# House passes STELA, ends Cablecard integration requirement



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

http://www.fiercecable.com/story/ho...leverage-ends-cablecard-requiremen/2014-07-22

Hasn't passed Senate yet so no telling what the final form will be, but removes the requirement that cableCos have to eat their own dog food (or crap if you prefer). Cards, that is.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

When you (that is stand-alone TiVo users) comprise only about 1 or 2 % of the market and you're up against the big MSO donors, prepare to lose. Or maybe congress sincerely believes consumers are getting the best free-enterprise deal from the MSO's -- uh huh.


----------



## squint (Jun 15, 2008)

It might pass the Senate but in the end I still vote with my pocketbook. If it gets too ridiculous then I'll just BitTorrent everything. The only reason I have cable is for certain sports coverage. Everything else I can get via BT.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

But does it remove the requirement that cable companies support cable cards?

I know it's an important thing in theory to fight for, but cable card is a dying technology. Requiring them to rely on it hasn't accomplished the stated goals of retail devices being first class citizens in the ecosystem. As long as they are still required to support retail devices then who cares, really.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

JosephB said:


> Requiring them to rely on it hasn't accomplished the stated goals of retail devices being first class citizens in the ecosystem.


This is the biggest problem. The original goal of CC was to make retail devices work exactly the same as MSO rented boxes. Unfortunately the standard was designed back in the 90s with only linear TV in mind, but by the time it hit the market in 2006 we had started to expect things like VOD. Throw in SDV and the whole thing went to hell quickly.

I could care less if they dump CableCARDs and move on to a downloadable option instead, as long as it's an open standard that does not exclude retail devices completely. It would suck if my new Roamio suddenly became useless, but I doubt they would transition that quickly anyway. It'll take years for them to completely phase out CableCARDs, and by then I'll be ready for an upgrade anyway, so I'm really not worried.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

JosephB said:


> But does it remove the requirement that cable companies support cable cards?
> 
> I know it's an important thing in theory to fight for, but cable card is a dying technology. Requiring them to rely on it hasn't accomplished the stated goals of retail devices being first class citizens in the ecosystem. As long as they are still required to support retail devices then who cares, really.


They've been supporting CableCARD's? I hadn't noticed.  Perhaps a little better than they have "supported" Tuning Adapters.

Actually I agree. Losing the integration ban is not a big deal since it wasn't helping us anyway. The concept wasn't carefully thought out since it's the way the card is set up, paired and updated that makes the difference and that was still done at the factory, thus favoring the performance of cards in the leased equipment. Seems like that flaw should have been obvious from the start doesn't it?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

dlfl said:


> Seems like that flaw should have been obvious from the start doesn't it?


It took over a decade from the time the law passed to when CCs were actually deployed there was lots of time in there for everyone to get their hand in the mix and jumble it up. And by the time it was finally released everyone was just so happy to have something they ignored the glaring flaws. Hopefully experience will teach them something for the next generation.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

Imagine if the House tried to pass a law that required us to rent our phones from our phone provider again.

Hello, 2014 is knocking. Nobody home?

Cards, tuning adapters, and analog can all die in a fire for all I care. I just hope that downloadable security thing works out for EVERYONE, asap, and without getting screwed on a price that replaces the cablecard rental fee.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Good news....even though I just bought a Roamio. Unnecessary. It shows the good and bad of government intervention.


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

Unless I'm missing something, this means the eventual end of TiVo, HD Homerun and other similar devices. The cable companies can create proprietary protection and tuning mechanisms that they don't have to let anyone else use. I hope I'm wrong.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

stevel said:


> Unless I'm missing something, this means the eventual end of TiVo, HD Homerun and other similar devices. The cable companies can create proprietary protection and tuning mechanisms that they don't have to let anyone else use. I hope I'm wrong.


That's not true. They are revoking the integrated security ban, which means their own boxes no longer need to have a CableCARD inside. But they are not revoking the whole law, which still establishes separated security for retail devices. (i.e. CableCARDs) So for now they'll still need to support CableCARDs they just don't have to use them in their own devices. The two barely have anything to do with one another now, so I doubt it will have any impact.

The Charter waiver that allows them to develop a downloadable security system for retail devices is another story. That one required it to be open, but never established it as having to be universal for all cable providers. So we could end up with a situation where someone like TiVo has to support multiple downloadable security systems to make a universal retail box.


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

My interpretation of the latest news (with the help of a few friends in high places)...

http://investordiscussionboard.com/boards/tivo/setting-record-straight-cablecards-retail

The biggest issue right now is the pending petition filed by TiVo associated with reinstating the vacated rules which were put in jeopardy by an Echostar decision. The FCC needs to clarify that the 2010 retail CableCARD rules are still in place. That, in my opinion, is the biggest risk to TiVo and other retail CC users.

The good news is that the TiVo Comcast agreement includes wording that includes retail CableCARD support on Comcast networks regardless of what the FCC or courts do.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

sbiller said:


> My interpretation of the latest news (with the help of a few friends in high places)...
> 
> http://investordiscussionboard.com/boards/tivo/setting-record-straight-cablecards-retail
> 
> ...


Given all the waivers and pending mergers, it's probably not a big deal. I'm almost positive that Charter's waiver filing has them voluntarily promising to support CableCard users indefinitely, regardless of the ultimate outcome of the Echostar appeals/decisions. I believe Comcast is probably committing to something similar.

Plus, every cable box up until this point has a cable card. They aren't going to throw that system out tomorrow or even next year. Even if they weren't mandated to keep supporting cable cards (which that's not what this bill says) it wouldn't be the end of current retail TiVos immediately.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

trip1eX said:


> Good news....even though I just bought a Roamio. Unnecessary. It shows the good and bad of government intervention.


Good why?

I'm generally against government intervention, WITHOUT the Cable Card mandate, we would NOT be able to use Tivos AT ALL.. at least not for anything but Clear QAM stations.. and as we all know, cable companies are now able to encrypt ALL channels.


----------



## ajwees41 (May 7, 2006)

Do any of the current Tivo's (premiere/Roamio) accept downloadable security?


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

Imho, the integration ban continues to be relevant because it makes CableCard support a marginal cost of their other cable boxes. When CableCards are only used for 3rd party equipment, the whole cost of that infrastructure is attributable to outside devices, and the MSO's have a strong argument that it's too expensive to continue to support owner hardware.

The equipment companies like Tivo/SiliconDust will spend the effort to interoperate, but the MSO's often will do what they can to create a monopoly for their cable boxes rentals. Too much of MSO's explanations about something else, is an attempt at this in disguise.



Dan203 said:


> The Charter waiver that allows them to develop a downloadable security system for retail devices is another story. That one required it to be open, but never established it as having to be universal for all cable providers. So we could end up with a situation where someone like TiVo has to support multiple downloadable security systems to make a universal retail box.


Until we see a spec / implementation for this, since it's being designed by the MSO's it's safer to assume it's going to have some attribute(s) that are anti-consumer or anti-3rd party.



sbiller said:


> The good news is that the TiVo Comcast agreement includes wording that includes retail CableCARD support on Comcast networks regardless of what the FCC or courts do.


Comcast and Boxee have an agreement to issue decrypting Ethernet DTA's. Since Boxee was acquired and the FCC changed the deadline, Comcast has no longer issued these.

If Tivo Corp is acquired and drops retail, will there be anyone to enforce the agreement?


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

telemark said:


> If Tivo Corp is acquired and drops retail, will there be anyone to enforce the agreement?


Your whole post was great. But, that last bit is what I'm thinking about when I post things about TiVo being bought/acquired, leaving hardware (technically they already have), and leaving retail (it's less important, now that they have much more MSO relationships and partnerships).

Many companies sell individual divisions to different companies, sometimes just one, sometimes all of them.

Even if one company bought/acquired TiVo, it's common for the new owner to spin-off/sell-off parts of what they bought, to other companies.

Unless the gov't says "if you do this, you can't do that", or TiVo makes keeping things whole part of the terms, TiVo owners could wake up one day, and it could be a very bad day for them.

Back to the part I quoted: I somewhat (want to) believe that TiVo is trying to protect retail, with their MSO partnerships. They can't beat them, so they are joining them, but not by being owned by any of them (yet). If TiVo stops fighting for retail, it does not paint a pretty picture for me, for the future. If TiVo stops fighting for retail, still holds (almost) all the patents, and continues to hoard them and/or demand unreasonable licensing fees to use them, they could become the destroyer of retail, rather than the protector.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

If this goes through, all it will mean is that the cable companies make more profits. Since they won't have the extra cost of cable cards in their own devices. I would be shocked if they lowered the prices of their STB monthly rentals because of it.


----------



## shrike4242 (Dec 1, 2006)

aaronwt said:


> If this goes through, all it will mean is that the cable companies make more profits. Since they won't have the extra cost of cable cards in their own devices. I would be shocked if they lowered the prices of their STB monthly rentals because of it.


They won't drop prices, since if they tried to explain it to the majority of the customers about the price drop, their heads would likely swim in the details.

The profits will just get squirreled away without a comment from anyone.

I'm just hoping that with these changes, it won't require threat of a FCC complaint to get a cable company to provide a CC + TA on demand.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

ajwees41 said:


> Do any of the current Tivo's (premiere/Roamio) accept downloadable security?


I will go out on a limb and say* no*, as the standard has not been written yet. But I am hoping that the existing cable card slot in TiVos will be able to take a new type of card that will allow downloadable security to be loaded into them, wishfully thinking on my part??.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

The integration ban hasn't really done anything to make the consumer CC experience better. They send out boxes with the CC soldered in place and preactivated for their system and hey have a completely different UI in their support system for setting up their own boxes vs retail CC devices. The purpose of the integration ban was to make it so retail devices and rented boxes were on equal footing, but that has never really been the case. By the time CCs were actually deployed MSOs had started offering additional services which were not compatible with CCs such as VOD and SDV. TiVo had to push hard to get the Tuning Adapter adopted just so we could tune SDV channels and even now they are not well supported and problematic for a lot of users. 

While CCs allow us to access digital channels, which we wouldn't be able to do without them, they're also a poorly designed mess in need of a more up to date replacement. I just hope that the MSOs learned their lesson with CCs and will come up with something easier to use next time around.


----------



## shrike4242 (Dec 1, 2006)

I agree that we need something else in place, though there's no real impetus for the cable companies to make that quickly available. If there were some push to have them either save time/money/effort to have another solution in place that would work, that's another matter entirely. If there was a cleaner and easier solution than having CCs and TAs, I'd be all for it, as long as they don't break what's working until it can be tested and verified. 

I just think that this change in the environment will make them less likely to support third party devices because it'll be just too much work for them.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> ....... While CCs allow us to access digital channels, which we wouldn't be able to do without them, they're also a poorly designed mess in need of a more up to date replacement. I just hope that the MSOs learned their lesson with CCs and will come up with something easier to use next time around.


There may be a lesson that we would want the MSO's to have learned. But, from their viewpoint, what lesson should they learn?


shrike4242 said:


> I agree that we need something else in place, though there's no real impetus for the cable companies to make that quickly available. ........


This. I don't see what "lesson" they could have learned that would make them more likely to want to enable third party devices.

Seems to me the sad CC/TA experience has just validated the MSO's business model of suppressing third party access. Not a lesson I wanted them to learn.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

> While CCs allow us to access digital channels, which we wouldn't be able to do without them, they're also a poorly designed mess in need of a more up to date replacement. I just hope that the MSOs learned their lesson with CCs and will come up with something easier to use next time around.


The way I saw it, there was an intentional campaign by certain CableCo's to kill off popularity by pretending to be inept. And they've been successful. In a just world, they should be punished instead of rewarded but that's not our world. At least we can call it as it is, get the narrative right, before we go into the next version.

We have something functional today which gives a very useful end product (consumer oriented Tivo DVR). I honestly expect the replacement is going to include more overbearing control mechanisms. To make up a few, not being able to record, not be able to skip commercials, not be able to skip back, expiring recordings, control number of times being views.

While I just made that up, all I did was copy the modes that we already have with OnDemand.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

Agreed. The days of Ad free (via skipping) TV are coming to an end. Gonna have to start timing those Pee breaks accordingly or downloading everything to a PC for pre-processing before we can watch it.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

bareyb said:


> Agreed. The days of Ad free (via skipping) TV are coming to an end. Gonna have to start timing those Pee breaks accordingly or downloading everything to a PC for pre-processing before we can watch it.


If that happens, then I'll just go back to Netflix. I'm even one of the semi-supporters of On Demand, even with some unskippable ads, but mostly because as I've said before, most shows, even "broadcast" channels, end up with a version with VERY limited commercials (less than Hulu, I think) a few days after broadcast.. so it's a good backup solution.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

mattack said:


> If that happens, then I'll just go back to Netflix. I'm even one of the semi-supporters of On Demand, even with some unskippable ads, but mostly because as I've said before, most shows, even "broadcast" channels, end up with a version with VERY limited commercials (less than Hulu, I think) a few days after broadcast.. so it's a good backup solution.


I don't mind the one or two commercials they have on VOD that much either. I do feel ss soon as the powers that be can kill off the any alternative to streaming, they will up the number of commercials dramatically. We'll probably will be back to 20 minutes per hour in no time. I'm dreading it. I suspect if they make it too untenable then I'll figure out how to process the commercials out of my stuff before I view it. They already have Free Applications that can do that now. I already use PyTivo, I think all I'd need is that KTTG (?) thing. It sounds like it works pretty well.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

bareyb said:


> Agreed. The days of Ad free (via skipping) TV are coming to an end. Gonna have to start timing those Pee breaks accordingly or downloading everything to a PC for pre-processing before we can watch it.


If we ae forced to go back to how it was when I watched TV in the 70's with no way to pause, rewind, Fast Forward, etc.. then I will just stop watching broadcast Tv. There is no way I am going to watch 20 minutes of commercials every hour


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

aaronwt said:


> If we ae forced to go back to how it was when I watched TV in the 70's with no way to pause, rewind, Fast Forward, etc.. then I will just stop watching broadcast Tv.* There is no way I am going to watch 20 minutes of commercials every hour*


:up::up::up:


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

aaronwt said:


> If we ae forced to go back to how it was when I watched TV in the 70's with no way to pause, rewind, Fast Forward, etc.. then I will just stop watching broadcast Tv. There is no way I am going to watch 20 minutes of commercials every hour


I don't understand why the cablecos want to increase restrictions on viewers (force commercials, forbid DVR-DVR transfers). Do they really believe their carriage fees would increase measurably if they could force DVR customers to watch commercials? I think that's a fool's wish.


----------



## shrike4242 (Dec 1, 2006)

aaronwt said:


> If we ae forced to go back to how it was when I watched TV in the 70's with no way to pause, rewind, Fast Forward, etc.. then I will just stop watching broadcast Tv. There is no way I am going to watch 20 minutes of commercials every hour


Agreed.

Now I think is the time to hold onto CCs and TAs until death and pass them down to your children. I was going to scale down my Premiere XL and XL4 into a Roamio Pro and a Mini, though I guess I'll need to hold onto my CC and TA in that situation for fear I won't get another one without huge hurdles.


----------



## dave13077 (Jan 11, 2009)

shrike4242 said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Now I think is the time to hold onto CCs and TAs until death and pass them down to your children. I was going to scale down my Premiere XL and XL4 into a Roamio Pro and a Mini, though I guess I'll need to hold onto my CC and TA in that situation for fear I won't get another one without huge hurdles.


I think we are at least 5 years if not 10 away from any interruption. The pace that government works I am not too worried. At that point we will all already be on to the "the next big thing"....... It may or may not be Tivo related.


----------



## replaytv (Feb 21, 2011)

aaronwt said:


> If we ae forced to go back to how it was when I watched TV in the 70's with no way to pause, rewind, Fast Forward, etc.. then I will just stop watching broadcast Tv. There is no way I am going to watch 20 minutes of commercials every hour


Amen, Brother ( or Sista' ) 
I still can't believe most of my friends and family don't have DVRs and mostly watch all those commercials. Probably makes the advertisers happy though. Maybe they are the only ones that keeps the advertisers still buying the ads.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Yeah my wife seems to watch commercials most of the time even though she can easily skip them. 

She really seems to want tv to be as much of a passive event as possible. 

Plus she enjoys many of the commercials.


----------



## eboydog (Mar 24, 2006)

trip1eX said:


> Cablecard tech is relatively expensive to put in a box. Most of us have to pay ~$4/month for a cablecard. And it also makes the boxes bigger. Plus it is a hassle for the consumer.
> 
> There's a much cheaper way to do the job cablecard was doing.
> 
> Tivo and Comcast announced they are starting to work on such a standard.


That's exactly the problem. Without the cable card standard every cable company is going to implent their own security standard and there is no way TiVo will be able to support everyone. This is the end of retail TiVo freedom and the end of a good consumer choice.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

eboydog said:


> That's exactly the problem. Without the cable card standard every cable company is going to implent their own security standard and there is no way TiVo will be able to support everyone. This is the end of retail TiVo freedom and the end of a good consumer choice.


Many CableCo's are backing the Comcast RDK for future deployments, which is the hardware behind Comcast X1 and extremely similar to Tivo's hardware. Tivo should have an easy time playing in that club.

The hold outs might be Charter and Cablevision. Charter is talking about an IPTV box, Cablevision has mentioned a boxless household. Whatever it is, sounds like they have a different vision than the other MSO's. While I think they have merit I'm not sure if they can actualize it and the longer it takes them to hammer out, the more behind they'll be and embracing the RDK (as a mature platform) will be the fastest way to be catching up.


----------



## ajwees41 (May 7, 2006)

lessd said:


> I will go out on a limb and say* no*, as the standard has not been written yet. But I am hoping that the existing cable card slot in TiVos will be able to take a new type of card that will allow downloadable security to be loaded into them, wishfully thinking on my part??.


how much bandwidth would be needed if the tivo was able to download the security and also have access to 2 way services like ondemand or PPV via remote. Would that even work with current premieres or newer?


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

ajwees41 said:


> how much bandwidth would be needed if the tivo was able to download the security and also have access to 2 way services like ondemand or PPV via remote. Would that even work with current premieres or newer?


Bandwidth isn't an issue. The downloadable security is a one and done thing, similar to a firmware update. 
Two way services may be an issue since the TiVo box does not have a built in modem. But it can use the Internet if allowed. It appears that this is how the Comcast plan would work. Comcast already provides on demand and PPV This way.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

CuriousMark said:


> Bandwidth isn't an issue. The downloadable security is a one and done thing, similar to a firmware update.
> Two way services may be an issue since the TiVo box does not have a built in modem. But it can use the Internet if allowed. It appears that this is how the Comcast plan would work. Comcast already provides on demand and PPV This way.


I hope that any downloadable security or as you have called it a firmware update, could be stored on a card that would fit into the current cable card slot, even better, does the Roamio have room on their internal flash to store and use any downloadable security??.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

CuriousMark said:


> Two way services may be an issue since the TiVo box does not have a built in modem. But it can use the Internet if allowed.


Obviously two way will not be an issue. Downloadable security wouldn't be possible (or even allowed by the cable co) if they weren't doing two way communication. This is how TiVo is planning on doing away with SDV boxes with MSO TiVo's.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

lessd said:


> I hope that any downloadable security or as you have called it a firmware update, could be stored on a card that would fit into the current cable card slot, even better, does the Roamio have room on their internal flash to store and use any downloadable security??.


 You don't want any physical device or card involved. If that's what you get, then you must have standards for physical requirements of that card and all communication on it. You're not going to get that - the cable companies were not able to agree on standards for 2-way communication using the present cablecards, which are perfectly capable and already have a standard-making body accepted in the industry.

There is plenty of room in the Roamio for downloadable security; I'm sure that's the way TiVo and Comcast are planning to go.

There wasn't any over-riding financial or legal reason for Comcast to make On-Demand available in every market, as they have done. Income from tiVo On-Demand users is minuscule. I'm sure a major reason, perhaps THE major reason, for doing it was to start the process of having all their head-ends connected to the internet, and accessible for end-users to choose what they are getting from the head-end. A low-volume trial of the first step towards their eventual goals.


----------



## shrike4242 (Dec 1, 2006)

telemark said:


> Many CableCo's are backing the Comcast RDK for future deployments, which is the hardware behind Comcast X1 and extremely similar to Tivo's hardware. Tivo should have an easy time playing in that club.
> 
> The hold outs might be Charter and Cablevision. Charter is talking about an IPTV box, Cablevision has mentioned a boxless household. Whatever it is, sounds like they have a different vision than the other MSO's. While I think they have merit I'm not sure if they can actualize it and the longer it takes them to hammer out, the more behind they'll be and embracing the RDK (as a mature platform) will be the fastest way to be catching up.


If everyone except Charter and Cablevision are backing the Comcast standard, then I'm boned being a Charter customer. Since Comcast and Tivo are working together on Comcast boxes with Tivo, that's promising for a CC-less/TA-less future.

However, if Charter wants to do an IPTV box, then anyone who has a Tivo might be up the creek, since AT&T UVerse won't work with Tivo though Verizon FIOS does. The difference? Verizon does CC's, AT&T doesn't. As long as there some type of third-party allowance for a decryption item for use with their IPTV box, then we might luck out.

This is Charter, after all. I don't have a lot of hope that they'll allow third-party solutions if they do their own solution with an IPTV gateway.



CuriousMark said:


> Bandwidth isn't an issue. The downloadable security is a one and done thing, similar to a firmware update.
> Two way services may be an issue since the TiVo box does not have a built in modem. But it can use the Internet if allowed. It appears that this is how the Comcast plan would work. Comcast already provides on demand and PPV This way.


Since it's all "internal" traffic, bandwidth shouldn't be much of an issue unless you're on a provider with not a lot of fast bandwidth.



CrispyCritter said:


> You don't want any physical device or card involved. If that's what you get, then you must have standards for physical requirements of that card and all communication on it. You're not going to get that - the cable companies were not able to agree on standards for 2-way communication using the present cablecards, which are perfectly capable and already have a standard-making body accepted in the industry.
> 
> There is plenty of room in the Roamio for downloadable security; I'm sure that's the way TiVo and Comcast are planning to go.
> 
> There wasn't any over-riding financial or legal reason for Comcast to make On-Demand available in every market, as they have done. Income from tiVo On-Demand users is minuscule. I'm sure a major reason, perhaps THE major reason, for doing it was to start the process of having all their head-ends connected to the internet, and accessible for end-users to choose what they are getting from the head-end. A low-volume trial of the first step towards their eventual goals.


We can only hope so, and hope that all of the cable companies work out some universal standard. Since we're likely to get one 800lb gorilla with Comcast-TimeWarner and everyone else being much smaller potatoes behind them, Comcast's solution might be the defacto standard.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

FiOS isn't using IPTV with the TiVos. They only use IPTV for their VOD which the TiVos cannot access.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> That's not true. They are revoking the integrated security ban, which means their own boxes no longer need to have a CableCARD inside. But they are not revoking the whole law, which still establishes separated security for retail devices. (i.e. CableCARDs) So for now they'll still need to support CableCARDs they just don't have to use them in their own devices. The two barely have anything to do with one another now, so I doubt it will have any impact.
> 
> The Charter waiver that allows them to develop a downloadable security system for retail devices is another story. That one required it to be open, but never established it as having to be universal for all cable providers. So we could end up with a situation where someone like TiVo has to support multiple downloadable security systems to make a universal retail box.


That's spot on. The integrated security ban was a stupid idea from the get-go. As long as TiVo users can get CableCards, it doesn't really matter what the cablecos do with their own boxes...

I wonder how many tens or hundreds of millions was wasted on making cableco boxes with cablecards instead of integrated security?


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> That's spot on. The integrated security ban was a stupid idea from the get-go. As long as TiVo users can get CableCards, it doesn't really matter what the cablecos do with their own boxes...
> 
> I wonder how many tens or hundreds of millions was wasted on making cableco boxes with cablecards instead of integrated security?


Guess who's money they wasted, hint it was not the cable co.s money.


----------



## jwbelcher (Nov 13, 2007)

lessd said:


> Guess who's money they wasted, hint it was not the cable co.s money.


Its not like we'd seen a difference in our bill. I prefer to think it hit their profit margins


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

Agreed. Cable box rental fees are set at prices customers are willing to pay.

Lowering the price of the box, doesn't get passed on to the customer, but increases the total return (profit) over the box's lifetime. (rental fee x months - cost to make + residual value)

The potential benefit customers would see, is old boxes could be replaced sooner with newer models since the payback period was shorter. I don't believe that would happen since MSO's don't replace boxes as soon as they're paid off. They replace them due to technology changes.

--

I don't buy the argument that separatable security makes boxes more expensive, at least historically. Manufacturing costs are tied to required component count and volume made. 

Integrated security vs separate security would (used to) have the same chip count, the difference being where the chips are: motherboard vs removable daughter board.

Production volume however is lowered (higher cost) with integrated security because each box manufactured is tied to a particular CA security protocol. That is each box manufacturer is dividing their otherwise same box into 2-3 different types, based on whose network it's going in. Some manufacturing companies would not enter this product category cause the segmented box volume was too low or the multiple CA licensing required to get in the door. The fewer manufacturers means, less competition, higher cost.

Boxes with separatable security can also be moved between more markets, increasing their usable lifespan and residual value.

--

On some recent low end box designs, where the chip count is close to 1, I can accept adding a cable card increases the cost, but that's different than what it was like when the mandate was started.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

telemark said:


> Agreed. Cable box rental fees are set at prices customers are willing to pay.
> 
> Lowering the price of the box, doesn't get passed on to the customer, but increases the total return (profit) over the box's lifetime. (rental fee x months - cost to make + residual value)
> 
> ...


But that's the point. Things have changed drastically in tech and by the time Cablecard got going it becoming obsolete.

The problem with government intervention is it works just like the cable co does - slowly. And probably more slowly.

And now I would guess it is all about security via the network. No need for expensive integrated/modular hardware security. I just think of all the content I can buy via the internets with an account/password. And somehow the cable co has its own private network and the consumer can't just do the same sort of thing?


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Bigg said:


> The integrated security ban was a stupid idea from the get-go. As long as TiVo users can get CableCards, it doesn't really matter what the cablecos do with their own boxes...


I disagree somewhat. Cablecards work because of the ban. It isn't like the cards sometimes randomly refuse to descramble a channel, require frequent rebooting, or simply don't work with some cable systems. Their operation is stable and well-developed, and firmware updates continue to roll out as they expand features and fix bugs. Without the ban, there would be no reason for cable companies to fix any CableCard problems or update the firmware to keep up with the latest features. The ban significantly increased the level of support.

What did happen is that the pairing process for third-party devices never really worked well, because cable companies permanently paired the card to the box before it shipped. There was nothing in the law that prevented them from doing that, so they took advantage of that loophole. But that meant that the pairing process didn't get any attention. Additional laws had to be passed later on to force cable companies to improve the pairing process.

Since CableCards have matured and are for the most part working fine, the integration ban really isn't needed anymore. But if cable companies stop supporting CableCards like they have been, the ban might return.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Bob hits the nail on the head again. Agree that with the later FCC card rules that went in place a few years ago, card pairings got a lot better (with Comcast at least). There have been other issues that have cropped up such as firmware updates for 6-tuner support, but overall I don't see it going downhill significantly. Comcast as an example has committed to supporting cards for as long as they have them deployed in Tivos, WMC etc.

The hope at this point is that Tivo and Comcast adopt a downloadable standard that is widely accepted by the industry (including PC tuner makers) so we can get rid of the damn things altogether. Given that AllVid was stillborn it's about the best we can expect at this point.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

jwbelcher said:


> Its not like we'd seen a difference in our bill. I prefer to think it hit their profit margins


Yeah, it's hard to say. Probably a combination of the two.



BobCamp1 said:


> I disagree somewhat. Cablecards work because of the ban. It isn't like the cards sometimes randomly refuse to descramble a channel, require frequent rebooting, or simply don't work with some cable systems. Their operation is stable and well-developed, and firmware updates continue to roll out as they expand features and fix bugs. Without the ban, there would be no reason for cable companies to fix any CableCard problems or update the firmware to keep up with the latest features. The ban significantly increased the level of support.
> 
> What did happen is that the pairing process for third-party devices never really worked well, because cable companies permanently paired the card to the box before it shipped. There was nothing in the law that prevented them from doing that, so they took advantage of that loophole. But that meant that the pairing process didn't get any attention. Additional laws had to be passed later on to force cable companies to improve the pairing process.
> 
> Since CableCards have matured and are for the most part working fine, the integration ban really isn't needed anymore. But if cable companies stop supporting CableCards like they have been, the ban might return.


The problem is, the "not integrated" CableCards in their boxes and the CableCards in TiVos are living in two separate parallel universes.

I don't think we gained a single thing except hatred from the MSOs with the integrated security ban. Older boxes with integrated security and CableCard equipment, whether MSO or customer-owned work just fine together.


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

Bigg said:


> I don't think we gained a single thing except hatred from the MSOs with the integrated security ban. Older boxes with integrated security and CableCard equipment, whether MSO or customer-owned work just fine together.


The cost for CableCards to the MSO's should have dropped as the number manufactured should have dramatically increased compared to before the integrated security ban. I know that my local Comcast franchise has dropped the monthly cost for extra CableCards (Original S3 OLED here so they need 2) several times over the past few years ($2.00 to $1.75 to $1.50 and now $1.00).

Scott


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

HerronScott said:


> The cost for CableCards to the MSO's should have dropped as the number manufactured should have dramatically increased compared to before the integrated security ban. I know that my local Comcast franchise has dropped the monthly cost for extra CableCards (Original S3 OLED here so they need 2) several times over the past few years ($2.00 to $1.75 to $1.50 and now $1.00).
> 
> Scott


This cost drop happen to me also on Comcast, I am now paying $1/month so I keep an extra card..just in case.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

CC's are an example of the converse of Moore's Law. That is, in theory, the cost to manufacture should half every 18 months.

(This excludes the reality that functionality was being added like when switching from S to M.)


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

telemark said:


> CC's are an example of the converse of Moore's Law. That is, in theory, the cost to manufacture should half ever 18 months.
> 
> (This excludes the reality that functionality was being added like when switching from S to M.)


Over the next 15 years as cable co replace their cable card equipment, there should be some 50 mill cable cards out there, unless the cable co will not remove the cards from their boxes as they are retired, or the MSO cable card is not the same as the one given out for say the TiVo.

Just spoke to a Comcast tech on the street and he said that it has been over a year since he has had to deal with any cable cards, about 3 or more years ago he was dealing with many cable cards, they don't even carry any cable cards on the trucks anymore. He though CC was a dead product.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

HerronScott said:


> The cost for CableCards to the MSO's should have dropped as the number manufactured should have dramatically increased compared to before the integrated security ban. I know that my local Comcast franchise has dropped the monthly cost for extra CableCards (Original S3 OLED here so they need 2) several times over the past few years ($2.00 to $1.75 to $1.50 and now $1.00).
> 
> Scott


Yeah, but it still would have been WAY cheaper to just make them for TiVos and MCE machines even if the price per unit was many times what it is today...

Very few multi-CC machines are still out there. So really, only the additional CableCard fee is important, which, on Comcast, is still $7/mo and change...


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

My mother pays nothing a month to Comcast for her cable card, which she uses in an HD Homerun Prime.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

lessd said:


> Over the next 15 years as cable co replace their cable card equipment, there should be some 50 mill cable cards out there, unless the cable co will not remove the cards from their boxes as they are retired, or the MSO cable card is not the same as the one given out for say the TiVo.


They are the same. Besides my verification I could interchange them (and making Cox very unhappy with me for testing it), that was the point of the integration ban: They (MSO) have to use the same card that we (retail) do.

What was grossly different, and made the ban a total waste, was that retail devices were already mandated that they could not have the bidirectional communication capabilities that the MSO leased boxes had, and still have.

Take a card out of a leased box, put it into your TiVo, and it will boot into "slow boot mode", only being able to operate on what it receives, and be unable to send any communication back.


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

Bigg said:


> Very few multi-CC machines are still out there. So really, only the additional CableCard fee is important, which, on Comcast, is still $7/mo and change...


Not for all Comcast franchises, I'm only paying $2.00 total for my second S3 for the 2 CableCards ($1.00 each).

Scott


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

HerronScott said:


> The cost for CableCards to the MSO's should have dropped as the number manufactured should have dramatically increased compared to before the integrated security ban. I know that my local Comcast franchise has dropped the monthly cost for extra CableCards (Original S3 OLED here so they need 2) several times over the past few years ($2.00 to $1.75 to $1.50 and now $1.00).


Verizon has consistently raised CableCARD rates - my single card is currently up to $4.99/mo (which is $1 less than a DTA). I imagine these fees have more to do with "support" than their hardware cost, as this was a deployed card that had a rate increase. Having said that, RCN has publicly complained a few times that wholesale CableCARD costs have not gone down for them (and would prefer a digital authentication model).



slowbiscuit said:


> Comcast as an example has committed to supporting cards for as long as they have them deployed in Tivos, WMC etc.


There was no public disclosure regarding how long Comcast would continue supporting retail CableCARDs, only that they would support them. 1 year? 5 years? Until TiVo's Time Warp patent protection expires? The more I read the filing, the less value I find in it.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

I'm not seeing how this para is unclear about support, but as you said there's no timeframe in it. I seriously doubt they're going to do anything to purposefully sabotage or abandon cards as long as they're working on a new standard, but after that we'll have to see what the take up is.

_Under the terms of the agreement, Comcast commits to continue to provide and support 
CableCARDs in retail devices notwithstanding the D.C. Circuit's EchoStar decision last year 
vacating certain CableCARD rules. *Comcast will ensure that all CableCARD-enabled devices 
will continue to have access to all linear channels in all Comcast markets. *_


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Tivo criticizes CableCARD coverage:

http://www.lightreading.com/cable-v...o-criticizes-cablecard-coverage/d/d-id/710116

Apparently the sky is falling if cableCos don't have to eat their own food anymore, not sure I'm buying it as long as the FCC orders are in place.


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

For whatever it's worth, as of May Comcast had 348,799 deployed CableCARDs for retail devices and 21.7 million total video customers according to the NYT in February. That ~350k includes TiVo, Media Center, and whatever else and there could be more than 1 CableCARD per household.

Sources:
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521120065
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/02...al-by-the-numbers/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Bigg said:


> The problem is, the "not integrated" CableCards in their boxes and the CableCards in TiVos are living in two separate parallel universes.
> 
> I don't think we gained a single thing except hatred from the MSOs with the integrated security ban. Older boxes with integrated security and CableCard equipment, whether MSO or customer-owned work just fine together.


Do those integrated and non-integrated cards have different firmware? Is the cable company simply pretending to use them in their own boxes?

The cable companies had to get CableCards working so their own boxes would work. If they weren't forced to use CableCards themselves, they wouldn't work nearly as well as they do today. There's barely supporting something, and then there's fully supporting something.

The MSOs hate Tivo owners because supporting them is a huge PITA, and they don't buy any VOD or PPV which is a huge money-maker for the MSOs.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

BobCamp1 said:


> Do those integrated and non-integrated cards have different firmware? Is the cable company simply pretending to use them in their own boxes?
> 
> The cable companies had to get CableCards working so their own boxes would work. If they weren't forced to use CableCards themselves, they wouldn't work nearly as well as they do today. There's barely supporting something, and then there's fully supporting something.
> 
> The MSOs hate Tivo owners because supporting them is a huge PITA, and they don't buy any VOD or PPV which is a huge money-maker for the MSOs.


In the order you posted:

Same firmware, different communication modes, and differences in what tables and data would be downloaded, depending on which type of box they go in (they can sense which).

Their boxes already had cablecards in them. They were just not "cards", but the components inside a card, instead soldered to the board. The integration ban just made them stop doing it that way, added to production costs per cable box/DVR, and still didn't make cablecards any better.

If I was a MSO, I'd hate TiVo too, unless I shielded myself from the big picture, and only looked at things from retail device maker/buyer/owner POVs.


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

NCTA has more to say today on integration ban:
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/nctas-powell-tivo-just-wrong-about-cablecard/132861


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

HerronScott said:


> Not for all Comcast franchises, I'm only paying $2.00 total for my second S3 for the 2 CableCards ($1.00 each).
> 
> Scott


Interesting. Yay Comcast, a whole bunch of different systems that charge different amounts for the same thing!


----------



## eboydog (Mar 24, 2006)

Simple fact, if cableco's don't have to support cards in their equipment any longer, support for cable cards in third party boxes will suffer. FCC rules or not, as bad as they don't like them now, cable companies will hate them even worse.

2nd simple fact, cable companies see cable cards as something that cuts into their maximum possible income, they only welcome innovation if there is money to be made.

Yes there are possible better alternatives to cable cards for third party devices but unless there is a mandate from the FCC to implement such standard, such as what was attempted with cable cards, there will never be a recognized standard and this will mean the end of retail TiVos.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

eboydog said:


> Simple fact, if cableco's don't have to support cards in their equipment any longer, support for cable cards in third party boxes will suffer. FCC rules or not, as bad as they don't like them now, cable companies will hate them even worse.
> 
> 2nd simple fact, cable companies see cable cards as something that cuts into their maximum possible income, they only welcome innovation if there is money to be made.
> 
> Yes there are possible better alternatives to cable cards for third party devices but unless there is a mandate from the FCC to implement such standard, such as what was attempted with cable cards, there will never be a recognized standard and this will mean the end of retail TiVos.


Exactly WHAT "support" is involved with making a box, slapping a card in, and never pulling that card out until the box is retired/scrapped (if even then, based on the "how to scrap cable boxes" YouTube videos I see)?

There is no cablecard "support" with MSO leased boxes! There is no pairing that requires any phone calls. Most every cablecard installed in a MSO box, remains there until the box hits the scrap heap.

The pairing can be done automatically, due to the bidirectional communication, and the box and card being able to be identified remotely, should the pairing somehow be dropped. No human interaction is even required.

Comparing a single cablecard (the same one), if installed in a MSO box, or installed in a Retail unit, is comparing apples to bowling balls.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

eboydog said:


> Yes there are possible better alternatives to cable cards for third party devices but unless there is a mandate from the FCC to implement such standard, such as what was attempted with cable cards, there will never be a recognized standard and this will mean the end of retail TiVos.


The FCC has completely abdicated its role in IP-standards development, starting with the disappearing act after the cableCos told them to pound sand on AllVid.

At this point the only hope we have is some sort of industry developed downloadable standard, the FCC is worthless here.


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

slowbiscuit said:


> At this point the only hope we have is some sort of industry developed downloadable standard, the FCC is worthless here.


And most of the industry isn't interested in subsidizing TiVo. They've got their iPad and Xbox apps, TWC even has Roku. TiVo is a thorn in the cable industry's side and FCC seems largely incapable and disinterested, as you say.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

davezatz said:


> And most of the industry isn't interested in subsidizing TiVo. They've got their iPad and Xbox apps, TWC even has Roku. TiVo is a thorn in the cable industry's side and FCC seems largely incapable and disinterested, as you say.


That's it, succinctly stated. IPTV will eventually prevail. What is scary about that is the monopoly status that cable MSO's have for internet service in a large fraction of the USA. However, IPTV will be demanded by a major segment of the population rather than the tiny percentage who care about TiVo. That huge political, and market, pressure will (hopefully) furnish the incentive for the MSO's and FCC to respond much better than they have to TiVo.

We can always hope that future technological developments will obsolete the cable MSO's current monopoly. Then it will be so satisfying to see them be forced to compete -- or go out of business. Nothing personal but I will welcome that day.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

dlfl said:


> However, IPTV will be demanded by a major segment of the population rather than the tiny percentage who care about TiVo.


LOL. Most people have no clue how they get their TV (QAM vs. IPTV), and far fewer actually care. They just know what channels it has, maybe how much it costs. No one is demanding IPTV, as the experience on a U-Verse IPTV box is pretty much exactly the same as on a QAM-based Comcast box.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Do they really hate Tivo much? Tivo has 3-4x the number of MSO subs than retail subs.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

trip1eX said:


> Do they really hate Tivo much? Tivo has 3-4x the number of MSO subs than retail subs.


That's just the thing. Retail is a small business for TiVo, and the MSOs that use TiVos will figure out with TiVo how to make them work, CableCard or not.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Bigg said:


> LOL. Most people have no clue how they get their TV (QAM vs. IPTV), and far fewer actually care. They just know what channels it has, maybe how much it costs. No one is demanding IPTV, as the experience on a U-Verse IPTV box is pretty much exactly the same as on a QAM-based Comcast box.


Just worse video quality than even Comcast.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

aaronwt said:


> Just worse video quality than even Comcast.


True, but only a small subset of people would notice degraded video quality From ATT U-Verse. (except people on this Forum)


----------



## Banker257 (Aug 4, 2014)

Bigg said:


> That's just the thing. Retail is a small business for TiVo....


Yes, retail is small, but it takes about 10 MSO subs to equal 1 retail sub revenue wise.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> Just worse video quality than even Comcast.


True. And that's pretty pathetic since Comcast is known for overcompression. It's pretty sad that almost no one cares about video quality.



Banker257 said:


> Yes, retail is small, but it takes about 10 MSO subs to equal 1 retail sub revenue wise.


True. But it also has higher customer acquisition costs, since the MSOs are handling that part of the process on that side. Are you sure it's 10:1? That sounds rather extreme.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> True. And that's pretty pathetic since Comcast is known for overcompression. It's pretty sad that almost no one cares about video quality.
> 
> True. But it also has higher customer acquisition costs, since the MSOs are handling that part of the process on that side. Are you sure it's 10:1? That sounds rather extreme.


I think the 10 to 1 (referred to above) is gross profit per sale, not a cost difference of 10 to 1.


----------



## Banker257 (Aug 4, 2014)

lessd said:


> I think the 10 to 1 (referred to above) is gross profit per sale, not a cost difference of 10 to 1.


Yes, TiVo does not break out the numbers but they make roughly $10 a month on a retail TiVo owned sub. They make roughly $2 a month on US MSO subs and just under $1 on overseas MSO's.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

Banker257 said:


> Yes, TiVo does not break out the numbers but they make roughly $10 a month on a retail TiVo owned sub. They make roughly $2 a month on US MSO subs and just under $1 on overseas MSO's.


Just to clarify, that's not how much they make, but it's how much revenue they bring in. More precisely, last year they had revenue of $8.60 monthly for the TiVo owned subs, and revenue of $1.16 monthly for each MSO sub.

They don't break out the cost of the service revenue between the TiVo owned and the MSO subs, but I would suspect almost all of it should be allocated to the TiVo owned subs (guide info, service center). So that's roughly a $4 monthly cost for each of the TiVo-owned subs.

That doesn't include the cost to get each TiVo owned sub (subscriber acquisition cost), which is right around $200 (as Bigg points out, that's not a cost for the MSO subs).

So it takes them about 4 years, at $4.60 net revenue per month, before they make back the $200 it cost them for a TiVo-owned sub. That's opposed to the MSO subs, which give them an immediate profit.


----------



## Banker257 (Aug 4, 2014)

CrispyCritter said:


> Just to clarify, that's not how much they make, but it's how much revenue they bring in. More precisely, last year they had revenue of $8.60 monthly for the TiVo owned subs, and revenue of $1.16 monthly for each MSO sub.
> 
> They don't break out the cost of the service revenue between the TiVo owned and the MSO subs, but I would suspect almost all of it should be allocated to the TiVo owned subs (guide info, service center). So that's roughly a $4 monthly cost for each of the TiVo-owned subs.
> 
> ...


Correct, I was not stating profit. A retail sub brings in $9 in gross revenue, an MSO sub brings in a $1.

I don't think their sac is at $200 anymore, but if it was, they still need about 5 MSO's to 1 retail for the same amount of profit.

I was just pointing out that TiVo needs a lot more MSO subs before they can walk away from their TiVo owned and stay profitable.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

Banker257 said:


> Correct, I was not stating profit. A retail sub brings in $9 in gross revenue, an MSO sub brings in a $1.
> 
> I don't think their sac is at $200 anymore, but if it was, they still need about 5 MSO's to 1 retail for the same amount of profit.
> 
> I was just pointing out that TiVo needs a lot more MSO subs before they can walk away from their TiVo owned and stay profitable.


I basically agree, but looking at it another way, after 5 years a TiVo owned sub will have brought in about the same net revenue (after SAC and service costs) as 5 years of an MSO sub. It's only after 5 years that a TiVo-owned sub will be substantially better. But lifetime sub revenue recognition ends after 5 1/2 years...

As a side note, I would argue that TiVo is not really profitable now, and won't be for another year or two at current rates. The only reason they appear profitable now is they are only slowly recognizing patent litigation settlement money that they've already received. Operationally, they are still losing money.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lessd said:


> I think the 10 to 1 (referred to above) is gross profit per sale, not a cost difference of 10 to 1.


Right, profit, but I have a hard time believing that the ratio is that big...


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Some retail units are sold through places like BestBuy too, that get a cut of the action, versus direct online sales, where TiVo keeps 100% (although they do have a little bit of cost to keep the website up, handle payments, shipping, etc). They have none of that with MSOs. Is that stuff all counted as part of SAC, or is SAC only the advertising and deals to get people in the "door" to buy a TiVo?


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

Bigg said:


> Some retail units are sold through places like BestBuy too, that get a cut of the action, versus direct online sales, where TiVo keeps 100% (although they do have a little bit of cost to keep the website up, handle payments, shipping, etc). They have none of that with MSOs. Is that stuff all counted as part of SAC, or is SAC only the advertising and deals to get people in the "door" to buy a TiVo?


SAC also includes the difference between hardware revenue and the cost of hardware revenue (both of which would include the Best Buy sales) for the TiVo-owned subs. This difference is about $100 per unit, with the advertising and deals being another $100 per unit, for a total of $200 of SAC (from 2014 annual report).


----------



## Banker257 (Aug 4, 2014)

Bigg said:


> Right, profit, but I have a hard time believing that the ratio is that big...


You got me thinking. If TiVo gets $15 a month on a standalone and $1 on an MSO sub, how much of that $15 is pure profit?

Assuming The MSO's $1 is 100% profit, $10 of Standalone pure profit is not unreasonable.

There's your 10 to 1 ratio?


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Banker257 said:


> You got me thinking. If TiVo gets $15 a month on a standalone and $1 on an MSO sub, how much of that $15 is pure profit?
> 
> Assuming The MSO's $1 is 100% profit, $10 of Standalone pure profit is not unreasonable.
> 
> There's your 10 to 1 ratio?


$10 profit on $15 is unreasonable at least in the first ~3 or 4 years.

No company I know of has a 66% profit margin.


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

trip1eX said:


> No company I know of has a 66% profit margin.


http://ycharts.com/companies/INTC/gross_profit_margin


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

trip1eX said:


> $10 profit on $15 is unreasonable at least in the first ~3 or 4 years.
> 
> No company I know of has a 66% profit margin.


When you purchase Windows from MS directly and MS sends you the code, their gross profit margin may be close to 99% on that sale.


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

One doesn't look at profit margin for specific products - and you're discounting all the investment Microsoft made in creating Windows. But Microsoft is another company that routinely runs in the 60s for profit margin overall.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

lessd said:


> When you purchase Windows from MS directly and MS sends you the code, their gross profit margin may be close to 99% on that sale.


gross is different than net.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

stevel said:


> One doesn't look at profit margin for specific products - and you're discounting all the investment Microsoft made in creating Windows. But Microsoft is another company that routinely runs in the 60s for profit margin overall.


MS's profit margin is ~25%.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

trip1eX said:


> gross is different than net.


I though we were talking about TiVo gross profit difference between retail and MSOs sales not net profit, as net profit included allocation for R&D sales cost and a lot of other stuff, I think I am correct on the *incremental* gross profit MS makes on a Windows sales, I was not referring to the profit MS makes as a company.


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

trip1eX said:


> MS's profit margin is ~25%.


Oh yeah? http://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT/gross_profit_margin


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

CrispyCritter said:


> SAC also includes the difference between hardware revenue and the cost of hardware revenue (both of which would include the Best Buy sales) for the TiVo-owned subs. This difference is about $100 per unit, with the advertising and deals being another $100 per unit, for a total of $200 of SAC (from 2014 annual report).


That makes more sense. The loss on hardware seems to come entirely from SAC including the cut that the retailer gets. In the case of the MSOs, they are probably buying the boxes near cost, and there is no store cut in there, so TiVo is probably making a very small profit on the hardware, and then getting the smaller monthly fees, but without any losses to undo.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

stevel said:


> Oh yeah? http://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT/gross_profit_margin


gross vs net


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

lessd said:


> I though we were talking about TiVo gross profit difference between retail and MSOs sales not net profit, as net profit included allocation for R&D sales cost and a lot of other stuff, I think I am correct on the *incremental* gross profit MS makes on a Windows sales, I was not referring to the profit MS makes as a company.


I was replying to a post that said "pure profit."


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Bigg said:


> That's just the thing. Retail is a small business for TiVo, and the MSOs that use TiVos will figure out with TiVo how to make them work, CableCard or not.


ACtually, contrary to what I was surmising, maybe MSOs here in the US do hate Tivo.

I skimmed the last quarterly report again and most MSO Tivo subscribers are from overseas.

2.1 million in the UK. 360k in Spain. 40k in Sweden.

Those numbers alone mean at least 2.5 million of 3.5 million of the Tivo MSO subs or roughly 71% are from overseas.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

They get about a $1 per month in revenue from an MSO sub and about $8 per month from a Tivo owned sub. 

They make money on the hardware up front when selling it to the MSO or so it appears. They sold $16 million in hardware to MSOs and their hardware costs were $12 million. They added about 340k MSO subscribers. If those numbers were directly related then that's only $10 per subscriber in MSO hardware gross profit. But I am only skimming right now. I assume I don't know the full picture. They may depreciate their hardware revenue over time or MSOs might be ordering hardware ahead of time in preparation to sell to their subscribers? And so MSO additions and number of MSO hardware sold aren't directly related.

They lose money on hardware up front when selling direct to the customer. They lost about $130 per gross subscription addition (SAC) this past quarter which includes Tivo Minis. Previous YoY quarter it was $187. And for the 12months ending April 30th in 2014 and 2013 it was $186 and $210. I would attribute the drop in SAC to Tivo Minis and the hardware being cheaper overall to make.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

I always love it when I subscribe to a thread that is specific to something I have a great interest in, and it turns into a financial debate, losing the content I crave...  

Why not discuss gun control laws and android streaming while we're at it. Those are great thread killers too...


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

trip1eX said:


> ACtually, contrary to what I was surmising, maybe MSOs here in the US do hate Tivo.
> 
> I skimmed the last quarterly report again and most MSO Tivo subscribers are from overseas.
> 
> ...


Yeah, because only small MSOs in the US use TiVo, none of the big players.



nooneuknow said:


> Why not discuss gun control laws and android streaming while we're at it. Those are great thread killers too...


The financials are actually related to TiVo. Well, so is Android streaming. But until someone shoots a hole in a TiVo, gun control isn't.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

Bigg said:


> The financials are actually related to TiVo. Well, so is Android streaming. But until someone shoots a hole in a TiVo, gun control isn't.


You haven't seen the YouTube video of that yet? 

Somebody posted a video of them dropping their TiVoHD off a building roof, then coming down and stomping on it, via the TiVo facebook page.

While I'm not going to be specific, I did personally witness the results of high-powered rifle rounds passing through a TiVo. So, I guess it is relevant, although video of this event does not exist. So, YouTube hunting it is...

Don't bring a TiVo to a gunfight (unless you just want to see TiVo carnage).


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

LOL, yet another thread gone off the rails.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

The Cablecard requirement had to be lifted. 

Look at the Apple TV and how many channels it has that show live content or recent content if you authenticate through your cable subscription. It seems to be home to quite a few cable channels now.

The ATV is practically a set top box. And no cablecard needed.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

nooneuknow said:


> While I'm not going to be specific, I did personally witness the results of high-powered rifle rounds passing through a TiVo. So, I guess it is relevant, although video of this event does not exist. So, YouTube hunting it is...


WHAT?!? Pics or it didn't happen!



trip1eX said:


> The Cablecard requirement had to be lifted.
> 
> Look at the Apple TV and how many channels it has that show live content or recent content if you authenticate through your cable subscription. It seems to be home to quite a few cable channels now.
> 
> The ATV is practically a set top box. And no cablecard needed.


Nowhere close. A lot of content is still only available through linear cable. And accessing TV Everywhere content is a PITA compared to TiVo.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

trip1eX said:


> Look at the Apple TV and how many channels it has...


Doesn't the FCC say it has no power over IPTV? Incumbants can love new tech because their regulators are too slow to adapt the rules to them.

Apple has an inordinate amount of content buying power and and cash. It has been willing to pay to grease otherwise sticky wheels. Isn't this the exact scenario we should be striving to avoid? (content being available to preferred partners, and smaller players who couldn't pay being shut out and then can never sell their boxes)

When the googleTV boxes came out, it could play internet video from webpages that were otherwise playable on a PC. Then the site owners selectively blocked their useragent, dooming the platform.


----------



## MeInDallas (Jul 31, 2011)

Bigg said:


> WHAT?!? Pics or it didn't happen!


----------



## eboydog (Mar 24, 2006)

MeInDallas said:


>


Well, I guess a hard drive upgrade is out of the question? Good luck with the warranty RMA....


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Bigg said:


> Nowhere close. A lot of content is still only available through linear cable. And accessing TV Everywhere content is a PITA compared to TiVo.


It is a pain in the arse to go in and out of channel apps. I would probably get annoyed.

But nowhere close? It is creeping up there. It has espn, history channel, lifetime, a&E, ABC news, ABC, Fox, cnbc, HBOGo, Disney XD, weather channel, MLB, nHL, MLS, NBA, ... and counting.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

MeInDallas said:


>


That's not me, for the record. I'm a much better shot, from a much greater distance. 

Hypothetically, I'd use mercury fulminate points, and there would be nothing left to recognize, or I'd draw a  , using full-metal jackets. 

Copper core points are fun too.


----------



## eboydog (Mar 24, 2006)

nooneuknow said:


> That's not me, for the record. I'm a much better shot, from a much greater distance.
> 
> Hypothetically, I'd use mercury fulminate points, and there would be nothing left to recognize, or I'd draw a  , using full-metal jackets.
> 
> Copper core points are fun too.


I really need to brush up on basic reading skills, I was about to reply and totally go off topic until I re-read your reply and only then noticed your use of the word "_*Hypothetically*_".

Since I'm already OT, might as well say I have a couple hundred 22lr tracer rounds that, along with a couple Dtivo's, would make a impressive YouTube video. I'm saving them for something special, just haven't figured out what yet...


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

MeInDallas said:


>


Well, I stand corrected in my original statement about bullets going through a TiVo! 



trip1eX said:


> It is a pain in the arse to go in and out of channel apps. I would probably get annoyed.
> 
> But nowhere close? It is creeping up there. It has espn, history channel, lifetime, a&E, ABC news, ABC, Fox, cnbc, HBOGo, Disney XD, weather channel, MLB, nHL, MLS, NBA, ... and counting.


There's a lot of stuff even among those missing, and the experience just isn't there except for specialized applications.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

eboydog said:


> I really need to brush up on basic reading skills, I was about to reply and totally go off topic until I re-read your reply and only then noticed your use of the word "_*Hypothetically*_".
> 
> Since I'm already OT, might as well say I have a couple hundred 22lr tracer rounds that, along with a couple Dtivo's, would make a impressive YouTube video. I'm saving them for something special, just haven't figured out what yet...


Tracer rounds are illegal. You should have used "hypothetically"! 

Seriously, Mythbusters was trying to make car gas tanks explode, and they had to have their FBI and other agents present when they couldn't make a tank explode via bullets, no matter what gun or type of round, and moved to tracer rounds. IIRC, even tracer rounds didn't work.

"When in doubt, C-4" (Hypothetically).

This thread is toast anyway, might as well make the best of it...


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Bigg said:


> There's a lot of stuff even among those missing, and the experience just isn't there except for specialized applications.


There is more cable content on an ATV than a MSO box hooked up to an economy cable subscription would provide.

It wouldn't be your main set top box. But this thing could be one of your 3rd or 4th tv.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

Maybe tangential, but IMHO software encryption is usually more easily broken than the CableCard / hardware schemes.

The industry is going to walk themselves into a nest of piracy. Then copyright holders will lean on the Federal Government to fix it, which is going to be unpleasant somehow.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

telemark said:


> Maybe tangential, but IMHO software encryption is usually more easily broken than the CableCard / hardware schemes.
> 
> The industry is going to walk themselves into a nest of piracy. Then copyright holders will lean on the Federal Government to fix it, which is going to be unpleasant somehow.


There was a market for piracy of analog encryption, but I know of nobody that has been able to break the digital encryption, cable card or before the cable card, if some of what used in the cable card and non cable card MSO boxes is built into the TiVo I don't see that piracy will go up.


----------



## eboydog (Mar 24, 2006)

nooneuknow said:


> Tracer rounds are illegal. You should have used "hypothetically"!
> 
> Seriously, Mythbusters was trying to make car gas tanks explode, and they had to have their FBI and other agents present when they couldn't make a tank explode via bullets, no matter what gun or type of round, and moved to tracer rounds. IIRC, even tracer rounds didn't work.
> 
> ...


Tracers are not illegal in my state, now some shooting ranges don't allow them and one must be careful when it's dry. Biggest problem is finding a safe place to use them. To my knowledge there are only a one state, California were they are ilegall but I would guess there might be others.

What's really cool is some belted tracer rounds my father gave me that he "found" when he was in the service stationed at Berlin back in the 50's. They are rather valuable and rare which despite being offered some rather inticing offers to sell them, I never shot them as being true military tracker rounds , they can ignite fire very easily not to mention as old as they are, I'm not sure how reliable they would be. Their value is just being a collector's item.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

eboydog said:


> Tracers are not illegal in my state, now some shooting ranges don't allow them and one must be careful when it's dry. Biggest problem is finding a safe place to use them. To my knowledge there are only a one state, California were they are ilegall but I would guess there might be others.
> 
> What's really cool is some belted tracer rounds my father gave me that he "found" when he was in the service stationed at Berlin back in the 50's. They are rather valuable and rare which despite being offered some rather inticing offers to sell them, I never shot them as being true military tracker rounds , they can ignite fire very easily not to mention as old as they are, I'm not sure how reliable they would be. Their value is just being a collector's item.


Makes sense, since Mythbusters films 98% of their content in CA.

< further off-topic content removed >


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

trip1eX said:


> There is more cable content on an ATV than a MSO box hooked up to an economy cable subscription would provide.
> 
> It wouldn't be your main set top box. But this thing could be one of your 3rd or 4th tv.


We're not comparing basic cable. We're looking at ways to access a cable subscription. Of which there is way more content on the linear channels than is available streaming. Even the MSO's streaming is very hit or miss.



telemark said:


> The industry is going to walk themselves into a nest of piracy. Then copyright holders will lean on the Federal Government to fix it, which is going to be unpleasant somehow.


Everything is on bittorrent anyways. As much as they might fight and flail and make idiots out of themselves, they only way to fight piracy is to make it more convenient to get the content legally at a reasonable price.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Bigg said:


> We're not comparing basic cable. We're looking at ways to access a cable subscription. Of which there is way more content on the linear channels than is available streaming. Even the MSO's streaming is very hit or miss.


Hey a box that can access quite a bit of cable content (more than found in an economy subscription) isn't nowhere near a set top box in my book.

All I was doing was using it as an example of why cablecard had to go. It was getting silly to say oh you need cablecard when boxes like an ATV can access a good chunk of your cable subscription content with just a login.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

trip1eX said:


> Hey a box that can access quite a bit of cable content (more than found in an economy subscription) isn't nowhere near a set top box in my book.
> 
> All I was doing was using it as an example of why cablecard had to go. It was getting silly to say oh you need cablecard when boxes like an ATV can access a good chunk of your cable subscription content with just a login.


That's patently absurd to say that CableCard could be replaced by some streaming device that accesses a small fraction of the total content, leaving you with the MSO's DVR for much of it. That's exactly what CableCard was envisioned to avoid... forcing you to use MSO gear.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I still think they should use a gateway type system where you have a single MSO supplied box with 6+ tuners that then feed the TVs and DVRs in your house via DLNA CPV-2. That would open up all providers to the retail market in a way that is much easier for CE companies to develop then CableCARD. In fact I think someone like Silicon Dust or CETON could do something like this now with a CableCARD and get the ball rolling.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Bigg said:


> That's patently absurd to say that CableCard could be replaced by some streaming device that accesses a small fraction of the total content, leaving you with the MSO's DVR for much of it. That's exactly what CableCard was envisioned to avoid... forcing you to use MSO gear.


YOu're creating straw men. I'm not sure whose point you're arguing against as it isn't mine. 

The streaming boxes just show how silly the cablecard requirement was becoming. That's all.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> I still think they should use a gateway type system where you have a single MSO supplied box with 6+ tuners that then feed the TVs and DVRs in your house via DLNA CPV-2. That would open up all providers to the retail market in a way that is much easier for CE companies to develop then CableCARD. In fact I think someone like Silicon Dust or CETON could do something like this now with a CableCARD and get the ball rolling.


HOw's that any different to the consumer than a Roamio Plus and some Minis?


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

Dan203 said:


> I still think they should use a gateway type system where you have a single MSO supplied box with 6+ tuners that then feed the TVs and DVRs in your house via DLNA CPV-2.


The gateway method is better than many alternatives. The current box is expensive though, which might be why some MSO's don't like it.

I'm not clear on some of the version differences. Is CPV-2 different than what they're doing now:
http://www.silicondust.com/dlna/

I was once told Comcast X1 was going to offer ethernet streaming support but now it's out, I see no clear indications whether it's implemented via DLNA or not.

Except one quote from a change log:
> DLNA on the X1 Platform: The Digital Living Network Alliance (DLNA) allows customers to stream TV from their XFINITY set-top box to a customer-owned video device, like a Playstation 3.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

trip1eX said:


> HOw's that any different to the consumer than a Roamio Plus and some Minis?


The box would be supplied by the MSO, which means it could use any tuner/authorization technology it wanted. The TiVo, TV, etc... would use a standard DLNA communication protocol to request a tuner from the gateway and then do whatever it wanted with the stream. (i.e. either record it or play it live) The best part about it is that by separating the tuning/authorization into a gateway box the TiVo would truly become MSO independent. So if someone were to release a gateway for Dish, DirecTV or Uverse the TiVo would work with those as well. It should also make the TiVos cheaper by not requiring them to have tuners and CableCARD slots.



telemark said:


> The gateway method is better than many alternatives. The current box is expensive though, which might be why some MSO's don't like it.
> 
> I'm not clear on some of the version differences. Is CPV-2 different than what they're doing now:
> http://www.silicondust.com/dlna/
> ...


CPV-2 added extra control options. It also added a remote UI feature that feeds a UI to the remote device as HTML5. So a cable company gateway could, for example, support VOD on all devices via a remote UI fed to the TiVo as HTML5. TiVo would no longer need to host a special app that talked to the headend over the internet it could simply display the cable company UI as an app in a browser window and the user could use VOD exactly like they could on an MSO supplied box.

The biggest issue with a gateway type device for TiVo is scheduling. Since the tuners are not internal, and they have no way to ensure that another device will not be using them when they're needed, it could pose a bit of a challenge for their scheduling routines. But I think in most cases it would probably work fine.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

trip1eX said:


> YOu're creating straw men. I'm not sure whose point you're arguing against as it isn't mine.
> 
> The streaming boxes just show how silly the cablecard requirement was becoming. That's all.


No, they do not in any way, shape, or form. They have nothing to do with CableCard, as they don't have any of the same functionality.



Dan203 said:


> The best part about it is that by separating the tuning/authorization into a gateway box the TiVo would truly become MSO independent. So if someone were to release a gateway for Dish, DirecTV or Uverse the TiVo would work with those as well. It should also make the TiVos cheaper by not requiring them to have tuners and CableCARD slots.


Exactly. And if FIOS goes to IPTV, they would work with that as well. Or any other system that any MSO dreams up. This would really open up the market in terms of both DVRs and pay TV providers. The problem is, they all like locking people in to their own system.

If the standard was robust, it could support sources integrated into one at the DVR, i.e. OTA and D*, or cable and FTA satellite...


----------



## jadziedzic (Apr 20, 2009)

Of course, any gateway device supplied by the MSO would be sure to "count" the number of active streams in use so the cableco could charge you the equivalent of the "additional digital outlet" fee that is so loved by Comcast ...


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

Dan203 said:


> Since the tuners are not internal, and they have no way to ensure that another device will not be using them when they're needed, it could pose a bit of a challenge for their scheduling routines. But I think in most cases it would probably work fine.


In particular, TiVo doesn't do dynamic scheduling. If for some reason a show didn't record or was incompletely recorded, TiVo doesn't attempt to reschedule for a later broadcast of the show if one is available in the Guide. This bit me Sunday when The Musketeers failed to record at 7P and I didn't see the problem until after the 10P rebroadcast had already passed.

I see using external tuners as a likely disaster. You can be certain that MSO boxes will have priority over TiVo, and streams will probably be artificially limited to occasionally screw over TiVo boxes while making sure MSO boxes still work. They can't do BS like that with cable cards.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

randian said:


> In particular, TiVo doesn't do dynamic scheduling. If for some reason a show didn't record or was incompletely recorded, TiVo doesn't attempt to reschedule for a later broadcast of the show if one is available in the Guide.


It will reschedule to a later date if it didn't record because a tuner wasn't available (a conflict with other recordings). If there is an issue with the recording itself, then it is not really possible for TiVo to know to re-record it.


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

rainwater said:


> It will reschedule to a later date if it didn't record because a tuner wasn't available (a conflict with other recordings).


It still isn't dynamic: if there are no conflicts, under the proposed scheme TiVo won't know a tuner isn't available until it asks the MSO for one and is denied.


rainwater said:


> If there is an issue with the recording itself, then it is not really possible for TiVo to know to re-record it.


True, if the recording is simply mangled. Otherwise, yes it is possible. Recordings that are short or failed due to missing signal get tagged and displayed as such in Now Playing or Recording History, respectively. The scheduler could detect that and act appropriately, but it would have to run after every scheduled recording, not just once a day like it does now.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> The box would be supplied by the MSO, which means it could use any tuner/authorization technology it wanted. The TiVo, TV, etc... would use a standard DLNA communication protocol to request a tuner from the gateway and then do whatever it wanted with the stream. (i.e. either record it or play it live) The best part about it is that by separating the tuning/authorization into a gateway box the TiVo would truly become MSO independent. So if someone were to release a gateway for Dish, DirecTV or Uverse the TiVo would work with those as well. It should also make the TiVos cheaper by not requiring them to have tuners and CableCARD slots.


Tivos would be cheaper but you'd have to rent the gateway from the cable co in perpetuity. So half dozen, six of the other.

It would definitely open up the market if it all adhered to an open standard. Probably not good for Tivo as tech companies would eat them up unless Tivo was protected by its patents. And right now can't Tivo essentially stream to the Rokus and ATVs of the world if it wants to? We saw Tivo's pics of the Roamio (potentially)streaming to a FireTV and a 360.

And why not bypass this tuner business and deliver content via IP over the cable network? I thought cable cos were going that way anyway.

PLus it seems like the cable co really wants to stream stuff to your home on-demand eventually and not let you record it. Althought I gues your point wasn't what is going to happen but what you would like to happen.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Bigg said:


> No, they do not in any way, shape, or form. They have nothing to do with CableCard, as they don't have any of the same functionality.


I think you lost track of the point. And I'd only be repeating myself so no point in me continuing.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

randian said:


> In particular, TiVo doesn't do dynamic scheduling. If for some reason a show didn't record or was incompletely recorded, TiVo doesn't attempt to reschedule for a later broadcast of the show if one is available in the Guide. This bit me Sunday when The Musketeers failed to record at 7P and I didn't see the problem until after the 10P rebroadcast had already passed.
> 
> I see using external tuners as a likely disaster. You can be certain that MSO boxes will have priority over TiVo, and streams will probably be artificially limited to occasionally screw over TiVo boxes while making sure MSO boxes still work. They can't do BS like that with cable cards.


Yeah, TiVo's scheduling can be rather un-intelligent at times. I wish it was smart enough to catch the re-runs of some news shows if it needs the other tuners for other stuff. It makes certain tight scheduling a pain.

A true gateway device would be configurable, and would be based on a standard, so that third party devices work just as well as the MSO's own devices...

Not sure how you would handle tuner scheduling. Maybe have a simple calendar system in the gateway that any DVR can pre-schedule into. It would have to be first come first serve though, there's no other way to do it, other than hard assigning tuners, which would be fine for just achieving compatibility between TiVos or other third party DVRs and various MSOs.



trip1eX said:


> And why not bypass this tuner business and deliver content via IP over the cable network? I thought cable cos were going that way anyway.


But various systems might use various IP standards. And that still doesn't help TiVo to be compatible with DirecTV or DISH. With gateways, even if they were IP-to-IP (one standard to another) would allow ANY source to be used. If you wanted to switch to DirecTV, you could swap an IP-to-IP gateway out for a SWiM 8 gateway. Or a different IP-to-IP gateway for U-Verse. Or the appropriate one with tuners for DISH or OTA.



trip1eX said:


> I think you lost track of the point. And I'd only be repeating myself so no point in me continuing.


No, I didn't miss the point. A Roku is not a replacement for a CableCard. Apples and Oranges.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

trip1eX said:


> And right now can't Tivo essentially stream to the Rokus and ATVs of the world if it wants to? We saw Tivo's pics of the Roamio (potentially)streaming to a FireTV and a 360.


TiVo could even make the Roamio a CVP-2 server if they wanted and feed the entire UI, or a pared down version, to the receiver as HTML5.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

rainwater said:


> It will reschedule to a later date if it didn't record because a tuner wasn't available (a conflict with other recordings). If there is an issue with the recording itself, then it is not really possible for TiVo to know to re-record it.


It does do smart things, sometimes. And sometimes it doesn't do the obvious smart thing. And sometimes, it intentionally does a dumb thing thinking it's being smart (those are my favorite).

But yes, it's "Hmm, I failed to record that right, lemme schedule up a rerun" logic could probably use some updates both for todays common cases, and to prepare for future potential problems like the ones being discussed in this tangent.


----------

