what everyone else cares about and just trying to get what you want. That almost always leads nowhere, except perhaps to more and deeper frustration.
> 
> The most effective way of getting service providers to do something you would want them to do is to make it the most profitable thing they could possibly do. That's the magic bullet.


Right, ban cable companies from renting STBs! great that you agree.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Good luck with that.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> Perhaps the easiest way to scuttle progress is to go into an endeavor hell-bent on ignoring what everyone else cares about and just trying to get what you want. That almost always leads nowhere, except perhaps to more and deeper frustration.


which is EXACTLY how we got cable card 1.0 that was one way and only good for decryption of already supplied channels.

What we need is the various sides to have a frank and open discussion on the presentation layer. The cable Company can not be expected to forgo its ability to provide its own presentation layer if the user so chooses and the CE makers can not be expected to ceded total control of their UI to the cable company - nor should the CE maker be prevented from pointing out available content in its UI. EG - in the new TiVo search - it could show the movie is available from netflix, Amazon, PPV. Click on PPV and you see the movie from that source.

The above is the heart of the negotiations TiVo is having over Tru2way right now.

TV makers need some way to incorporate a standard that makes sense for a TV set though I have no idea what that would be


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

bicker said:


> Good luck with that.


Netflix gets $12 a month from me , not Comcast, go figure..


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> The above is the heart of the negotiations TiVo is having over Tru2way right now.


And the end-result of such negotiations must necessarily be something that all of the parties involved accept. In some ways, some of what some folks in this thread seem to be wanting is akin to castration -- how would you (guys) respond to someone negotiating your castration with you?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Videodrome said:


> Netflix gets $12 a month from me


That's a great solution. Was that so difficult?


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

bicker said:


> And the end-result of such negotiations must necessarily be something that all of the parties involved accept. In some ways, some of what some folks in this thread seem to be wanting is akin to castration -- how would you (guys) respond to someone negotiating your castration with you?


Wrong, stop making diversionary statements. Its all about Cable false power on media. How would you like to be totally circumvented by services like netflix,etc. Because of cables iron grip, services are slipping thru there fingers. Soon all you will need is an internet connection. Comprehension.. Comprehension. .


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> And the end-result of such negotiations must necessarily be something that all of the parties involved accept. In some ways, some of what some folks in this thread seem to be wanting is akin to castration -- how would you (guys) respond to someone negotiating your castration with you?


well it is actually two guys negotiating each others body part loss. perhaps they could agree to find a better solution then to hurt each other.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

bicker said:


> That's a great solution. Was that so difficult?


So your for 0$ going to cable from subscribers ? Agree or Disagree, a single word answer will work..


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Videodrome said:


> Wrong, stop making diversionary statements.


Wow... I'll have to use that line on Zeo.



Videodrome said:


> Its all about Cable false power on media.


Ridiculous. "Cable false power on media." I'm impressed at your creativity.



Videodrome said:


> Comprehension.. Comprehension. .


Evidently, you think that "comprehension" means agreeing with you.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> <snip>


Whoa... if you got that far, then you read my earlier message... I want an update on your progress with this:


ZeoTiVo said:


> You may want to alert the FCC to this then since they are doing a full review specifically because *the laws do not meet the goals* set out that informed the crafting of the laws.


*Read what you wrote!!!!*

Read it again.

And keep reading it until you get the message.​


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Videodrome said:


> So your for 0$ going to cable from subscribers ?


I'm for everyone making the best choice for themselves based on the offers made available to them.



Videodrome said:


> a single word answer will work..


Have you stopped beating your children? Yes or no -- a single word answer will work.


----------



## Tsiehta (Jul 22, 2002)

Videodrome said:


> Soon all you will need is an internet connection. Comprehension.. Comprehension. .


This actually is a valid point. At some point, the cable cos will have to deal with this inevitability.

This whole issue is kind of similar to oil companies. I would THINK that the oil companies would be far more interested in their long-term survival than it appears that they are, by becoming "energy" companies instead of just oil (ie, heavily investing in renewable resources that they can control going forward). It doesn't appear to me that that's currently going on, but I could be wrong.

Cable companies will soon have to deal with their subscribers going to alternative content suppliers en masse. Which is why I would HOPE that the cable cos would be trying now to please their customers and retain them.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Tsiehta said:


> This actually is a valid point. At some point, the cable cos will have to deal with this inevitability.
> 
> This whole issue is kind of similar to oil companies. I would THINK that the oil companies would be far more interested in their long-term survival than it appears that they are, by becoming "energy" companies instead of just oil (ie, heavily investing in renewable resources that they can control going forward). It doesn't appear to me that that's currently going on, but I could be wrong.
> 
> Cable companies will soon have to deal with their subscribers going to alternative content suppliers en masse. Which is why I would HOPE that the cable cos would be trying now to please their customers and retain them.


One of the reasons Comcast wants to buy NBC because I believe they feel they need to get revenue from other vehicles than just distribution epecially traditional video distribution. Their Comcast Anywhere idea is interesting but temporary.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> Whoa... if you got that far, then you read my earlier message... I want an update on your progress with this:
> *Read what you wrote!!!!*
> 
> Read it again.
> ...


 Slight typo - I should have said FCC rules did not meet the goals and I have been consistent in that. Heck I posted a reply to you more than a weeks ago in which I said the FCC needed to redo things to be fair to everyone and get things back on track

You seem to want to inhabit a narrowly defined space in which the goals of economic growth through diversity and innovation of 3rd party devices are not the goals or that somehow those goals if they do exist were met.
read the tech reports - they were not met and *everyone* is bogged down in their own self interest.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> You seem to want to ....


No I don't. You are *yet again* trying to shove words in my mouth. Look: If you cannot argue against what I actually write, then please stop arguing with me.

I'll making it very easy for you. Here's what I'm saying, one more time: Cable companies are generally complying with the requirements imposed on them.

Period.

If you have a problem with that exact assertion, then let's chat. Otherwise, stop the silliness you've been engaging in.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> Here's what I'm saying, one more time: Cable companies are generally complying with the requirements imposed on them.


and everyone knows that and it lends nothing to the thread

yet you want to keep denying me when I say goals of economic diversity and innovation exist and are not met.

Your avoidance of responding to that statement is extremely telling and actually I will stop responding to you since you have no desire to speak to the real topic and issues but want to keep repeating childish things as if they will make the big bad reality go away


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> and everyone knows that


Either you're utterly *wrong*, or people's statements in this thread *belie *their actual knowledge.



ZeoTiVo said:


> yet you want to keep denying me when I say goals of economic diversity and innovation exist and are not met.


I deny "you"? Ridiculous. Rather: I say nothing. When were you proclaimed God, such that you could command anyone you'd like to obey your demand to submit to your inquisition? Seriously, Zeo: Get over yourself.



ZeoTiVo said:


> Your avoidance of responding to that statement is extremely telling


It isn't, actually. I've made clear why: It's a matter of personal opinion you're prompting for, and my personal opinion is insignificant. You see, _unlike you_, I don't think of myself, as you seem to, as a deity who's desires are to be obeyed.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Cable companies could have also agreed to a standard for talking back to the headend for SDV so that it could be done internally versus the cable company having to supply the DOCIS modem on a rope kludge. The cable companies balked at that as well as taking too much time and meetings to do.


Your bickering with *bicker* is somewhat entertaining, but why don't you discus the fact that cable companies *already* agreed to a standard for talking back to the headend. It is called Host 2.0 and three or four manufacturers *already* certified their cable card devices as Host 2.0
If Tivo wanted to spend money and effort to develop and certify DVR that is Host 2.0 compliant, there would be nothing to argue about.
TiVo didn't do it because they know that it wouldn't do much to improve sales, if nothing else it would piss off current users of S3 who are locked into contracts.
Standards evolve, hardware and software evolves. Cable labs did their share by introducing Host 2.0 for two way communication. If third parties are not interested in using it, the fault is with third parties.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

samo said:


> Your bickering with *bicker* is somewhat entertaining, but why don't you discus the fact that cable companies *already* agreed to a standard for talking back to the headend. It is called Host 2.0 and three or four manufacturers *already* certified their cable card devices as Host 2.0
> If Tivo wanted to spend money and effort to develop and certify DVR that is Host 2.0 compliant, there would be nothing to argue about.
> TiVo didn't do it because they know that it wouldn't do much to improve sales, if nothing else it would piss off current users of S3 who are locked into contracts.
> Standards evolve, hardware and software evolves. Cable labs did their share by introducing Host 2.0 for two way communication. If third parties are not interested in using it, the fault is with third parties.


Yes, the standard is out there. Please list the cable franchises that have deployed it. (There actually are a couple of test franchises out there that don't interoperate with each other)

If the cable systems don't ever deploy it, and have failed in all their promises to deploy it, how does it help a third party to use it, other than to make their bankruptcy that much simpler?


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

Dayum bicker, if you're not a lawyer, you should become one.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

CrispyCritter said:


> Yes, the standard is out there. Please list the cable franchises that have deployed it.


So are you trying to justify your criticisms out of unbridled impatience. Very early in this thread, or perhaps it was in one of the related threads, I made the point that part of the problem is the insistence by agents in society that they get what (they think) they want now, instead of applying restraint and rationality, waiting until there are realities on which to base plans for what would be serve the disparate needs best, overall, and/or simple juvenile impatience. Maturity provides context for understanding that rushing into things before one has a clear understanding is bad, and that expecting others to rush into things is unreasonable.

The counter to that is typically some puerile garbage about how it's just delaying tactics and such: BULL. We see here, painfully clear, how stupid it is to put in place rules before you could possibly have an idea what the rules should be. And we also see here, painfully clear, how stupid it is to force agents in our society to provide something on a time-schedule ignorant of what timeframe it will really require, given all of the factors that will have impact, and, most importantly, without outlining clear metrics, the achievement of which will unequivocally constitute satisfaction of the requirement. This, "I'll know it when I see it," presumptuous idiocy has got to stop.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

bicker said:


> So are you trying to justify your criticisms out of unbridled impatience. Very early in this thread, or perhaps it was in one of the related threads, I made the point that part of the problem is the insistence by agents in society that they get what (they think) they want now, instead of applying restraint and rationality, waiting until there are realities on which to base plans for what would be serve the disparate needs best, overall, and/or simple juvenile impatience. Maturity provides context for understanding that rushing into things before one has a clear understanding is bad, and that expecting others to rush into things is unreasonable.
> 
> The counter to that is typically some puerile garbage about how it's just delaying tactics and such: BULL. We see here, painfully clear, how stupid it is to put in place rules before you could possibly have an idea what the rules should be. And we also see here, painfully clear, how stupid it is to force agents in our society to provide something on a time-schedule ignorant of what timeframe it will really require, given all of the factors that will have impact, and, most importantly, without outlining clear metrics, the achievement of which will unequivocally constitute satisfaction of the requirement. This, "I'll know it when I see it," presumptuous idiocy has got to stop.


That can be said for every law and regulation put in place, and As such that type of attitude is not practical in a society that aims to guide businesses away from monopolies and stimulate economic growth, innovation, and competition, while protecting the companies interests. The separable security mandate isn't the only reg/law made without foresight, about about HIPA and the DMCA. Both have caused a degree of fall out not anticipated by the law makers that companies and citizens are having to deal with.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> ........... We see here, painfully clear, how stupid it is to put in place rules before you could possibly have an idea what the rules should be. And we also see here, painfully clear, how stupid it is to force agents in our society to provide something on a time-schedule ignorant of what timeframe it will really require, given all of the factors that will have impact, and, most importantly, without outlining clear metrics, the achievement of which will unequivocally constitute satisfaction of the requirement. This, "I'll know it when I see it," presumptuous idiocy has got to stop.


I wonder to what degree the FCC's separable security laws (rules?) were poorly formed and enforced as a result of ignorance as opposed to cynical scratching of the political itch? In other words did they know it was deficient but just had to do something, or did they really think it would work?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> That can be said for every law and regulation put in place, and As such that type of attitude is not practical in a society that aims to guide businesses away from monopolies and stimulate economic growth, innovation, and competition, while protecting the companies interests.


Are you seriously claiming that capriciously reckless regulation *aids* economic growth, innovation, and competition. Sorry, friend, but no. Regulation itself often stifles economic growth, innovation, and competition, and there is no frakking way that capriciously reckless regulation is going to be a good recipe for positive effect.

Try again.



Stormspace said:


> The separable security mandate isn't the only reg/law made without foresight, about about HIPA and the DMCA.


It's HIPAA, and it does not qualify as "made without foresight". DMCA probably does qualify. Before I comment further, I want to get a "yes" or "no" answer from you: Are *you *putting DMCA forward as a paragon of good governance?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dlfl said:


> I wonder to what degree the FCC's separable security laws (rules?) were poorly formed and enforced as a result of ignorance as opposed to cynical scratching of the political itch? In other words did they know it was deficient but just had to do something, or did they really think it would work?


I think you're right. It sure looks like they did "something", "anything" because of political pressure, fully cognizant that they were going to cause a mess of problems directly attributable to not knowing what the future was going to hold. As such, there was little chance, if any, that the regulation would have positive impact. It just covered *sses.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> I think you're right. It sure looks like they did "something", "anything" because of political pressure, fully cognizant that they were going to cause a mess of problems directly attributable to not knowing what the future was going to hold. As such, there was little chance, if any, that the regulation would have positive impact. It just covered *sses.


I can't be "right" because I was just wondering, i.e., not expressing an opinion. But thanks for the response.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Regarding DMCA, an excerpt from the Wikipedia page on it:



> The DMCA has been criticized for forcing all producers of analog video equipment to support the proprietary copy protection technology of Macrovision, a commercial firm.[citation needed] The producers of video equipment are forced by law to support the Macrovision technology to the financial benefit of Macrovision whereas those who build the video equipment get nothing in compensation.
> 
> The DMCA has been criticized for making it too easy for copyright owners to encourage website owners to take down allegedly infringing content and links which may in fact not be infringing. When website owners receive a takedown notice it is in their interest not to challenge it, even if it is not clear if infringement is taking place, because if the potentially infringing content is taken down the website will not be held liable. The Electronic Frontier Foundation senior IP attorney Fred von Lohmann has said this is one of the problems with the DMCA.[14]
> 
> Google asserted misuse of the DMCA in a filing concerning New Zealand's copyright act,[15] quoting results from a 2005 study by Californian academics Laura Quilter and Jennifer Urban based on data from the Chilling Effects clearinghouse.[16] Takedown notices targeting a competing business made up over half (57%) of the notices Google has received, the company said, and more than one-third (37%), "were not valid copyright claims."[17]


I don't know if these are a strong case for calling it a bad law, or just anecdotes indicating that no law is perfect. Google's claims, if accurate, seem pretty serious.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

No law is perfect; true. The question is whether you put a law in place when you know that you don't know what you need the law for, and with no provisions within the law to fix what you know, going in, is broken.


----------



## WizarDru (Jan 18, 2005)

I'm not even sure what's being discussed in this thread any longer.

The sophistry is...impressive, I suppose.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

What's being discussed is a topic that comes up a lot here on TCF: The inherent and inescapable conflict between what's best for individual TiVo owners, and what is the reality of the world in which we live.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

What's being discussed is a topic that comes up a lot here on TCF: The inherent and inescapable conflict between what's best for Cable Companies, and what is the reality of the world in which we live.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

bicker said:


> What's being discussed is ... the reality of the world in which we live.


Except that two posters (only one prolifically inane) have bizarre notions of what constitutes reality.

But he is only occasionally annoying, and more often, though still occasionally, entertaining.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

bicker said:


> What's being discussed is a topic that comes up a lot here on TCF: The inherent and inescapable conflict between what's best for individual TiVo owners, and what is the reality of the world in which we live.





ZeoTiVo said:


> What's being discussed is a topic that comes up a lot here on TCF: The inherent and inescapable conflict between what's best for Cable Companies, and what is the reality of the world in which we live.


And everything in between.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

But there aren't just two sides of things that are to be balanced: Viewers, service providers, broadcasters, production companies, studios; customers, investors, workers, society-in-general; etc.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> But there aren't just two sides of things that are to be balanced: Viewers, service providers, broadcasters, production companies, studios; customers, investors, workers, society-in-general; etc.


yeah, I only felt like making the one post though


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

bicker said:


> In another thread this morning, I was prompted to do some research through some recent FCC orders, and found one where the FCC, unequivocally, declared that DBS (Dish Network and DirecTV), *all by themselves*, are effective competition for the legacy cable provider, in that specific area, which happens to be a portion of the NY DMA that is so far from the city that it doesn't afford the folks there a reasonable opportunity for over-the-air antenna reception. I don't doubt that people who have substantial consumerist bent will do everything they can to try to deny it, or distract from the reality whenever I highlight it, but there it is, in black-and-white: DBS all by itself can be effective competition for cable.


An update on this. Comcast has been granted an order ratifying their contention that they are subject to effective competition in yet-another community (Hancock, MD) based on the competition presented by DBS service providers.

FCC Reference DA-10-398A1

In related orders, the FCC has also found effective competition in place in two other communities (one is a Charter area; the other is a Comcast area). See the FCC recent released for more details.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> An update on this. Comcast has been granted an order ratifying their contention that they are subject to effective competition in yet-another community (Hancock, MD) based on the competition presented by DBS service providers.
> 
> FCC Reference DA-10-398A1
> 
> In related orders, the FCC has also found effective competition in place in two other communities (one is a Charter area; the other is a Comcast area). See the FCC recent released for more details.


if this is so then why is DBS not opened with separable security so I can use my equipment to take advantage of this wonderful competition without having to gut my entertainment center???????????????????????


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> if this is so then why is DBS not opened with separable security so I can use my equipment to take advantage of this wonderful competition without having to gut my entertainment center???????????????????????


Because the FCC heavily favors DBS, and grants satellite service providers waivers and other advantages that are unfair to consumers.

Does that answer your question?


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> Because the FCC heavily favors DBS, and grants satellite service providers waivers and other advantages that are unfair to consumers.


I for one am ready to see that end, but I also want to see whatever is decided on to also prevent cable or satellite from playing some of the games they do now. Whatever is provided has to be completely and equally open to all third party boxes. It needs to be more open than the current version of Tru2way.

I think security is required, I don't think it still needs to be separable. The next generation of regulation should allow for a device to be portable between cable and sat. Of course that is wishful thinking, but hopefully regulators are getting an earful of that wishful thinking.


----------



## convergent (Jan 4, 2007)

To me, this is becoming self correcting. I've spent the last month trying to figure out how I can take Time Warner cable television out of my equation, and I am not about to sign up for a 2 year contract at this point for satellite. So what I've discovered is that there is a vast world of television available on the internet through Hulu, Boxee, and others. Because of the fact that Time Warner's crappy switched digital / cable card fiasco continually takes a large number of my channels and turns them to solid grey, we failed to get a recording of 24 this week. So I just watched it via Hulu Desktop the next night and the quality wasn't a lot different from what I would have recorded from the HD stream. The thing is, if I had just recorded it OTA, I wouldn't have had a problem. So Tivo is fine, is Time Warner that continues to provide crappy service and appears to have no plans to change. And I have to tell you I we happily watched the Hulu commercials because I understand that they ARE paying for me to be able to have that content, and I want to support that fully. Getting content on the web and the big cable empire out of the middle is the answer to us. I also just signed up for MLB.TV because last year Time Warner, once again, hosed my by charging twice as much for Extra Innings and then blocked me even time shifting watching the games on my Tivo HD... so I had to watch them on my old Series 2 in SD. So my short term plan is to cut off cable and go to OTA and streamed content. Unfortunately, given that I need an HTPC to do that, it means I'll probably eventually take Tivo out of the equation too. While I love the Tivo experience and user interface, I can do it all on an HTPC and not on the Tivo. It kind of depends on if the Premiere opens up to all the content out there or they keep it restricted to just Netflix and such. If these cable companies don't get with the program, they are going to be out of the equation at some point. Of course then they will probably just jack the rates on their ISP service through the roof, but thankfully there are other options for that.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

convergent said:


> So what I've discovered is that there is a vast world of television available on the internet through Hulu, Boxee, and others.


But not for the hearing impaired.

If that distribution channel ever becomes significant, then I will probably help lead the charge to get the courts to scuttle it until such time as it effectively addresses the objectives of the Americans with Disabilities Act. And I won't have any guilt or even second-thoughts about helping take away something "you" can enjoy, because the service is inadequate with regard to support for Closed Captioning.

Separable security is, quite frankly, a "nice to have". There are other ways to accomplish the same target. By contrast, closed captioning is a "must have".


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

convergent said:


> I also just signed up for MLB.TV because last year Time Warner, once again, hosed my by charging twice as much for Extra Innings and then blocked me even time shifting watching the games on my Tivo HD... so I had to watch them on my old Series 2 in SD.


You may be shooting the messenger and rewarding the miscreant.

I'd bet that your "charging twice as much" complaint is because of what MLB charged TWC, not because of an excessive markup by TWC.

Similarly, were the time shifting restrictions because of unilateral actions by TWC or were they because of conditions imposed by MLB?


----------

