# TiVo Losing Value



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

In my opinion TiVo is rapidly losing value with the Series 3 and HD lines. Soon, MRV will not be available for anything other than local channels. Time Warner has already stated that the channels on their digital tier will remain copy protected, Comcast is moving to copy protect all of their channels(sans locals).

TiVo users are being hammered by issues involving tuning adapters, cable card, and DRM so much I cannot help but think that the cable operators are trying to impede a competing technology. Time Warner's recent decision to copy protect all channels in the digital tier is just another example of impeding progress. 

For me, I'm now going to have to rent a cable box so I can transfer digital shows within my home and with the the tuning adapter fiasco all my transfers to the HD tivo are one way. I thought it had been corrected a few weeks ago, but what I discovered was that my TA had failed thus allowing for shows to be viewed and transferred once more. (sans digital tier stations)

Cable card installations that take three and four visits from the cable company to get them working is another example of the next gen TiVo failure. Whether this is a result of the Cable Co's impeding the device or TiVo's failure to implement the result is the same. Since it effects TiVo's bottom line I'd think they would be more interested in correcting the issue. 

DRM too is causing TiVo issues. When all channels are converted to digital like Comcast is in the process of doing, the CCI byte will then prevent all channels from being transferred. MRV will be a thing of the past. Should TiVo implement an IR blaster for the new boxes that allow for bypassing the CCI byte? Or abandon MRV altogether? We are loosing MRV right now and I don't like it. As a single user I have no pull with the Cable Company other than to pull my business and use OTA only. TiVo on the other hand has more resources than myself and should be looking hard at this turn of events. My time with TiVo is counting down right now waiting on my contract to expire. I only hope that TiVo gets it's butt into gear and fixes these issues.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

+1 in general, although I don't see how copy-protection is linked to whether a Tuning Adapter is being used.

Before others chime in I would ask them consider whether they are feeling the full impact of the situation described by the OP. Do they use a Tuning Adapter? Are they on a cable system that copy-protects almost everything like TWC? If not, they haven't really felt the full impact of the overall situation, and may not appreciate the frustration it generates.


----------



## socrplyr (Jul 19, 2006)

dlfl said:


> +1 in general, although I don't see how copy-protection is linked to whether a Tuning Adapter is being used.


It is an indirect relationship with the TA. When the TA is added, users now receive the digital version of their analogs instead. (analogs aren't copy protected, but digitals are)


----------



## trausch (Jan 8, 2004)

I only have a TIVO for MRV. I have Charter's crappy Minneapolis service with far fewer HD channels than Direct TV. I dumped Direct TV for MRV. If they disable MRV, I will go back to Direct TV.


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> In my opinion TiVo is rapidly losing value with the Series 3 and HD lines. Soon, MRV will not be available for anything other than local channels. Time Warner has already stated that the channels on their digital tier will remain copy protected, Comcast is moving to copy protect all of their channels(sans locals).
> 
> TiVo users are being hammered by issues involving tuning adapters, cable card, and DRM so much I cannot help but think that the cable operators are trying to impede a competing technology. Time Warner's recent decision to copy protect all channels in the digital tier is just another example of impeding progress.


TiVo is undoubtly working to address this issue with DTCP-IP, which would allow streaming MRV with protected content. This should be a standard feature on the next TiVo. However, due to hardware limitations (i.e. inadequate CPU and memory performance), it *may* not be possible to support this streaming on existing TivoHD hardware.


----------



## Ziggy86 (Jun 23, 2004)

Does the Time Warner DVR allow multi room viewing for their copy protected programs? If so is that not hypocritical?


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

trausch said:


> I only have a TIVO for MRV. I have Charter's crappy Minneapolis service with far fewer HD channels than Direct TV. I dumped Direct TV for MRV. If they disable MRV, I will go back to Direct TV.


Minneapolis ? Do you need to update your profile? (It says Pittsburgh.)


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Ziggy86 said:


> Does the Time Warner DVR allow multi room viewing for their copy protected programs? If so is that not hypocritical?


I don't know if it allows MRV, but it can be legal if it is done by streaming or any other way in which two complete copies of the program never exist at the same time. The TiVo MRV and TTG functionalities don't meet this requirement.

I believe TiVo could implement a modified form of MRV that would be legal for copy-protected programs. But you wouldn't end up with copies on more than one TiVo. Streaming doesn't make a complete copy at the destination end, so it would be OK.


----------



## supersportsfan (Sep 15, 2005)

Everything you said is so very true. The cable companies are getting too big for their britches. Like you said, it is frustrating, because as it relates to TiVo, the CC's are in the drivers seat, and there is nothing the customer can do about it.

If the DTV TiVo happens, I might start thinking about switching to that, even without MRV, simply to try to put it to the monopolistic cable companies. Where is the FCC in all of this? The cable companies continue to act anti-competitive, and no one ever seems to say anything to them. They continue to "rape" the customer by raising cable costs, not adopting things like the NFL Network, and fooling with line-ups and such.


----------



## dbenrosen (Sep 20, 2003)

The cable companies are definitely trying to impede competing products.

I had Cablevision and they were much better about copy protection. I left for FIOS after I tried the Tuning Adapter from CV. I spent 6 months fighting with the Cablecards when I first got my S3 and wasn't about to spend another day on it once the TA didn't work correctly. I realize FIOS may not be an option in many areas, but only some of the premium channels (HBOs, etc) are copy protected at all, and it isn't even everything on those stations and I have had no issues with their Cablecards.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

supersportsfan said:


> Everything you said is so very true. The cable companies are getting too big for their britches. Like you said, it is frustrating, because as it relates to TiVo, the CC's are in the drivers seat, and there is nothing the customer can do about it.
> 
> If the DTV TiVo happens, I might start thinking about switching to that, even without MRV, simply to try to put it to the monopolistic cable companies. Where is the FCC in all of this? The cable companies continue to act anti-competitive, and no one ever seems to say anything to them. They continue to "rape" the customer by raising cable costs, not adopting things like the NFL Network, and fooling with line-ups and such.


[Holding my breath. Waiting for *bicker* to pounce. ]

I always say: Living well, err... switching providers, is the best revenge!


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

Stormspace said:


> <snip>Comcast is moving to copy protect all of their channels(sans locals).<snip>


 I had not heard/seen that. TWC obviously has a corporate policy in place to copy protect all non-local digital channels but it would be news to me if Comcast has also adopted that policy.
Do you have any links/information on this specifically?


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

BTW, I totally agree that if I lost the ability to use TiVo To Go and Multi-Room viewing my Tivos would lose substantial value and I would have to look elsewhere for a better solution. In my case that has not happened yet - only premium channels are copy protected by Cox OC here locally. Also working in my favor is about 80&#37; of what I record is from HD locals anyway, so that capability should not be lost regardless of cable provider policies.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

moyekj said:


> I had not heard/seen that. TWC obviously has a corporate policy in place to copy protect all non-local digital channels but it would be news to me if Comcast has also adopted that policy.
> Do you have any links/information on this specifically?


Agreed, that's just wild speculation. In the ATL Comcast recently CP'd the premiums and a few other movie channels (Encores mostly), but that's it.

OP, the Cablecard issues are what they are, and if you're not willing to escalate to get what the FCC mandates then return the Tivo(s). Yes, they suck, but they can be made to work.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

moyekj said:


> I had not heard/seen that. TWC obviously has a corporate policy in place to copy protect all non-local digital channels but it would be news to me if Comcast has also adopted that policy.
> Do you have any links/information on this specifically?


Maybe someone else here can help, but another poster said it was happening to them where all channels were either going SDV or digital. Sorry, I can't find it.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

slowbiscuit said:


> Agreed, that's just wild speculation. In the ATL Comcast recently CP'd the premiums and a few other movie channels (Encores mostly), but that's it.
> 
> OP, the Cablecard issues are what they are, and if you're not willing to escalate to get what the FCC mandates then return the Tivo(s). Yes, they suck, but they can be made to work.


My cards are working. It was just a pain. It's the TA, MRV, and copy protection that is causing me the most pain. I'm happy that you aren't suffering though.


----------



## SteadyEddieNYC (Oct 6, 2009)

I'm Ready to GIVE up tv/tivo all together and just read a good book- I have had it with TWC of NYC and the shake down- Who is with me? if we all stopped paythem for 30-60 days we can get what we want/need- Money talk folks-


----------



## Grumock (Dec 16, 2008)

SteadyEddieNYC said:


> I'm Ready to GIVE up tv/tivo all together and just read a good book- I have had it with TWC of NYC and the shake down- Who is with me? if we all stopped paythem for 30-60 days we can get what we want/need- Money talk folks-


LOL I am on board already. I dont watch TV my wife does.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

socrplyr said:


> It is an indirect relationship with the TA. When the TA is added, users now receive the digital version of their analogs instead. (analogs aren't copy protected, but digitals are)


You are slightly mistaken. The mapping comes from cablecards. Many companies do map to the digital versions of analogs (in cable STBs and cablecard users). However, a lot of companies still do not provide the digital equivalent of the analogs.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

Stormspace said:


> In my opinion TiVo is rapidly losing value with the Series 3 and HD lines. Soon, MRV will not be available for anything other than local channels.


This will be fixed by switching to streaming. There's no other way around it and I can't see how Tivo can ignore the situation for much longer. TiVo already supports streaming of several formats on the S3 platform. IMHO, they should spend some more effort into adding the ability to stream protected content.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

slowbiscuit said:


> ......OP, the Cablecard issues are what they are, and if you're not willing to escalate to get what the FCC mandates then return the Tivo(s). Yes, they suck, but they can be made to work.


As the OP replied above, it's not just the CC's. It's the whole mix of (1) whatever weird things the cable co may do to their signal, combined with (2) quirky behavior of the TA's (and CC's). In my experience the overall architecture is just trouble prone. I've experienced the following in just 3 months:

1. TA lost provisioning. Took 4 hours of fiddling and phone time to determine that was the problem and get it fixed.

2. When I tune a channel there is frequently a long delay, sometimes greater than 10 secs, before it snaps in or it may never snap in. There is a work-around that usually works (tune up 2 channels then back down). But it's a pain, and if I use an HDMI connection and it delays tuning for more than 5 secs, the remote control locks up and I have to power-cycle the TV to recover. My hunch is the delay is a TA/SDV problem.

3. On several occasions just one of my two tuners started failing to tune anything. Later, a software update occured to the corresponding cable card and since then the problem hasn't occured again. I can get no information on whether this update was actually scheduled, whether it happened to both my CC's, or what the firmware version is, or was.

4. Several of the SDV channels I watch have occasional pixelation and freezes. This despite signal levels and SNR all being in recommended ranges, and RS errors always being zero.

Other people have posted many other problems related to CC's and TA's.

The copy protection is just an additional aggravation.

Willing to escalate? In my experience you spend a lot of time and aggravation "escalating" (e.g., 4 hours just for my TA problem). It's not a very good solution for most people. Thus your comment amounts to saying "using a TiVo HD is only for the brave and hardy". Well, yes, that's pretty much what the OP said in his first post. This doesn't describe the profile of a successful consumer electronics device.

You say to return the TiVo. Is there a known case were TiVo has refunded the purchase price of a TiVo rather than just exchanging for a new or refurbished one? Amazon might do it within the first 30 days, but it usually takes longer than that for the user to realize what a mess they are in.


----------



## spocko (Feb 4, 2009)

rainwater said:


> This will be fixed by switching to streaming. There's no other way around it ...


Could also potentially be resolved by "moving" the file to another tivo.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

spocko said:


> Could also potentially be resolved by "moving" the file to another tivo.


Yes, but I don't see how will work with the TiVo interface. I seriously doubt TiVo is going to want to allow this.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

rainwater said:


> Yes, but I don't see how will work with the TiVo interface. I seriously doubt TiVo is going to want to allow this.


If they did it, the user wouldn't see any difference other than perhaps for the show to immediately be unavailable on the device of origin, perhaps marked with some sort of play never flag until the transfer is complete. If they did it right the show wouldn't be visible on the device of origin once the transfer started.

Series 3 and HD TiVo's are expensive. And being one of the first cable card enabled third party DVR's the FCC needs to make certain these guys work. Cable labs didn't have any problems with MRV when the devices were introduced and for the Cable Co's to start with this CCI byte thing 2 years later to defeat competing features in third party devices could be considered a deceptive practice to undermine the usage of Cable Card. And before anyone chimes in saying that the Cable Companies are within their legal rights, I realize that. I just think they are abusing those rights to prevent home recording.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

trausch said:


> I only have a TIVO for MRV. I have Charter's crappy Minneapolis service with far fewer HD channels than Direct TV. I dumped Direct TV for MRV. If they disable MRV, I will go back to Direct TV.


And if you do go back to DirecTV you will get streaming MRV with HR2X DirecTV DVR.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

just another point of data that comcast doesn't appear to have an corporate policy to wash over everything with the 0x02 flag-

My head end was a small local provider. THey flagged EVERY SINGLE (non local reboradcast) DIGITAL channel since like day one of going digital. I mean everthing- even the SD crap channels. 

Comcast bought the system maybe a year or so back. Any new HD channels comcast added weren't flagged. THen when the started the shuffle to get ready for the DTA's they SHUT OFF the flags on all the channels except the premium movie channels.

so while there is somewhat less value with my inability to MRV the premium movie channels, it's not huge as usually the content repeats all over and I can put a copy on each S3 (I've got external drives- so for my particular case space isn't a huge issue).


Also of note is comcast is NOT going to SDV en masse. SO I think TWC is a mess with their shoddy TA's and CCI flags but i dont think at the moment it's an industry wide issue.

I think the TW people should complain to the FCC about the TA's crapping out. And to their elected local, state, and national officials about the CCI flag to try and get the law changed. ANd by all means move to Directv or Fios or if you can and let TWC know why. But as a whole I'm surprisingly happy with comcast's practices.


----------



## Grumock (Dec 16, 2008)

MichaelK said:


> just another point of data that comcast doesn't appear to have an corporate policy to wash over everything with the 0x02 flag-
> 
> My head end was a small local provider. THey flagged EVERY SINGLE (non local reboradcast) DIGITAL channel since like day one of going digital. I mean everthing- even the SD crap channels.
> 
> ...


What about complaining to TIVO about not being progressive & adding the chipset to make them able to receive SDV ? I guess it is just easier to b***h about the cable company. I have an HD TIVO & a MOXI, oh & both need a TA, but at least MOXI is not charging me a monthly subscription for anything, unlike my TiVo. From what i have heard & understand the TIVO 4 still needs a TA too. Heavy sigh


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Grumock said:


> What about complaining to TIVO about not being progressive & adding the chipset to make them able to receive SDV ? I guess it is just easier to b***h about the cable company. I have an HD TIVO & a MOXI, oh & both need a TA, but at least MOXI is not charging me a monthly subscription for anything, unlike my TiVo. From what i have heard & understand the TIVO 4 still needs a TA too. Heavy sigh


there is NO STANDARD to just "add the chipset to make them SDV" and there is nothing that would force cable to activate such a box. So tivo can NOT just do that. Tivo could perhaps make an OCAP tivo that would work on any system but cable promised to deploy OCAP on the vast majority of their systems as of last June/July and basically did nothing so a tivo ocap box would only work on a handfull of test headends

no one knows what a tivo 4 is- i doubt it will need a TA.

And moxi didn't charge you a monthly fee becasue they collected it all upfront.

not sure at all why you seem to be looking to fight or complain in this thread about unrelated issues.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

dlfl said:


> [Holding my breath. Waiting for *bicker* to pounce. ]


LOL. Same here. 
He must be on vacation.


----------



## Grumock (Dec 16, 2008)

dlfl said:


> If they make the tuner and TA-replacement circuitry mimic TWC STB's and DVR's, then TWC subscribers have a chance at satisfaction. TWC adjusts their encoders and other distribution equipment to work well with their equipment. They have to or they get massive complaints. I suspect a lot of the glitches we get now are because of slight differences in the response of TiVo and TA circuitry, which cause problems that TWC tuners don't have. The pressure for TWC to adjust for good TiVo operation just isn't there, and doing so could be at the expense of good operation with their equipment.
> 
> But then if TiVo mimics TWC circuits, that probably compromises performance on other cable systems........
> 
> I guess I'll be pleasantly amazed if the TiVo 4 provides good performance on the TWC system.


I look forward to finding out if it will need the TA. One less device to go bad LOL. I would drop my Moxi too if that is the case. Not from a very high height mind you, but I will drop it LOL.


----------



## jmoak (Jun 20, 2000)

dbenrosen said:


> The cable companies are definitely trying to impede competing products.


You bet they are. 
... and the consumer is blaming the competing stb manufacturer instead of the cable company when these feature restricting methods are deployed.

You finally get that Lazy-Boy with the nice soft cushy fabric that feels so good.... and mom puts plastic slip covers on it.
Lazy-Boy is rapidly losing value. You'd think they'd do something about it, but Noooooo.....


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

jmoak said:


> You bet they are.
> ... and the consumer is blaming the competing stb manufacturer instead of the cable company when these feature restricting methods are deployed.
> 
> You finally get that Lazy-Boy with the nice soft cushy fabric that feels so good.... and mom puts plastic slip covers on it.
> Lazy-Boy is rapidly losing value. You'd think they'd do something about it, but Noooooo.....




At first I thought that was an unusual signature.

Kinda unfair having mom play the role of TWC though.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

moyekj said:


> I had not heard/seen that. TWC obviously has a corporate policy in place to copy protect all non-local digital channels but it would be news to me if Comcast has also adopted that policy.
> Do you have any links/information on this specifically?


Found it. http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=434369


----------



## John Z NY (Oct 18, 2009)

i didnt read the whole thread but i agree with the OP.. im moving and was considering getting rid of the tivo to use the DVR supplied by RCN, but instead i decided to give the tivo a shot...


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

Stormspace said:


> Found it. http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=434369


 That thread is about Comcast doing away with analog channels, not about applying CCI to all non-local digital channels.


----------



## Topmounter (Apr 11, 2007)

Now that the HDCP, DTCP, AACS, Broadcast Flag, etc. technologies have been implemented and the DMCA is in full-effect, the content owners will be (or already are) ramping up the copy-protection and usage restrictions, making them far more onerous, regardless of where you're getting your media.

It won't be long and we'll look back fondly on the freedoms we enjoyed with analog television and VCR's 

The other issues will sort themselves out as (slowly, but somewhat surely) OCAP and Tru2way are deployed, not to mention improvements in the CableCard technology.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

moyekj said:


> That thread is about Comcast doing away with analog channels, not about applying CCI to all non-local digital channels.


Maybe. We'll see how that works out.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

No problem here on FIOS. I can transfer anything I record on any channel from FIOS to any of my nine TiVos or PCs running TiVo desktop.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

Actually i am looking at the moxi now for my 3rd DVR for 2 reasons, no subscription, and i have netflix built into my TV. I dont understand why Tivo, and all the others dont add netflixs and other apps naively. HME is the worse.


----------



## spocko (Feb 4, 2009)

Videodrome said:


> Actually i am looking at the moxi now for my 3rd DVR for 2 reasons, no subscription


That doesn't make sense. Moxi still requires guide data service, you just pay for it up front. That is the equivalent of a Tivo + "product lifetime" service.

Moxi = $800
Tivo HD = $250 + $400 (lifetime service) = $650

Lack of a subscription is not a reason to buy Moxi instead of Tivo.

If you like Moxi for other reasons, I won't argue with that.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Grumock said:


> What about complaining to TIVO about not being progressive & adding the chipset to make them able to receive SDV ? I guess it is just easier to b***h about the cable company. I have an HD TIVO & a MOXI, oh & both need a TA, but at least MOXI is not charging me a monthly subscription for anything, unlike my TiVo.


That's total crap. Moxi forces you to purchase a lifetime service. You have no choice: it's embedded in the cost of the Moxi, whether you like it or not. So now you criticize Tivo because unlike Moxi, they give you a choice between lifetime service (the only thing Moxi offers), several different subscription plans, or nothing at all, the latter only being useful if one shuts down the Tivo for some reason. So now, somehow Moxi is somehow superior because it offers less flexibility and doesn't give the customer a break-down of all the fees and charges associated with purchasing their box? They are better because they don't tell the customer how much they are paying for the same service TiVo offers? It's ludicrous.

It is entirely your *CHOICE* to have TiVo bill you monthly. If you don't like it, get lifetime service. TiVo bills me monthly for one of my four TiVos. Two have lifetime subs, and one is un-subbed. It is my choice to get a monthly fee on the fourth box. When my 3 year sub is up, I'll decide on where to take the service. At that point, I may go for a 1 year, a month to month, a lifetime, or go with something else. In the mean time, with the multi-service discount on a 3 year plan, I will have saved a considerable amount over any other offering for that time span.



Grumock said:


> From what i have heard & understand the TIVO 4 still needs a TA too. Heavy sigh


There is nothing yet released about any S4 product, but all the (minimal) inforemation coming from Tivo strongly suggests it will be a tru2way system. Absolutely nothing even remotely hints it will not be.

I'll pass.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

spocko said:


> That doesn't make sense. Moxi still requires guide data service, you just pay for it up front. That is the equivalent of a Tivo + "product lifetime" service.
> 
> Moxi = $800
> Tivo HD = $250 + $400 (lifetime service) = $650


With the multiservice discount, it's $250 + $300 = $550. Oooh, yeah, $250 so one doesn't have to have two items on the credit card is a great deal, alright.



spocko said:


> Lack of a subscription is not a reason to buy Moxi instead of Tivo.


Not for anyone who can add, anyway. My THD is on a 3 year at $6.95 a month. That brings it in at just a tiny bit above the $250 mark for 36 months, with the advantage I can disconnect at any time prior to that and save some money. Of course, if I go over 3 years...


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

dlfl said:


> I don't know if it allows MRV, but it can be legal if it is done by streaming or any other way in which two complete copies of the program never exist at the same time. The TiVo MRV and TTG functionalities don't meet this requirement.
> 
> I believe TiVo could implement a modified form of MRV that would be legal for copy-protected programs. But you wouldn't end up with copies on more than one TiVo. Streaming doesn't make a complete copy at the destination end, so it would be OK.


It is in no way illegal for a box to copy protected content. CableLabs just will not certify any box which does.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

dlfl said:


> +1 in general, although I don't see how copy-protection is linked to whether a Tuning Adapter is being used.
> 
> Before others chime in I would ask them consider whether they are feeling the full impact of the situation described by the OP. Do they use a Tuning Adapter? Are they on a cable system that copy-protects almost everything like TWC? If not, they haven't really felt the full impact of the overall situation, and may not appreciate the frustration it generates.


I have three Tuning Adapters, and am on TWC, so every channel is copy protected other than the locals, which I never record. I'm not in the least frustrated, although I do wish the TA were a bit more reliable.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> It is in no way illegal for a box to copy protected content. CableLabs just will not certify any box which does.


I stand corrected -- but for all practical purposes the effect is the same, since TiVo needs CableLabs certification in order to use CableCARDS -- correct?


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

WOW cable doesn't copy protect anything and doesn't require a TA, so as TiVo has added features like Amazon and YouTube it has actually increased in value for me.

I'm sure that the cable companies are happy to have consumers view the barriers they throw up as a reason not to use TiVo. If TiVo wants to resume their subscriber growth they'll have to do more to overcome those barriers (streaming, etc).


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

Another way "around" this (if you can receive OTA) is to drop cable TV completely record OTA and use netflix, Amazon, Blockbuster, and other internet download sites. Use the money you save from not having a cable TV bill to upgrade you internet if needed and downloading and streaming content. It is amazing how much content you normally watch on cable is available either cheap or free on the net. Depending on you viewing habits you could potentially save quite a bit.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

JWThiers said:


> Another way "around" this (if you can receive OTA) is to drop cable TV completely record OTA and use netflix, Amazon, Blockbuster, and other internet download sites. Use the money you save from not having a cable TV bill to upgrade you internet if needed and downloading and streaming content. It is amazing how much content you normally watch on cable is available either cheap or free on the net. Depending on you viewing habits you could potentially save quite a bit.


 If there was a way to view sporting events that broadcast on non-local channels such as ESPN, TNT, etc. I would seriously consider that, but until then I don't see a choice if you are a sports fan...

(There is a workaround already for series 3 Tivo owners but of course involves complicated hacking that will dissuade most from attempting).


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

moyekj said:


> If there was a way to view sporting events that broadcast on non-local channels such as ESPN, TNT, etc. I would seriously consider that, but until then I don't see a choice if you are a sports fan...
> 
> (There is a workaround already for series 3 Tivo owners but of course involves complicated hacking that will dissuade most from attempting).


I did a search for "NFL" on newzleech.com, and found:

nfl.2009.10.18.bears.vs.falcons.720p.hdtv.x264
[email protected].x264
nfl.2009.10.18.ravens.vs.vikings.720p.hdtv.x264
nfl.2009.10.18.texans.vs.bengals.720p.hdtv.x264
[email protected]

OK, not nearly as exciting watching a recorded game, but the benefit is I'm sure the commercials are cut! Not having it "real time" will probably be a deal breaker for most.

Using SABnzbd's RSS feature, I have my favorite programs not available OTA downloaded automagically, then extracted/unrared/unzipped/whatever to a watched folder that auto transfers to Tivo. I don't miss cable television/cablecards/tuning adapters/cable bill at all!


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

For sports recordings I watch them same day but time-delayed enough to skip all commercials. It would be difficult if not impossible to do that without a cable, satellite or OTA feed available to me.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Agreed 100&#37;. For many (if not most) sports, there are no decent HD streaming alternatives to pay TV at this time. Perhaps this will change over time, but the networks have a lot of money invested in that programming.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Stormspace said:


> Maybe. We'll see how that works out.


maybe you missed where I posted above that my specific system in NJ actually REMOVED the flags from ~100+ digital channels as part of the going all digital (except the analog locals and other 2-30 stuff)?


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

I happen to live in a Comcast area where no SDV is being used, and the only protected content is premium channels. To me, my TiVos are the best thing since sliced bread, and I can't imagine life without them. That being said, I really feel for people who aren't as fortunate as I am. It totally sucks that the cable companies are screwing you guys like that. Don't these sorts of tactics defeat the whole purpose of cablecards in the first place? I hope the EFF is looking into this. It seems like it would be right up their alley.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

gweempose said:


> I happen to live in a Comcast area where no SDV is being used, and the only protected content is premium channels. To me, my TiVos are the best thing since sliced bread, and I can't imagine life without them. That being said, I really feel for people who aren't as fortunate as I am. It totally sucks that the cable companies are screwing you guys like that. Don't these sorts of tactics defeat the whole purpose of cablecards in the first place? I hope the EFF is looking into this. It seems like it would be right up their alley.


Thanks for the sympathy! I hope SDV and copy-protection are not in your future -- but I wouldn't want to bet on it!


----------



## JimboG (May 27, 2007)

moyekj said:


> If there was a way to view sporting events that broadcast on non-local channels such as ESPN, TNT, etc. I would seriously consider that, but until then I don't see a choice if you are a sports fan...


Do you have any sports bars nearby that have the games in HD?

The $100+ per month that I saved by dropping cable will pay for quite a few pints and appetizers while socializing with other real live people. Mind you, it does depend on whether you have a decent sports bar within walking/stumbling distance...

All in all I would rather not hand my cable company >$100 per month for the handful of non-broadcast HD channels that I really care about. I get plenty of college and NFL football games for free with over the air HDTV. If there's a particular game that I really must see, I'll look up what bar in town has the alumni from that school gathering to watch the game. Far better to watch the big game with a whole crowd of raving fans from Michigan or Texas or PSU or whatever than to give the cable company an absurd amount of money in the autumn and even during that sad, lonely time of year when the only major pro sports are basketball and baseball.


----------



## JimboG (May 27, 2007)

On a more serious note, is ESPN 360 a "good enough" solution for sports fans who want to drop cable?

I would think that a combination of over the air HD sports, ESPN 360, and visits to the sports bar or a friend's house might be enough to justify saving $1200 or more per year by dropping cable.


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

JimboG said:


> On a more serious note, is ESPN 360 a "good enough" solution for sports fans who want to drop cable?


No.

You don't get the prime matchups on ESPN360. Those are on the various ESPN cable channels.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

Not only that, some ISPs don't "subscribe" to ESPN360 so access is limited.


----------



## teasip (Aug 24, 2002)

Seems like some of these entities are missing out on some cash. What's to keep the University of Texas from providing live streaming broadcasts for a package/per game price? I know that UT is developing its' own channel but last I heard it will not be streaming live premium sporting events. As of this year I have season tickets but I would certainly consider paying for a premium subscription to avoid the time/travel and bad weather potential.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

To me my local RSN is the thing I dont want to miss out on. I'd guess that for most fans of a local baseball, basketball, or hockey team that would be the problem. I might save 100 bucks a month on cable but i'd spent a lot more in beer and probably a divorce lawyer going to the local bar 5 nights a week during baseball season. ;-)

I notice that YES Network (the Yankees RSN) now is doing streaming in HD(I think it's HD) BUT apparently it's only for current subs in the local market that have certain cable companys. But at least they are putting together the infrastructure. I wonder if cable contracts keep the RSN's from streaming elsewhere? If so it will be interesting to see if the RSN's are powerfull enough to overcome that. Maybe if the RSN attacked one cable company at a time they could get over it- YES went like a year without cablevision and everyone thought cablevision was the bad guy.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

teasip said:


> Seems like some of these entities are missing out on some cash. What's to keep the University of Texas from providing live streaming broadcasts for a package/per game price? I know that UT is developing its' own channel but last I heard it will not be streaming live premium sporting events. As of this year I have season tickets but I would certainly consider paying for a premium subscription to avoid the time/travel and bad weather potential.


Remember that "This game is the property of {NFL, NCAA, MLB, ...}..."

Thats why.


----------



## teasip (Aug 24, 2002)

JWThiers said:


> Remember that "This game is the property of {NFL, NCAA, MLB, ...}..."
> 
> Thats why.


If that's the case then why are the schools allowed to offer PPV at the beginning of the season for some of their patsy "pre-season" contests through FSN or ESPN?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

teasip said:


> If that's the case then why are the schools allowed to offer PPV at the beginning of the season for some of their patsy "pre-season" contests through FSN or ESPN?


I dont know anything specific, but i do know that different games are treated differently at least for baseball.

For instance regular season baseball games might say "property of MLB" but they are controlled by the local team. The local team decides if they game has rain delays / get postponed and they set prices and sell the tickets. But for the playoffs and world series MLB takes charge. So could just be that pre-season has different rules then the regular season.

Also- as above seems at least for MLB the teams are allowed to stream in their local markets. I can't imagine that there's too many agreements where any team doesn't maintain control in their "territory". Just might be that it's only recently there's efforts to limit streaming to certain locals.


----------



## esjones (Oct 20, 2007)

I've only had one problem with my TA, and a phone call to CS got it re-authorized. I don't like it that I can't use pyTiVo to archive many of the shows I record (I'm on TWC), but that is not enough to make me drop TiVo for now. It's a helluva lot better than the DVR that TWC would make me lease.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

teasip said:


> ... As of this year I have season tickets but I would certainly consider paying for a premium subscription to avoid the time/travel and bad weather potential.


that actually might factor into their thinking. Like when the NFL blacks out games locally when they dont sell out. Might worry some teams that making it too easy to get the games keeps people from buying tickets? (But i guess they can just fix the supply and demand by fiddling with the streaming pricing).

I personally hope some pay model for streaming that a tivo picks up can be developed in the next few years.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

dlfl said:


> I stand corrected -- but for all practical purposes the effect is the same, since TiVo needs CableLabs certification in order to use CableCARDS -- correct?


The effect on a CES like TiVo is indeed much the same, but I think the distinction between "illegal" and "unsupported" is important. One can cost you money and lose you business. The other can get you thrown into jail.

At the same time, I think it is a bad idea to have CableLabs thought of as a legislative institution whose pronouncements have any force of law.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Videodrome said:


> Actually i am looking at the moxi now for my 3rd DVR for 2 reasons, no subscription,


well others have pointed out how naive that reason is
and you ignore the larger issue of you better stop looking at Moxi and buy one since the new company that bought Digeo for a fraction of what it should be worth may just decide to stop selling the MOXI as is.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> I have three Tuning Adapters, and am on TWC, so every channel is copy protected other than the locals, which I never record. I'm not in the least frustrated, although I do wish the TA were a bit more reliable.


dfl has asked that I clarify this statement a bit, and in the interest of not misleading people, I am happy to do so. A major reason I am not frustrated with MRV being unavailable is because I don't use MRV. Every once in a while, it would be nice if I could transfer between TiVos one of the programs I am prohibited from transferring, but it is far from rising to the level of being frustrating. I can always walk from one room to the other. Even with my paralysis, it's not that big of a deal.

Virtually all the transferring of content I do is to the TiVos from the Video Server, on which there are no restrictions other than the file format must be correct. Also at dlf's request, I will mention that the ability to unilaterally transfer from the TiVo to the Video server is not one available to a stock TiVo, not that I care. They don't want me to go into any greater detail in this forum, but MRV restrictions are similarly easy to circumvent, if anyone were so inclined.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

lrhorer said:


> Also at dlf's request, I will mention that the ability to unilaterally transfer from the TiVo to the Video server is not one available to a stock TiVo, not that I care. They don't want me to go into any greater detail in this forum, but MRV restrictions are similarly easy to circumvent, if anyone were so inclined.


Not since Martin Luther tacked up his 95 theses to the church door, or Riley managed to get mfs_ftp into TCF right under their noses, has such sedition been fomented. You realize that anyone who reads your post will have to be killed, or banned, or both.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

lrhorer said:


> The effect on a CES like TiVo is indeed much the same, but I think the distinction between "illegal" and "unsupported" is important. One can cost you money and lose you business. The other can get you thrown into jail.
> 
> At the same time, I think it is a bad idea to have CableLabs thought of as a legislative institution whose pronouncements have any force of law.


In effect cable labs pronouncements have the effect of applying the FCC ruling to the cable companies that would allow the FCC, by law, to heavily fine cable companies that did not support cable cards in a cablelabs approved device (or else the company has a waiver).

it would be fraud to sell the TiVo as is without cable labs approval though.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> Another way "around" this (if you can receive OTA) is to drop cable TV completely record OTA


With the exception of PBS, that would require me to watch the horrible @#%#$^ that is network programming. It would also cut my recording by over 98%.



JWThiers said:


> It is amazing how much content you normally watch on cable is available either cheap or free on the net. Depending on you viewing habits you could potentially save quite a bit.


Nothing is ever free. More to the point, here is a list of the 1080i HD items I have archived in the last month (and it's been a realtively "dry" month at that):

RAID-Server:/RAID/Recordings# ls -t *.mpg
Six Pack (Recorded Tue Oct 20, 2009, MAXHD).mpg
Bucket List, The (Recorded Sun Sep 20, 2009, HBOHD).mpg
Hair (Recorded Tue Oct 13, 2009, MGMHD).mpg
Andromeda Strain, The (Recorded Sun Oct 18, 2009, MAXHD).mpg
Mr. Holland's Opus (Recorded Sun Oct 18, 2009, SHOWHDP).mpg
Thief (Recorded Sun Oct 11, 2009, TMCHD).mpg
Commando (Recorded Fri Oct 09, 2009, MAXHD).mpg
Basic Instinct (Recorded Wed Oct 07, 2009, MAXHD).mpg
Death Becomes Her (Recorded Thu Oct 08, 2009, MAXHD).mpg
Fifth Element, The (Recorded Tue Oct 06, 2009, HBOHD).mpg
Great Escape, The (Recorded Tue Oct 06, 2009, MGMHD).mpg
Apollo 13 (Recorded Fri Oct 02, 2009, HBOHD).mpg
Babes in Toyland (Recorded Mon Sep 21, 2009, MGMHD).mpg

I challenge you to find all 13 of these items available online or elsewhere, in 1080i, permanently available, for under $3 each. Most months I record and archive more than 20 programs. The record seems to be Feb 2008, when I recorded and archived 30 HD movies and 3 SD movies:

RAID-Server:/RAID/Recordings# ls -t *.mpg | grep Feb | grep 2008
Rush Hour (Recorded Sun Feb 3, 2008 10 35AM STARZHD).mpg
Neighbors (Recorded Sat Feb 2, 2008 3 00AM UHD).mpg
Rock, The (Recorded Fri Feb 15, 2008, STARZHD).mpg
Sixteen Candles (Recorded Fri Feb 15, 2008, HDNETMV).mpg
Princess Bride, The (Recorded Wed Feb 06, 2008, HBOHD).mpg
Cocoon (Recorded Fri Feb 08, 2008, MOJOHD).mpg
Awakenings (Recorded Mon Feb 04, 2008, HDNETMV).mpg
V for Vendetta (Recorded Sat Feb 2, 2008 10 30PM HBOHD).mpg
6th Day, The (Recorded Sat Feb 09, 2008, HDNETMV).mpg
Seems Like Old Times (Recorded Wed Feb 06, 2008, HDNETMV).mpg
African Queen, The (Recorded Sat Feb 16, 2008, TCM).mpg
China Syndrome, The (Recorded Mon Feb 11, 2008, HDNETMV).mpg
Caine Mutiny, The (Recorded Wed Feb 20, 2008, TCM).mpg
Ransom (Recorded Tue Feb 19, 2008, HBOHD).mpg
Jeremiah Johnson (Recorded Mon Feb 18, 2008, HDNETMV).mpg
Night at the Museum (Recorded Sat Feb 16, 2008, HBOHD).mpg
Dragonslayer (Recorded Tue Feb 05, 2008, HDNETM)V.mpg
Entrapment (Recorded Mon Feb 25, 2008, HBOHD).mpg
Beverly Hills Cop (Recorded Wed Feb 06, 2008, HDNETMV).mpg
Finian's Rainbow (Recorded Wed Feb 20, 2008, HBOF).mpg
Producers, The 2005 (Recorded Thu Feb 21, 2008, HBOHD).mpg
Chisum (Recorded Tue Feb 05, 2008, HDNETMV).mpg
Little Shop of Horrors (Recorded Thu Feb 14, 2008, HDNETMV).mpg
Producers, The 1968 (Recorded Wed Feb 13, 2008, HDNETMV).mpg
Major Payne (Recorded Thu Feb 14, 2008, HBOHD).mpg
Look Who's Talking (Recorded Fri Feb 15, 2008, HDNETMV).mpg
Lawrence of Arabia (Recorded Sun Feb 10, 2008 HDNETMV).mpg
Gorillas in the Mist (Recorded Mon Feb 11, 2008, HDNETMV).mpg
Anatomy of a Murder (Recorded Mon Feb 11, 2008, HDNETMV).mpg
Presidio, The (Recorded Thu Feb 07, 2008, HDNETMV).mpg
Finding Forrester (Recorded Sat Feb 2, 2008 11 30AM HDNETMV).mpg
Guarding Tess (Recorded Sat Feb 2, 2008 1 50PM HDNETMV).mpg

TWC would definitely pop a cork (or want to, they don't have a download cap yet) if I downloaded that much 1080i HD video in a month. It's over 400 Gigs. I genuinely would like to know where I can get permanent instantaneous access to all these programs at a cost approaching $1 each. OK, I'll be totally fair, here. It costs to store these items, too - about $150 a terabyte. Make it $3.50 each. I still challenge you to get them for that, and it doesn't include all the stuff I don't archive.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Wil said:


> Not since Martin Luther tacked up his 95 theses to the church door, or Riley managed to get mfs_ftp into TCF right under their noses, has such sedition been fomented. You realize that anyone who reads your post will have to be killed, or banned, or both.


Oh, well. Did they think they were going to live forever? The banishment thing hurts, though.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> In effect cable labs pronouncements have the effect of applying the FCC ruling to the cable companies that would allow the FCC, by law, to heavily fine cable companies that did not support cable cards in a cablelabs approved device (or else the company has a waiver).


That's true. I really don't care about the woes and frustrations of a CATV company, though. If they don't like it, they can quit the business. I am concerned about restrictions - imagined or real - on the individual. America is made of people, not CATV companies.



ZeoTiVo said:


> it would be fraud to sell the TiVo as is without cable labs approval though.


Also true. Once again, however, the more important fact is that relatively few people would want a TiVo which couldn't get CATV service or to which their CATV company could refuse to attach, the major exception being Satellite customers.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

lrhorer said:


> With the exception of PBS, that would require me to watch the horrible @#%#$^ that is network programming. It would also cut my recording by over 98%. ...........
> I challenge you to find all 13 of these items available online or elsewhere, in 1080i, permanently available, for under $3 each ......
> OK, I'll be totally fair, here. It costs to store these items, too - about $150 a terabyte. Make it $3.50 each. I still challenge you to get them for that, and it doesn't include all the stuff I don't archive.


That is not a good argument. Most of the movies you listed can be rented for $5.00 or less from multiple sources. Most likely you wouldn't want to watch 95% of the movies you recorder more than once. And even more likely you will never watch 90% of the movies you recorded. The cost is not determining factor here. You just like the instant gratification of having choice of programming when you have time to watch TV and willing to pay for it. Nothing wrong with that. Just like there is nothing wrong with somebody who doesn't care what they watch as long as they get to use their TiVo. Somebody has to watch reality shows and soap operas or networks will stop producing them.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Wil said:


> Not since Martin Luther tacked up his 95 theses to the church door, or Riley managed to get mfs_ftp into TCF right under their noses, has such sedition been fomented. You realize that anyone who reads your post will have to be killed, or banned, or both.


Oh I don't know... how about this post of mine ? 

Warning: Do not read the linked post unless you are prepared to be killed, banned... etc.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

lrhorer said:


> With the exception of PBS, that would require me to watch the horrible @#%#$^ that is network programming. It would also cut my recording by over 98%.
> 
> Nothing is ever free. More to the point, here is a list of the 1080i HD items I have archived in the last month (and it's been a realtively "dry" month at that):
> 
> ...


I did say "Depending on your viewing habits." Personally I average about 2 hours a night, or less, plus a bit more on the weekend. I am not a huge sports fan but like a little NFL on Sunday and can get my fix on OTA network TV and be satisfied. Most, but not all, of the non sports shows I watch are available for download and frankly I don't need to watch a weekly series show in HD, I would prefer it but don't need to. The stuff that isn't available OTA or via download, I could do without. My problem and the reason I don't go this route, is my wife's viewing habits. I maintain that DEPENDING ON YOUR VIEWING HABITS, going to OTA and downloads/streaming and other sources can save you money. A mediocre cable bill of $60 a month and get you quite a bit of content.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

samo said:


> That is not a good argument. Most of the movies you listed can be rented for $5.00 or less from multiple sources. Most likely you wouldn't want to watch 95% of the movies you recorder more than once. And even more likely you will never watch 90% of the movies you recorded. The cost is not determining factor here. You just like the instant gratification of having choice of programming when you have time to watch TV and willing to pay for it. Nothing wrong with that. Just like there is nothing wrong with somebody who doesn't care what they watch as long as they get to use their TiVo. Somebody has to watch reality shows and soap operas or networks will stop producing them.


OK I admit it Survivor is my guilty pleasure.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

teasip said:


> If that's the case then why are the schools allowed to offer PPV at the beginning of the season for some of their patsy "pre-season" contests through FSN or ESPN?


I don't know, because it's "PAY PER VIEW?" Did they pay to get it?


----------



## teasip (Aug 24, 2002)

Good question. It's usually the season opener and is typically available for around $40. I never purchase it since I'm usually there but I've often wondered why someone doesn't do this. ND did something somewhat similar when they signed their contract with NBC several years ago, but again, this was network TV, not streaming video. There must be an obvious reason since otherwise someone would be doing it.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

lrhorer said:


> The effect on a CES like TiVo is indeed much the same, but I think the distinction between "illegal" and "unsupported" is important. One can cost you money and lose you business. The other can get you thrown into jail.
> 
> At the same time, I think it is a bad idea to have CableLabs thought of as a legislative institution whose pronouncements have any force of law.


There certainly could be some debate on the issue though. It's all interrelated to the FCC regulations and the enabling legislation.

In fact when the FCC (which was instructed to issue regulations on the subject by the telecommunicatiosn act passed by congress and signed by the president) regulated that cablelabs would be involved in the design/approval/ongoing control of the point of deployment modules (that's the official government name for cablecards if I recall?) there was some complaints from other interested parties that the government was giving a quasi regulatory authority to cable. Many suggested the role should be assigned to ansi or some similar unaffiliated standards creator. If I recall cablelabs officially split off from the ncta at that time in part to assuage such concerns. And in their response to the detractors the FCC said something to the effect of-


> PARAPHRASED FROM MEMORY 'it's not ideal but cable is the only one that has anything in the works that can quickly be deployed and since we expect this all to happen in a matter of months or a year or 2 (*LAUGHING- HOW THEY WERE WRONG)* we feel there is no other option. But we'll watch cable and make sure they don't use this power to hurt competition'.


Certainly some would argue that the FCC forgot to follow up on cable and ensure they didn't use cablecards and their other related standards to effect competition.

Real world example- the FCC says Verizon has to have point of deployment modules. The FCC tells them that they MUST separate security by X date which was like a fraction of the time that cable was given (cable had 10 years Verizon got like 1-2). In the background the reason for separable security is to ensure commercial availability of third party devices. So Verizon has to decide - do they use cablecards as their point of deployment solution? They have no say in the development of the standard and aren't even permitted to join cablelabs. Yet if they don't use cablecards and start from scratch they probably can't meet the FCC's deadline. Even if they do meet the FCC's deadline and come up with some "fioscard" then would anyone build a device for them at retail that would only work on their systems? In the end there would be no commercially available fioscard devices and the FCC could force Verizon to scrap the fioscard and use the "industry standard" cablecard to ensure consumers can be a 3rd party device at retail that would work on the Fios system.

So did Verizon really have a choice? Or are they basically regulated by the FCC to abide by cablelabs standards which they have no input in?

So while not explicitly having any legal authority cablelabs almost winds up forcing a standard with the power of law behind it.


----------



## prisaz (Aug 30, 2009)

Well my cable card only took one visit and 15 minutes. All great here with my Tivo HD and Verizon FIOS cable card. As with many others it workd fine here. Why would a person not expect encryption and requirements to pay for service?


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

prisaz said:


> Well my cable card only took one visit and 15 minutes. All great here with my Tivo HD and Verizon FIOS cable card. As with many others it workd fine here. Why would a person not expect encryption and requirements to pay for service?


Says the person with Fios who doesn't have EVERY channel that they have except those that are legally required not to have the CCI flag set to No MRV. There is a difference between encrypted and crippling the usefulness of a third party box (ie Tivo).


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dlfl invoked my name.... (I was on vacation... but I'm back now....)


supersportsfan said:


> If the DTV TiVo happens, I might start thinking about switching to that, even without MRV, simply to try to put it to the monopolistic cable companies. Where is the FCC in all of this?


You're in good company with the FCC: You both make the mistake of thinking of cable companies as monopolies. The US Court of Appeals recently spanked the FCC for failing to acknowledge and grant that satellite services are effective competition. You need to remediate your rhetoric as well, and accept that people in your town have a choice between cable and satellite.

You want to do your part for competition? Then punish the companies that don't please you by doing without their services. If you don't have the backbone to do without, and/or get your entertainment some other way, then you're not being honest with us, or yourself, about your real motivation and the actuality of the situation.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> Another way "around" this (if you can receive OTA) is to drop cable TV completely record OTA and use netflix, Amazon, Blockbuster, and other internet download sites. Use the money you save from not having a cable TV bill to upgrade you internet if needed and downloading and streaming content. It is amazing how much content you normally watch on cable is available either cheap or free on the net. Depending on you viewing habits you could potentially save quite a bit.


:up:


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> dlfl invoked my name.... (I was on vacation... but I'm back now....)You're in good company with the FCC: You both make the mistake of thinking of cable companies as monopolies. The US Court of Appeals recently spanked the FCC for failing to acknowledge and grant that satellite services are effective competition. You need to remediate your rhetoric as well, and accept that people in your town have a choice between cable and satellite.
> 
> You want to do your part for competition? Then punish the companies that don't please you by doing without their services. If you don't have the backbone to do without, and/or get your entertainment some other way, then you're not being honest with us, or yourself, about your real motivation and the actuality of the situation.


:up: Welcome back! Gee that post wasn't even irritating (to me anyway).


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> dlfl invoked my name.... (I was on vacation... but I'm back now....)You're in good company with the FCC: You both make the mistake of thinking of cable companies as monopolies. The US Court of Appeals recently spanked the FCC for failing to acknowledge and grant that satellite services are effective competition. You need to remediate your rhetoric as well, and accept that people in your town have a choice between cable and satellite.


Welcome back, hope you had a good time and are refreshed. :up:

They didn't explicitly say they weren't monopolies, but then again no one claimed that on a national basis they are any either. No one company is large enough (yet) to have NATIONAL market share large enough to make that claim. For what it's worth, the number I heard is TWC has a national market share of about 25% which is pretty impressive.

The case before the court of appeals was about an arbitrary cap on the market share any one company can have on a national basis preventing potential monopoly abuse (note *abuse*. just being a monopoly is NOT a problem, abusing that position is a problem). They said that the FCC can't cap the market share any one cable company can have on a national basis at an arbitrary percentage (30%). IF they want to cap the size of a company on a national basis they have to come up with proof of potential harm and they have to take into consideration other means of distribution (Satellite and phone) that are now available and show at what percentage harm starts to occur. What the FCC CAN still do is come up with research that takes into consideration these other distribution means and if it shows that there is potential harm, then they can put a cap on the market share any one company can have nationally.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> dlfl invoked my name.... (I was on vacation... but I'm back now....)You're in good company with the FCC: You both make the mistake of thinking of cable companies as monopolies.........


I just realized that the "you both" phrase apparently refers to me.

For the record (yet again): I do *not* think any cable co is a monopoly! That is, as long as satellite, or another cable co, is available. There was nothing in my posts to indicate I did think that.

The possibility of dumping TWC and going to satellite (hopefully with a nice DirectTiVo in hand) gives me daily hope. I understand that DirectTiVo may not support TTG or MRV, but at least I wouldn't have to wonder what new glitch my Tuning Adapter or CableCARDs will come up with next. And hopefully I won't have channels that pixelate and freeze occasionally.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

dlfl said:


> I just realized that the "you both" phrase apparently refers to me.
> 
> For the record (yet again): I do *not* think any cable co is a monopoly! That is, as long as satellite is available. There was nothing in my posts to indicate I did think that.
> 
> The possibility of dumping TWC and going to satellite (hopefully with a nice DirectTiVo in hand) gives me daily hope. I understand that DirectTiVo may not support TTG or MRV, but at least I wouldn't have to wonder what new glitch my Tuning Adapter or CableCARDs will come up with next. And hopefully I won't have channels that pixelate and freeze occasionally.


He was probably thinking of me, but then again on a national basis I don't think any one cable company is a monopoly either. On a smaller area/ regional basis I think an argument can be made (and I have made it) that a single company can hold a monopoly even with competition from from other distribution means. In general, a monopoly isn't just about the number of competitors it is about having a large enough market share to have significant control over a market. It dosen't matter if that market is for cable TV or baked beans. If 80% of a market is using one company and the other 20 % is using all other means, then they have a monopoly. It is important to note that just because it is a monopoly doesn't mean anything is wrong or illegal, it just means you have significant control over how particular goods or services are delivered in a market.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

JWThiers said:


> He was probably thinking of me, but then again on a national basis I don't think any one cable company is a monopoly either. On a smaller area/ regional basis I think an argument can be made (and I have made it) that a single company can hold a monopoly even with competition from from other distribution means. In general, a monopoly isn't just about the number of competitors it is about having a large enough market share to have significant control over a market. It dosen't matter if that market is for cable TV or baked beans. If 80% of a market is using one company and the other 20 % is using all other means, then they have a monopoly. It is important to note that just because it is a monopoly doesn't mean anything is wrong or illegal, it just means you have significant control over how particular goods or services are delivered in a market.


I respect your opinion (and those of anyone else who is civil and reasonable in their statements).

I think "monopoly" has come to imply something unfair or wrong to most people -- whether that agrees with any legal or dictionary definition or not. Personally, I prefer to join that usage rather than fight it -- I think fighting it will be a losing cause. (I'm not talking about legal context here -- just discussions as on this forum.) The exception is a government-sanctioned monopoly (e.g., some utilities), where presumably the government, on behalf of the people, has decided a monopoly is in the best interests of the consumers. (Complain to your government if there is a problem.)

Thus, for example, if a company has 95% or even 100% of the market but this results either from (1) having a better product or service for the price, or (2) lack of anyone else choosing to compete, provided the company is not engaging in illegal anti-competitive practices -- this would not be a monopoly to me. (I might go along with "virtual monopoly" here.) Of course the government could promote a monopoly by making the playing field uneven -- again take it up with your government if that's the case! Much of corporate lobbying is jockeying to tilt the playing field, or at least to prevent it being tilted to favor competitors.


----------



## Grumock (Dec 16, 2008)

bicker said:


> dlfl invoked my name.... (I was on vacation... but I'm back now....)You're in good company with the FCC: You both make the mistake of thinking of cable companies as monopolies. The US Court of Appeals recently spanked the FCC for failing to acknowledge and grant that satellite services are effective competition. You need to remediate your rhetoric as well, and accept that people in your town have a choice between cable and satellite.
> 
> You want to do your part for competition? Then punish the companies that don't please you by doing without their services. If you don't have the backbone to do without, and/or get your entertainment some other way, then you're not being honest with us, or yourself, about your real motivation and the actuality of the situation.


:up::up::up::up: Well said


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

dlfl said:


> I think "monopoly" has come to imply something unfair or wrong to most people -- whether that agrees with any legal or dictionary definition or not. Personally, I prefer to join that usage rather than fight it -- I think fighting it will be a losing cause. (I'm not talking about legal context here -- just discussions as on this forum.) The exception is a government-sanctioned monopoly (e.g., some utilities), where presumably the government, on behalf of the people, has decided a monopoly is in the best interests of the consumers. (Complain to your government if there is a problem.)


I agree that's why I put in the caveat about nothing is inherently wrong with a monopoly, because a lot of people think that monopoly is automatically bad. That is just not the case. And in the instance of cable companies in a lot of places what we have is what you describe as a government sanctioned monopoly. They pay a franchise fee and they get to be the only traditional cable company in an area. Now of course there is more competition from satellite and the rest, but in many places as far as traditional cable service goes only one allowed. I don't complain to the county because I don't have an issue (unless they are preventing Verizon from coming in).



dlfl said:


> Thus, for example, if a company has 95% or even 100% of the market but this results either from (1) having a better product or service for the price, or (2) lack of anyone else choosing to compete, provided the company is not engaging in illegal anti-competitive practices -- this would not be a monopoly to me. (I might go along with "virtual monopoly" here.) Of course the government could promote a monopoly by making the playing field uneven -- again take it up with your government if that's the case! Much of corporate lobbying is jockeying to tilt the playing field, or at least to prevent it being tilted to favor competitors.


By definition, what you are describing is a monopoly, and as long as they don't engage in anti-competitive practices they are doing nothing wrong. What they do might bring additional scrutiny to ensure that they are not being anti-competitive, but that just goes with the game. A company with small market share can do things that a company with a large share can't do. That is basically what got Microsoft in trouble. The whole bundling issue is fine if you are an Apple or Linux, but if you are Microsoft it's bad. Apple is probably right on the cusp of this where what they do is looked at more closely in the mp3 player market.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

JWThiers said:


> ....... And in the instance of cable companies in a lot of places what we have is what you describe as a government sanctioned monopoly. .......


I think we need to distinguish .... a monopoly of what market? The cable co may have a government-sanctioned monopoly over "traditional cable company" services. But they don't have a monopoly over video delivery of cable channels, because satellite exists.



JWThiers said:


> .......
> By definition, what you are describing is a monopoly, and as long as they don't engage in anti-competitive practices they are doing nothing wrong. What they do might bring additional scrutiny to ensure that they are not being anti-competitive, but that just goes with the game. A company with small market share can do things that a company with a large share can't do. That is basically what got Microsoft in trouble. The whole bundling issue is fine if you are an Apple or Linux, but if you are Microsoft it's bad. Apple is probably right on the cusp of this where what they do is looked at more closely in the mp3 player market.


I'm not sure whether bundling (e.g., by Microsoft) should be considered an unethical anti-competitive practice. But I'm not prepared to argue it. I just wish the feds had spent more energy preventing the practices that led to the mortgage market fiasco than on chasing Microsoft. But then congress has to take some of the blame for that too. And that means we the voters have to take responsibility too. I mean the other voters -- not me!


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dlfl said:


> I just realized that the "you both" phrase apparently refers to me.


No. It refers to supersportsfan and the FCC. Those two are the "both" I was referring to.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dlfl said:


> I think "monopoly" has come to imply something unfair or wrong to most people


Specifically, I find people swing that word around when they aren't getting their way and they want to make their disappointment sound more important than it really is. It's a form of intellectual dishonesty -- deception specifically. It doesn't illuminate anything in these threads -- it only obscures the reality, and raises unfounded expectations and rancor.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

dlfl said:


> I think we need to distinguish .... a monopoly of what market? The cable co may have a government-sanctioned monopoly over "traditional cable company" services. But they don't have a monopoly over video delivery of cable channels, because satellite exists.
> 
> I'm not sure whether bundling (e.g., by Microsoft) should be considered an unethical anti-competitive practice. But I'm not prepared to argue it. I just wish the feds had spent more energy preventing the practices that led to the mortgage market fiasco than on chasing Microsoft. But then congress has to take some of the blame for that too. And that means we the voters have to take responsibility too. I mean the other voters -- not me!


I agree 100% with everything you say here, including about MS. Having said that, Bundling is what got them in trouble and was determined to be anti-competitive and an abuse of their monopoly. They controlled about 80% of the PC (as in all personal computers , including Apple, all the various -nix's, OS2 etc) market at the time IIRC. Its one of the examples where a company had a monopoly (as evidenced by the lawsuit) and actually had competion (they only controlled about 80%). It also shows that while Apple could bundle Safari (no ie, mozilla, yada yada) they had less than 10% share, MS couldn't because it was an unfair advantage.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> Specifically, I find people swing that word around when they aren't getting their way and they want to make their disappointment sound more important than it really is. It's a form of intellectual dishonesty -- deception specifically. It doesn't illuminate anything in these threads -- it only obscures the reality, and raises unfounded expectations and rancor.


I try to be very careful about how I use the term and have even try to remember to explain that monopoly isn't wrong unless it is abused. In most cases the monopolies aren't abused, but I still think that when you are the 800 lbs gorilla in the room (large market share company ) what you do should be examined to ensure that anti-competitive practices are being used even if it is unintentional.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Avoid the word. Too many people latch onto it like it justifies their unfounded expectations. Using the word just feeds that insanity, and adds nothing constructive to the discussion.

Regardless, even the way you assert you use it, it smacks of unfounded expectation. There is no "right" to have a source of unrestricted cable network programming. Why not just rely on Blu-Ray discs? Oh! Because they're copy protected even more effectively... There is no rational foundation for asserting that because you receive the content via cable instead of Blu-Ray disc that you are owed anything other than what you're receiving, in this regard.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

We can discuss the monopolistic practices of a company, even when those practices fall short of the legal definition of a monopoly.

Microsoft, at least in the past, had a lot of practices that were monopolistic. Microsoft had to change some of the practices and changed others voluntarily. An intelligent discussion can be made regarding those practices.

Tivo decided to implement MRV with a method that can't be used with CCI flagged shows. In this context calling the cable industry a monopoly is not only not legally accurate but also tries to shift the discussion away from tivo to the cable company. Not really fair or accurate.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lew said:


> We can discuss the monopolistic practices of a company, even when those practices fall short of the legal definition of a monopoly.


I consider such use of the word deliberately deceptive, because anyone who knows enough to understand the distinction you're making also knows enough to understand how the general reader reacts emotionally and unreasonably to the use of the word.

Other folks have used the term "anti-competitive practices". That's responsible rhetoric AFAIC.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

lew said:


> ........Tivo decided to implement MRV with a method that can't be used with CCI flagged shows. In this context calling the cable industry a monopoly is not only not legally accurate but also tries to shift the discussion away from tivo to the cable company. Not really fair or accurate.


Perhaps TiVo is at fault for a poor MRV implementation. Perhaps they will fix it in the next software update. TWC could remove the problem by just flipping a switch or two. So far, I've heard no reason they won't do this other than they want to de-value TiVo's. Although they are legally correct, this stinks and is anti-competitive with respect to the DVR market. I won't use the M word however, since I don't think cable is a monopoly (primarily because of satellite).


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> Avoid the word. Too many people latch onto it like it justifies their unfounded expectations. Using the word just feeds that insanity, and adds nothing constructive to the discussion.
> 
> Regardless, even the way you assert you use it, it smacks of unfounded expectation. There is no "right" to have a source of unrestricted cable network programming. Why not just rely on Blu-Ray discs? Oh! Because they're copy protected even more effectively... There is no rational foundation for asserting that because you receive the content via cable instead of Blu-Ray disc that you are owed anything other than what you're receiving, in this regard.


Monopoly, why avoid the word when it is the proper word to describe what they are? I'll link to what the wikipedia describes a monopoly as. Is "a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it" is that an accurate definition of monopoly? Does it describe many of the cable companies in many markets across the country? IMO the answer to both of those questions is yes. Is there anything illegal about just being a monopoly? No, and the wiki points that out as well. But being in such a position IMO invites additional scrutiny, and that is what I assert. If you have that dominant of a position you have to be held up to a higher standard than a less dominant competitor might. In other words a company that does not have a huge dominant market share can get away with doing things that a monopoly would be prosecuted for.

I have NEVER asserted anything like a "right" to have a free and unrestricted source of cable network programing. I find it odd that you would think that of how I presented my views, I have always tried to be clear that a monopoly is not wrong in and of itself and actually most of my comments about monopolies have been directed at your assertion that they can't be a monopoly because there is competition. I think it is an important point and in that regard I think you are wrong. You can have competition and still have a monopoly.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

dlfl said:


> Perhaps TiVo is at fault for a poor MRV implementation. Perhaps they will fix it in the next software update. TWC could remove the problem by just flipping a switch or two. So far, I've heard no reason they won't do this other than they want to de-value TiVo's. Although they are legally correct, this stinks and is anti-competitive with respect to the DVR market. I won't use the M word however, since I don't think cable is a monopoly (primarily because of satellite).


IMO its more about control of market and market share rather than competition, but hey, you already knew that from me.


----------



## MichaelJHuman (Aug 3, 2005)

I have no clue what people mean by MRV. Can someone enlighten me? Thanks.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

MichaelJHuman said:


> I have no clue what people mean by MRV. Can someone enlighten me? Thanks.


Multi room Viewing


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

dlfl said:


> Perhaps TiVo is at fault for a poor MRV implementation. Perhaps they will fix it in the next software update. TWC could remove the problem by just flipping a switch or two. So far, I've heard no reason they won't do this other than they want to de-value TiVo's. Although they are legally correct, this stinks and is anti-competitive with respect to the DVR market. I won't use the M word however, since I don't think cable is a monopoly (primarily because of satellite).


I think the cable companies know exactly what they are doing. Deliberately* disabling a major function of a "competing" product either to discourage people from buying from a 3rd party rather than rent cable equipment or to drive people to use their own form of MRV if they offer such a function. And they don't even have to do anything. They're just taking advantage of the wording in their various provider agreements.

* Of course, someone would have to prove this.



MichaelJHuman said:


> I have no clue what people mean by MRV. Can someone enlighten me? Thanks.


MRV is multi-room viewing. That is being able to view the shows that are on DVR 1 from DVR 2.


----------



## MichaelJHuman (Aug 3, 2005)

Ah. I have done MRV. I just did not know it had a TLA assigned to it.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

JWThiers said:


> Monopoly, why avoid the word when it is the proper word to describe what they are? I'll link to what the wikipedia describes a monopoly as. Is "a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it" is that an accurate definition of monopoly? Does it describe many of the cable companies in many markets across the country? IMO the answer to both of those questions is yes..........


But... do you think any cable cos have a monopoly by your definition when satellite is available (AFAIK everywhere)? I hate to think what cable prices and quality would be without satellite competition.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

dlfl said:


> But... do you think any cable cos have a monopoly by your definition when satellite is available (AFAIK everywhere)? I hate to think what cable prices and quality would be without satellite competition.


 I think actually video quality would be better. Currently D* has been so aggressive in adding HD channels that cable companies were forced to follow suit pursuing various strategies to squeeze the most channels through limited bandwidth and in many cases sacrificing video quality in the process. Personally I'm much more interested in HD video quality than quantity, but I suspect I'm in the minority as quantity seems to rule the day. I'm perfectly fine with HD channels I receive already (I probably only watch 20% of the ones in my lineup already). What I'm not happy with is the lousy video quality of a lot of the national ones like SYFYHD, USAHD, TNTHD, etc. For Cox these channels at least on the west coast backbone feeds are awful quality - HD Lite would be too generous a term for them...
I would much rather have significantly less HD channels if it meant a significant bump in quality to go along with it. A few years ago some of these channels that are now awful were half decent, but things have degraded quite rapidly the last couple of years.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

dlfl said:


> But... do you think any cable cos have a monopoly by your definition when satellite is available (AFAIK everywhere)? I hate to think what cable prices and quality would be without satellite competition.


When you throw in terms like everywhere into the mix it becomes a bit more confusing because you are lumping GROUPS together and on a national level no one company has a monpoly. TWC is probably the biggest and the market share they have (that I heard anyway) is about 25%. If you group all cable together, all satellite together, all phone company together the numbers work out roughly to about what it is in the markets that just have 1 cable company (I think that is many if not most places) whith cable having about 80% or so give or take, so yes in general using those numbers the land based cable would have a monopoly if the other groups were similarly grouped together. but no one company has a monopoly on a national basis. That is what a cirvuit court of appeals ruled on that bicker has been pointing out here, and I talk about here.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> Monopoly, why avoid the word when it is the proper word to describe what they are?


Too many people latch onto it like it justifies their unfounded expectations. Using the word just feeds that insanity, and adds nothing constructive to the discussion.

Regardless, even the way you assert you use it, it smacks of unfounded expectation. There is no "right" to have a source of unrestricted cable network programming. Why not just rely on Blu-Ray discs? Oh! Because they're copy protected even more effectively... There is no rational foundation for asserting that because you receive the content via cable instead of Blu-Ray disc that you are owed anything other than what you're receiving, in this regard.



JWThiers said:


> Is "a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it" is that an accurate definition of monopoly?


Actually, no.



JWThiers said:


> Does it describe many of the cable companies in many markets across the country?


In effect, no. Rather, consumers want to think of it that way because they are unwilling to accept that they themselves are dictated their own terms by their collective consumer behaviors.



JWThiers said:


> Is there anything illegal about just being a monopoly?


The reality is that the assertions and implications being made, and the manner in which the word is perceived by the vast majority of readers is such that the answer would be yes.

So you got all three of your questions wrong AFAIC, and that demonstrates better than anything else my earlier point.

You also fail to remember to state each time you engage in this deception that cable companies are subject to regulation: Their offering of the limited basic tier is artificially low, perhaps even below cost, as a result of that regulation. Their offering of CableCARD is reviewed. They get all the blame you choose to deceptively implicate onto them, and they get none of the credit for being a regulated entity. A double-deception on your part.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> TWC is probably the biggest and the market share they have (that I heard anyway) is about 25%.


Please do some research before you start bandying about what you claim are facts.



JWThiers said:


> ... so yes in general using those numbers the land based cable would have a monopoly if the other groups were similarly grouped together.


Incorrect.



JWThiers said:


> That is what a cirvuit court of appeals ruled on that bicker has been pointing out here, and I talk about here.


Your myopic interpretation of the impact of the assertion by the court is incorrect. The reality is that in considering the question in each and every municipality you must include satellite as effective competition, and then decide whether the service provider is a monopoly. There is no justification for the funny math you're trying to assert. The court uses principles to decide specific cases, *but the principles they use to make those rulings apply beyond the specific case*.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> Too many people latch onto it like it justifies their unfounded expectations. Using the word just feeds that insanity, and adds nothing constructive to the discussion.


I'm not most people. I am not attaching any unfounded expectations. Monopoly means what I have said before nothing more nothing less, there are no positive or negative connotations in my use. I can not control what others may add, I can only point out their mistakes.



bicker said:


> Regardless, even the way you assert you use it, it smacks of unfounded expectation. There is no "right" to have a source of unrestricted cable network programming. Why not just rely on Blu-Ray discs? Oh! Because they're copy protected even more effectively... There is no rational foundation for asserting that because you receive the content via cable instead of Blu-Ray disc that you are owed anything other than what you're receiving, in this regard.


I have NEVER made any such assertions. If you are trying to read my mind you got the wrong person.



bicker said:


> Actually, no.


Funny that when we were previously discussing monopolies that you agreed that the wiki that I linked to and quoted had as good a definition as any and now suddenly its not a good definition. So please enlighten me, what is a good definition of monopoly. If possible reference a neutral third party.



bicker said:


> In effect, no. Rather, consumers want to think of it that way because they are unwilling to accept that they themselves are dictated their own terms by their collective consumer behaviors.


That's your opinion of do they have monopolies, I guess based on your as yet undefined definition of monopoly. If others are are adding extra stuff into what the actual meaning is, that doesn't change the meaning of the word so that is not relevant.



bicker said:


> The reality is that the assertions and implications being made, and the manner in which the word is perceived by the vast majority of readers is such that the answer would be yes.
> 
> So you got all three of your questions wrong AFAIC, and that demonstrates better than anything else my earlier point.


The way I score it is I got the definition from a neutral third party so I feel I got that right.
Opinions between people about is this one thing or is it another can vary and since I was refering to MY opinion I got that right also, Your opinion can be different (in fact 180 degrees out from mine) and in the case of YOUR opinion still be right.
If other people incorrectly add extra into the definition they are wrong not the definition. Unless you are contending that just being a monopoly is ilegal.



bicker said:


> You also fail to remember to state each time you engage in this deception that cable companies are subject to regulation: Their offering of the limited basic tier is artificially low, perhaps even below cost, as a result of that regulation. Their offering of CableCARD is reviewed. They get all the blame you choose to deceptively implicate onto them, and they get none of the credit for being a regulated entity. A double-deception on your part.


Again I have not implicated the cable companies of anything other than identifying them as a monopoly. I have not made any assertions like those you are accusing me of. If anything The only thing that I have been pointing out is your incorrect assertion that just because there is competition there can not be a monopoly. The issue of the cable companies we can have an honest disagreement about, but you are flat wrong in that assertion.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> Please do some research before you start bandying about what you claim are facts.


Try here. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy but This is where I got the number from. If you think the number is different fine, I can say for sure it is (or was at that point) less than 30% that was the number the FCC was trying to limit them to.



bicker said:


> Incorrect.


OK then what is the market share of all traditional Cable TV companies when compared to all other (Satellite, From phone providers(Att, Fios etc)).



bicker said:


> Your myopic interpretation of the impact of the assertion by the court is incorrect. The reality is that in considering the question in each and every municipality you must include satellite as effective competition, and then decide whether the service provider is a monopoly. There is no justification for the funny math you're trying to assert. The court uses principles to decide specific cases, *but the principles they use to make those rulings apply beyond the specific case*.


If you reread the quoted post the sentance that you are referring to was explaining the previous sentence so the actual quote you should have been looking at is


JWThiers said:


> but no one company has a monopoly on a national basis. That is what a cirvuit court of appeals ruled on that bicker has been pointing out here, and I talk about here.


I was trying to point out that despite you claims that the ruling means that since the court says the FCC can't use an arbitrary number to limit the National market share a company can have, it doesn't mean that on a local basis a company can have a monopoly.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> I'm not most people. I am not attaching any unfounded expectations.


Yet you are fostering them.



JWThiers said:


> Monopoly means what I have said before nothing more nothing less, there are no positive or negative connotations in my use.


But the manner in which many of those who would possibly read your message interpret the word does have negative connotations, and you know that.



JWThiers said:


> I can not control what others may add, I can only point out their mistakes.


You can control your use of rhetoric that misleads by nature, even if not by intent.



JWThiers said:


> I have NEVER made any such assertions.


Yet the implications are still real.



JWThiers said:


> Funny that when we were previously discussing monopolies that you agreed that the wiki that I linked to and quoted had as good a definition as any and now suddenly its not a good definition.


You're stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that the dictionary definition isn't naturally imposed on readers, so I'm not going to let you get away with that with impunity.



JWThiers said:


> If others are are adding extra stuff into what the actual meaning is, that doesn't change the meaning of the word so that is not relevant.


But your knowledge of how the word is generally understood by those who might read your message incurs onto you a moral obligation to be sure that they don't apply their misunderstanding of the concept to the words you choose to use.



JWThiers said:


> The way I score it is I got the definition from a neutral third party so I feel I got that right.


As you could if someone lit a cigarette in a crowded theater and you cried out loudly, "FIRE!" While technically accurate, your action in that case would be unconscionable.



JWThiers said:


> If other people incorrectly add extra into the definition they are wrong not the definition.


And it would be morally wrong to continue to use rhetoric that you know is often misunderstood.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> Try here.


Which directly contradicts your earlier assertion.


JWThiers said:


> TWC is probably the biggest ....


That's what I meant by you doing research first.



JWThiers said:


> I was trying to point out that ...


 I am talking about the point of mine that you were trying to deny.

Again: The US Court of Appeals spanked the FCC for refusing to acknowledge satellite service providers as effective competition for cable. That's what they said. They didn't say, "only the course of determining a market cap" -- that was just the context within which they made the statement I outlined. Not only did they not say that that concept only applied in the course of determining a market cap, but it would be indefensible under any tenet of law for them to do so: There is no defense for saying some things only apply when it is convenient to support a specific perspective and don't apply when it is inconvenient to support some other perspective.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

JWThiers said:


> When you throw in terms like everywhere into the mix it becomes a bit more confusing because you are lumping GROUPS together and on a national level no one company has a monpoly. TWC is probably the biggest and the market share they have (that I heard anyway) is about 25%. If you group all cable together, all satellite together, all phone company together the numbers work out roughly to about what it is in the markets that just have 1 cable company (I think that is many if not most places) whith cable having about 80% or so give or take, so yes in general using those numbers the land based cable would have a monopoly if the other groups were similarly grouped together. but no one company has a monopoly on a national basis. That is what a cirvuit court of appeals ruled on that bicker has been pointing out here, and I talk about here.


No, I mean in most (if not all) localities. If a particular locality has access to satellite (and I think that's pretty much all of them) I don't see how a cable co serving that locality can be said to have a monopoly per your definition (which I agree with -- I think). I'm talking about the cable network video program delivery market for that particular locality, just to be clear. I think it's important to be clear about what market you're talking about in these discussions.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> Yet you are fostering them.
> 
> But the manner in which many of those who would possibly read your message interpret the word does have negative connotations, and you know that.
> 
> ...


If he included a glossary of all the terms he was using in each post, would that make it all right? [Note to TCF: Plan to double the capacity of your servers asap.]


bicker said:


> As you could if someone lit a cigarette in a crowded theater and you cried out loudly, "FIRE!" While technically accurate, your action in that case would be unconscionable.
> ........


More realistic: if you cried "SECOND HAND SMOKE!!". 

There's a practical limit to how much one should pre-analyze a statement, like a chess move, for all its possible ramifications. Carried to extreme, you would be sitting there trying to analyze all the possible effects of your rhetoric, while the discussion had moved on without you. Seems like your real argument with *JWThiers* is just about where to draw that line -- and reasonable people can certainly disagree about that.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

dlfl said:


> No, I mean in most (if not all) localities. If a particular locality has access to satellite (and I think that's pretty much all of them) I don't see how a cable co serving that locality can be said to have a monopoly per your definition (which I agree with -- I think). I'm talking about the cable network video program delivery market for that particular locality, just to be clear. I think it's important to be clear about what market you're talking about in these discussions.


I agree that satellite is competition, that isn't the issue.

You had asked about nationally and I have stated that nationally no one company has a monopoly. But, if in an average locality X, there is a franchising authority that only allows one traditional cable company (many do) and in addition to that they have access to Satellite, ATT U-verse and Fios and a small indpenent cable provider (in most of the markets away from the very large markets even this would be a stretch, but for the sake of discussion it will do). They are providing competition but the the cable company still has a market share in this area of say 75% the rest is split up say among the the other 4. using the definition of having sufficient control over a service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it, yes IMO that would be a monopoly. Again at this point a monopoly doesn't mean that anything wrong or illegal is happening it just means they have the means to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to the service that they have control over. They can change the lineup, pricing tiers of service and in this instance they affect 75% of the market. NONE of that is illegal. IF they did something like run a promotion that say gave free service for 3 months and half price for another three that the independent provider could not compete with that MAY be wrong and could be looked at as anti-competitive. That is when they could (and should) run into problems. As a side note if that was a response for a promotion from the independent that gave the same thing, it would still probably be anti-competitive. The small guy can get away with things the 800 lbs gorilla can't.

The only thing I would add to what monopoly means is, when there is a monopoly what they do that affects the market should be at least looked at to see if there is any anti-competitive behavior involved. But that is just my opinion.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> Which directly contradicts your earlier assertion.That's what I meant by you doing research first.


My original assertion is that TWC has or had about 25% market share. You are right I misstated according to the article COMCAST has about 25%. That certainly is a direct contradiction to what I was asserting my apologies.



bicker said:


> I am talking about the point of mine that you were trying to deny.
> 
> Again: The US Court of Appeals spanked the FCC for refusing to acknowledge satellite service providers as effective competition for cable. That's what they said. They didn't say, "only the course of determining a market cap" -- that was just the context within which they made the statement I outlined. Not only did they not say that that concept only applied in the course of determining a market cap, but it would be indefensible under any tenet of law for them to do so: There is no defense for saying some things only apply when it is convenient to support a specific perspective and don't apply when it is inconvenient to support some other perspective.


I just disagree about what your reading of the ruling said. I read that as it would be indefensible to apply an ARBITRARY CAP not that a cap under any circumstance is indefensible. And I agree an arbitrary cap is not legal. but if the cap is not arbitrary it would be OK. Can they find a non arbitrary cap I don't know.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

JWThiers said:


> I agree that satellite is competition, that isn't the issue.
> 
> You had asked about nationally and I have stated that nationally no one company has a monopoly. But, if in an average locality X, there is a franchising authority that only allows one traditional cable company (many do) and in addition to that they have access to Satellite, ATT U-verse and Fios and a small indpenent cable provider (in most of the markets away from the very large markets even this would be a stretch, but for the sake of discussion it will do). They are providing competition but the the cable company still has a market share in this area of say 75% the rest is split up say among the the other 4. using the definition of having sufficient control over a service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it, yes IMO that would be a monopoly. Again at this point a monopoly doesn't mean that anything wrong or illegal is happening it just means they have the means to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to the service that they have control over. They can change the lineup, pricing tiers of service and in this instance they affect 75% of the market. NONE of that is illegal. IF they did something like run a promotion that say gave free service for 3 months and half price for another three that the independent provider could not compete with that MAY be wrong and could be looked at as anti-competitive. That is when they could (and should) run into problems. As a side note if that was a response for a promotion from the independent that gave the same thing, it would still probably be anti-competitive. The small guy can get away with things the 800 lbs gorilla can't.
> 
> The only thing I would add to what monopoly means is, when there is a monopoly what they do that affects the market should be at least looked at to see if there is any anti-competitive behavior involved. But that is just my opinion.


In my locality my choice for cable programming is TWC or satellite. I still don't consider TWC (or satellite) to have a monopoly by that definition. The offerings of TWC and DirectTV appear about equal in value and although I don't have satellite, I know they have many customers in my locality just judging by the number of dishes visible.

I had a feeling when I first saw it that the phrase "*determine significantly *the terms on which other individuals shall have access to the service that they have control over" was going to cause problems. I think interpretation of that phrase is what leads to our disagreement. I don't think TWC has such control but apparently you do. If you insist that TWC has a monopoly in my locality based on your interpretation of that definition, then I must assert that either your interpretation is unreasonable or the definition itself is unacceptable.

If TWC raised their rates 20% I think you would see a massive transfer of customers from them to satellite. IMO, if TWC doesn't have enough control of the market to get away with that, then it doesn't satisfy a reasonable interpretation of "significantly determine (etc.)".


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

moyekj said:


> .......What I'm not happy with is the lousy video quality of a lot of the national ones like SYFYHD, USAHD, TNTHD, etc. For Cox these channels at least on the west coast backbone feeds are awful quality - HD Lite would be too generous a term for them...
> ........


Interesting..... Is this actually a case where TWC Southwest OH (my provider) is doing something *better* than another cable co ? Or are my HD standards just lower than yours? I'm quite happy with the PQ on those channels although I'm not happy with the occasional pixelation and freezes I get on some of my channels.

I have a fairly new 40" Samsung LCD (1080p, 120Hz), which I think is an excellent set. My vision, although still rated 20/20 is not as sharp as when I was younger.

What are you viewing on?


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

dlfl said:


> In my locality my choice for cable programming is TWC or satellite. I still don't consider TWC (or satellite) to have a monopoly by that definition. The offerings of TWC and DirectTV appear about equal in value and although I don't have satellite, I know they have many customers in my locality just judging by the number of dishes visible.
> 
> I had a feeling when I first saw it that the phrase "*determine significantly *the terms on which other individuals shall have access to the service that they have control over" was going to cause problems. I think interpretation of that phrase is what leads to our disagreement. I don't think TWC has such control but apparently you do. If you insist that TWC has a monopoly in my locality based on your interpretation of that definition, then I must assert that either your interpretation is unreasonable or the definition itself is unacceptable.
> 
> If TWC raised their rates 20% I think you would see a massive transfer of customers from them to satellite. IMO, if TWC doesn't have enough control of the market to get away with that, then it doesn't satisfy a reasonable interpretation of "significantly determine (etc.)".


I agree with what you are saying but if you use the Microsoft bundling issue and all the havoc that caused Microsoft as an indication the market share and levels of control as to what the justice department thinks is a monopoly, to me they seem about the same. And all they did was bundle a browser. It didn't stop people from getting another free browser in any way. The only real complaint I could see were the allegations that MS was purposely making other browser less stable.

If you look thru that wiki entry on monopolies it talks about a monopolies market value is high but not absolute. Its actually kind of interesting if you like that kind of thing.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

dlfl said:


> Interesting..... Is this actually a case where TWC Southwest OH (my provider) is doing something *better* than another cable co ? Or are my HD standards just lower than yours? I'm quite happy with the PQ on those channels although I'm not happy with the occasional pixelation and freezes I get on some of my channels.
> 
> I have a fairly new 40" Samsung LCD (1080p, 120Hz), which I think is an excellent set. My vision, although still rated 20/20 is not as sharp as when I was younger.
> 
> What are you viewing on?


 I'm viewing mostly on a 47" 1080p LCD but artifacting is noticeable even on an older 37" LCD. The bit rates of recordings from those channels average around 11 Mbps (5GB/hour) and sometimes going lower than that which is pretty despicable for 1080i. Compare that to "good" HD channels I receive such as ESPNHD or FOXHD or CBSHD that average close to 18 Mbps (8GB/hour). (ESPNHD bit rate is particularly high considering it's 720p which usually has lower bit rates than 1080i and the quality is very evident - I can actually freeze picture and not see any artifacts which cannot be said for the "bad" HD channels).
Because of their low bit rates my local headend uses 3 1080i channels per QAM for such channels while the good ones cited above share with no more than 1 HD channel per QAM.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dlfl said:


> If he included a glossary of all the terms he was using in each post, would that make it all right? [Note to TCF: Plan to double the capacity of your servers asap.]


Indeed, as long as we can have this back-and-forth argument about it each time, I think that will get most people to question what they read into what he posts by default.

Or he could just use rhetoric that isn't misleading, and avoid this.

His choice, of course.



dlfl said:


> There's a practical limit to how much one should pre-analyze a statement, like a chess move, for all its possible ramifications. Carried to extreme, you would be sitting there trying to analyze all the possible effects of your rhetoric, while the discussion had moved on without you.


Absolutely. This, of course, is an exception, since we've been over this a billion times already and so every time a long-time and frequent poster in this forum posts the misleading rhetoric regarding this specific topic they already know that they're posting misleading rhetoric. What did someone say earlier? "Where's bicker?" People knew that posting that kind of misleading rhetoric is nothing more than trolling for a reply of correction -- uh -- let's call it clarification.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> I just disagree about what your reading of the ruling said.


It's in black and white. You are implying that those words are only applicable to justify that one decision, and as I've pointed out, that is ridiculous, not to mention indefensible from a legal standpoint. They don't decide what the law is and then go back and make up facts to support their contention. They build on the facts (such as that satellite service is effective competition to cable service) to _reach_ a conclusion (in this case, that the cap was indefensible).


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> Indeed, as long as we can have this back-and-forth argument about it each time, I think that will get most people to question what they read into what he posts by default.
> 
> Or he could just use rhetoric that isn't misleading, and avoid this.
> 
> ...


I've asked before how do you define monopoly?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dlfl said:


> If you insist that TWC has a monopoly in my locality based on your interpretation of that definition, then I must assert that either your interpretation is unreasonable or the definition itself is unacceptable.


And even with regard to particulars -- in another thread a couple of weeks ago I compared my pricing and service offerings here to that of anyone who contended that they suffered from their cable service provider having a monopoly. I have five competitors here: Comcast, FiOS, RCN, Dish Network and DirecTV. From that thread, it was obvious that my clearly-competitive marketplace enjoyed no significant benefits over that available to the folks who claimed that they suffered from monopolistic suppliers. Again, their use of the word was just a cynical or careless matter of deception, trying to make their personal dissatisfaction about the reality of what our competitive marketplace offers them sound like someone was doing them wrong. Why didn't they just say that they didn't like the offerings? Because no one would care -- they wouldn't get the attention or evoke the response they wanted to evoke. So instead they engage in manipulative rhetoric to try to elicit a response unwarranted by the reality. Their right, for sure, and my right to reply in a manner to label that rhetoric as I have, reestablishing balance in the discussion.



dlfl said:


> If TWC raised their rates 20% I think you would see a massive transfer of customers from them to satellite.


Of course. That's just like the fact that my five-way competitive marketplace yields roughly the same service offerings and pricing. It belies the deceptive rhetoric.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> I've asked before how do you define monopoly?


And I have no interest in playing into your cynical and deceptive manner of rhetoric. I'm making *my* point; don't expect me to help you distract attention away from it. I've made it clear what I think the problem is with what you're saying. All I care about is balancing the misunderstanding that I see you fostering. I don't care to feed your interest in distracting from the point I'm making.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

I'll give you a hand about.com has an article. it says "When we discuss a monopoly, or oligopoly, etc. we're discussing the market for a particular type of product, such as toasters or DVD players. In the textbook case of a monopoly, there is only one firm producing the good."

That should solve it for me right? unless you read the next sentence which says "In a real world monopoly, such as the operating system monopoly, there is one firm that provides the overwhelming majority of sales (Microsoft), and a handful of small companies that have little or no impact on the dominant firm."

Welcome to the real world.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> And I have no interest in playing into your cynical and deceptive manner of rhetoric. I'm making *my* point; don't expect me to help you distract attention away from it. I've made it clear what I think the problem is with what you're saying. All I care about is balancing the misunderstanding that I see you fostering. I don't care to feed your interest in distracting from the point I'm making.


Deceptive? Am I hiding how I define the term? you seem to be the deceptive one.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Not at all. I'm just adding the balance missing from your rhetoric.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> Not at all. I'm just adding the balance missing from your rhetoric.


Then balance it by defining monopoly, I have using 2 different sources.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

JWThiers said:


> Then balance it by defining monopoly, I have using 2 different sources.


*bicker*, this doesn't seem like an unreasonable request. Have you already given your definition somewhere?

Also (anybody) what is the test for "determine significantly" in the definition that includes:


> the means to *determine significantly *the terms on which other individuals shall have access to the service that they have control over


It may be very difficult to be quantitative here, but this seems like weasel wording to me -- ultimately determinable only in a court, and even then arbitrary.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

dlfl said:


> *bicker*, this doesn't seem like an unreasonable request. Have you already given your definition somewhere?
> 
> Also (anybody) what is the test for "determine significantly" in the definition that includes:
> 
> It may be very difficult to be quantitative here, but this seems like weasle wording to me -- ultimately determinable only in a court, and even then arbitrary.


Way back when he and started talking about monopolies, I gave the to the wiki and said this describes how I defined it and he said it was as good a definition as any. He apparently has changed his mind since then, since he has now said it isn't a good definition.

You are probably right about the weasle wording and a court having to determine if a monopoly exists as part of an anti-competitive practice suit.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

You guys should just start a new thread about monopolies.


----------



## larrs (May 2, 2005)

JWThiers said:


> Another way "around" this (if you can receive OTA) is to drop cable TV completely record OTA and use netflix, Amazon, Blockbuster, and other internet download sites. Use the money you save from not having a cable TV bill to upgrade you internet if needed and downloading and streaming content. It is amazing how much content you normally watch on cable is available either cheap or free on the net. Depending on you viewing habits you could potentially save quite a bit.


Well said. Almost everything I record is on locals. Everything else, like Stargate Atlantis/Universe, Dexter, The Tudors, True Blood, etc. is available on DVD soon after the season ends.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

orangeboy said:


> You guys should just start a new thread about monopolies.


But someone might try to monopolize it! Sorry, couldn't resist.

Seems like a good suggestion, but then .... we would have to confine all our discussion to just one thread. That's no fun.

You mean you're not learning something valuable here ? 

Let me predict *bicker*'s reply to your suggestion:

"I won't discuss monopolies in a thread if no one mentions it in a way I don't approve of!"

Thus a hint: Don't use any word derived from "monopoly" in your posts!

Hey, after all --- it's just a forum! Money back guarantee if not satisfied!


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

dlfl said:


> Thus a hint: Don't use any word derived from "monopoly" in your posts!


What? No reference to"Go to Jail", "Free Parking" or "Luxury Tax"?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dlfl said:


> *bicker*, this doesn't seem like an unreasonable request. Have you already given your definition somewhere?


Yes, we've gone back and forth on it. The definition isn't actually in dispute. It's just a distraction tactic on JW's part AFAIC.



orangeboy said:


> You guys should just start a new thread about monopolies.


No -- we shouldn't. That's the point.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> Yes, we've gone back and forth on it. The definition isn't actually in dispute. It's just a distraction tactic on JW's part AFAIC.
> 
> No -- we shouldn't. That's the point.


Its hard to tell if the definition is in question prior to this statement you here you said "Actually, no." to the question is a quote from the wiki an accurate definition of monopoly. Then 3 months ago (we have been disagreeing that long) here you say "That's as good of a definition as any" when I said that the same wiki is what I was using as a definition and if you could link to what you thought was a good definition. First its good, then its not, now it is again. And I am using it as a distraction. Either it is or it isn't a good definition. If it is then we have a legitimate disagreement about if the level of control the cable company has "sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it". and that isn't rhetoric or a distraction or any of the other things you have accused me of doing to get my point across.

You made it personal, and now that someone is calling you out on it you say its all just a distraction. Bull. You are the one that is being deceitful not me and if you can't take the heat for your comment tough.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

In a recent episode of cnets the real deal a cable professional(sorry I don't recall his name) talked about cable monopolies and such. He referenced a law that was passed a few years back that prevents communities from giving cable providers a protected franchise. However he did say that many cable companies had that protection when they were being rolled out and it allowed them to flourish. He stated that because of the massive infrastructure these companies have it nearly impossible for a competitor to start up since no one could afford to compete. The prices the new guy would have to charge would be too high to compete effectively since they wouldn't have the same advantages the existing cable co had when they started. 

None of this helps us however.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

Stormspace said:


> In a recent episode of cnets the real deal a cable professional(sorry I don't recall his name) talked about cable monopolies and such. He referenced a law that was passed a few years back that prevents communities from giving cable providers a protected franchise. However he did say that many cable companies had that protection when they were being rolled out and it allowed them to flourish. He stated that because of the massive infrastructure these companies have it nearly impossible for a competitor to start up since no one could afford to compete. The prices the new guy would have to charge would be too high to compete effectively since they wouldn't have the same advantages the existing cable co had when they started.
> 
> None of this helps us however.


When things like that have been pointed out my buddy bick would say they have competition its not a monopoly. even resorted to pictures. I say they can have competition and still be a monopoly. you decide.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

JWThiers said:


> When things like that have been pointed out my buddy bick would say they have competition its not a monopoly. even resorted to pictures. I say they can have competition and still be a monopoly. you decide.


the competition pointed to is typically Satellite broadcasters and in some dense populations you have FIOS or AT&T uverse. All of these provide the content, so the product is similar enough.

Now we all know that how we consume the product is significantly different among those various providers and that is the crux of our issues and what mandating separate security access only for large cable companies did not fix and the cable company response of cable cards in particular is pretty unworkable to fully resolve issues even within cable companies subset.

In my specific case, I deal with TWC and have no other options that would work with my TiVo HD so to me, TWC has me in a pretty solid grip.

The reply from a macro perspective is that they do, but only because of your preference for TiVo. If they really dis-satisfy you then switch to satellite. I can see that macro level validity but it holds no good answer for my preferences.

So how would govt. regs provide me better service? Should they hold cable companies feet to the fire really hard and keep waivers for satellite companies? That satisfies me short term, but in the long run cable companies get out of the one sided regulation hassles.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

It all but ended the ability of Netscape to charge for their browser. Bundling and selling a product below cost (free is below cost ) are monopolistic practices.

Microsoft office was bundled with most computers. At one time the OEM paid almost nothing extra to bundle Office with Windows. The cost to bundle office didn't, dramatically, increase until companies like Word Perfect and Lotus lost most of their market share.

Whatever it cost Microsoft to defend itself, and the amount it had to pay for charges it wasn't able to defend, was well worth it.



JWThiers said:


> I agree with what you are saying but if you use the Microsoft bundling issue and all the havoc that caused Microsoft as an indication the market share and levels of control as to what the justice department thinks is a monopoly, to me they seem about the same. And all they did was bundle a browser. It didn't stop people from getting another free browser in any way. The only real complaint I could see were the allegations that MS was purposely making other browser less stable.
> 
> If you look thru that wiki entry on monopolies it talks about a monopolies market value is high but not absolute. Its actually kind of interesting if you like that kind of thing.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> the competition pointed to is typically Satellite broadcasters and in some dense populations you have FIOS or AT&T uverse. All of these provide the content, so the product is similar enough.
> 
> Now we all know that how we consume the product is significantly different among those various providers and that is the crux of our issues and what mandating separate security access only for large cable companies did not fix and the cable company response of cable cards in particular is pretty unworkable to fully resolve issues even within cable companies subset.
> 
> ...


This will probably confuse the heck out of some, but here goes anyway. Stepping back from the cable industry to keep peoples tempers down, in general, as I have been saying, just because there is a monopoly doesn't mean anything is wrong or illegal so why would there need to be any regulation. When there is a monopoly things they do might need to be looked at a bit to see if there is anti-competitive practices but that is about it. So pulling it back into the Pay TV delivery markets, Unless your cable company is doing anti-competitive things, that is driving its competitors out of business why would the government have to further regulate them? Contrary to what I have been I don't have an agenda or anti business and as far as I can recall I rarely (if ever) complain about my cable service. I just think cable companies have monopolies in local markets and that they can have a monopoly even if they have competition. A monopoly is NOT anything sinister or illegal, or morally wrong a monopoly is a monopoly. Period, that's it.

As dlfl has pointed out even using the definition of monopoly that I have been using, there can be some disagreement as to what constitutes "*determine significantly* the terms..." but that is something that reasonable people can disagree about and would most likely have to be determined by a court if their was a question about it.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

lew said:


> It all but ended the ability of Netscape to charge for their browser. Bundling and selling a product below cost (free is below cost ) are monopolistic practices.
> 
> Microsoft office was bundled with most computers. At one time the OEM paid almost nothing extra to bundle Office with Windows. The cost to bundle office didn't, dramatically, increase until companies like Word Perfect and Lotus lost most of their market share.
> 
> Whatever it cost Microsoft to defend itself, and the amount it had to pay for charges it wasn't able to defend, was well worth it.


I don't remember EVER paying for any web browser or Office being bundled in with systems (at least not the same way ie was bundled) I recall if I wanted office installed I could pay for it but that is far from bundling, I also recall having a choice between Office and lotus suite or something like that or WordPerfect and a spreadsheet but in all cases you paid to have your choice of productivity applications installed. I agree that whatever MS had to pay it was worth it to them in the long run.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

JWThiers said:


> ......
> As dlfl has pointed out even using the definition of monopoly that I have been using, there can be some disagreement as to what constitutes "*determine significantly* the terms..." but that is something that reasonable people can disagree about and would most likely have to be determined by a court if their was a question about it.


And I keep wanting to remind everyone that it's important to define what market is being monopolized. In particular, in a locality that has only one cable provider plus satellite providers, the cable co. has a monopoly (usually government-imposed) on delivery of cable programming *via cable*, but it does not have a monopoly on delivery of cable programming. You may not agree on the last part of that statement but I think the argument for it is strong -- just let the cable co. raise their rates 20% and see how many people flock to satellite.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

JWThiers said:


> I don't remember EVER paying for any web browser or Office being bundled in with systems (at least not the same way ie was bundled) I recall if I wanted office installed I could pay for it but that is far from bundling, I also recall having a choice between Office and lotus suite or something like that or WordPerfect and a spreadsheet but in all cases you paid to have your choice of productivity applications installed. I agree that whatever MS had to pay it was worth it to them in the long run.


Netscape was originally available as a "free trial" and was "scheduled" to be a commercial product. That changed when Microsoft decided to give away IE.

Maybe 15 years ago almost every computer being sold by vendors like Dell included Microsoft office. The more expensive computers included the professional version of the program. I don't remember the exact numbers but the licensing fee for Windows was calculated on the total number of computers sold (regardless of what operating system was included with the computer). Likewise vendors were offered a very low price on Microsoft Office if they agreed to similar terms.

My memory is Microsoft dropped those terms prior to the settlement of the anti-trust suit.


----------



## rocko (Oct 29, 2002)

lew said:


> Netscape was originally available as a "free trial" and was "scheduled" to be a commercial product. That changed when Microsoft decided to give away IE.
> 
> Maybe 15 years ago almost every computer being sold by vendors like Dell included Microsoft office. The more expensive computers included the professional version of the program. I don't remember the exact numbers but the licensing fee for Windows was calculated on the total number of computers sold (regardless of what operating system was included with the computer). Likewise vendors were offered a very low price on Microsoft Office if they agreed to similar terms.
> 
> My memory is Microsoft dropped those terms prior to the settlement of the anti-trust suit.


Back in the day computer OEMs bundled Microsoft Works, not Office, for free. That's my recollection, FWIW.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

lew said:


> Netscape was originally available as a "free trial" and was "scheduled" to be a commercial product. That changed when Microsoft decided to give away IE.
> 
> Maybe 15 years ago almost every computer being sold by vendors like Dell included Microsoft office. The more expensive computers included the professional version of the program. I don't remember the exact numbers but the licensing fee for Windows was calculated on the total number of computers sold (regardless of what operating system was included with the computer). Likewise vendors were offered a very low price on Microsoft Office if they agreed to similar terms.
> 
> My memory is Microsoft dropped those terms prior to the settlement of the anti-trust suit.


All that was happening when I was just starting to get into the computer scene so I wasn't paying very close attention to that kind of thing. Still doesn't change that MS got a good deal in the long run.:up:


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

dlfl said:


> And I keep wanting to remind everyone that it's important to define what market is being monopolized. In particular, in a locality that has only one cable provider plus satellite providers, the cable co. has a monopoly (usually government-imposed) on delivery of cable programming *via cable*, but it does not have a monopoly on delivery of cable programming. You may not agree on the last part of that statement but I think the argument for it is strong -- just let the cable co. raise their rates 20% and see how many people flock to satellite.


I agree with your assement when describing hardwire cable many (most?) local areas have only 1 land line based traditional cable service, so without a doubt that would be a monopoly if the market were limited in that fashion. But even when you look at ALL sources of Paid Content Delivery (cable/Sat/Phoneline (att, Fios) Internet, wireless cable, everything) the traditional cable company still has a huge market share. That in and of itself gives them the ability to dictate the terms that people get this service They can raise or lower rates rates, the can add or drop channels, they can add or drop services. those are the terms and conditions of use and IMO that is significant. As you point out they can go too far and piss off people enough to leave. But monopoly doesn't mean they are holding a gun to your head (if they did that would be anti-competitive and they would get in trouble), it means they a have significant control over a product or service. They can do thing to maximize their profits or they can do things to kill themselves, why would they kill themselves?

The wiki even talks about that when it is talking about the Characteristics of a monopoly:

"Market Power: Market Power is the ability to affect the terms and conditions of exchange.[4] It is the ability to set your own price. [5]Although a monopoly's market power is high it is not absolute. A monopoly faces a negatively sloped demand curve not a perfectly inelastic curve. Consequently, any price increase will result in the loss of some customers. The monopoly's objective is to maximize profits. "

You raise the price 1% you may lose a few customers, 5% a few more, 20% people would flock away, unless they also raised rates by 20%, that might be the cost of doing business.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

JWThiers said:


> A monopoly is NOT anything sinister or illegal, or morally wrong a monopoly is a monopoly. Period, that's it.


correct - but the fact that cable companies want to make money does not help in my quest to get the most out of my TiVo DVR that is my preferred choice for aggregating content at my TV screen


----------



## carios23 (Jan 19, 2009)

Whats MRV and TA?


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

carios23 said:


> Whats MRV and TA?


MRV = multi-room viewing. Transfering programs from one TiVo to another over a local network.

TA = Tuning Adapter. Extra electronic box required to receive SDV (switched digital video) channels.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> correct - but the fact that cable companies want to make money does not help in my quest to get the most out of my TiVo DVR that is my preferred choice for aggregating content at my TV screen


Our friend would correctly state something like, "That is irrelevant", that has nothing to do with the question about it being a monopoly or not. A free market economy maybe (If you don't like it you can change providers, or even use it as an opportunity to start your own and compete), but not monopoly.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

JWThiers said:


> .......the traditional cable company still has a huge market share. That in and of itself gives them the ability to dictate the terms that people get this service They can raise or lower rates rates, the can add or drop channels, they can add or drop services. those are the terms and conditions of use and IMO that is significant. As you point out they can go too far and piss off people enough to leave. But monopoly doesn't mean they are holding a gun to your head (if they did that would be anti-competitive and they would get in trouble), it means they a have significant control over a product or service. They can do thing to maximize their profits or they can do things to kill themselves, why would they kill themselves?
> 
> The wiki even talks about that when it is talking about the Characteristics of a monopoly:
> 
> ...


As I understand this, any seller with a "huge market share" is probably a monopoly. I can envision cases were there are two sellers in a market. One has 90% of the market; the other has 10%. I don't see by your definition where the big one is any more of a monopoly than the small one. Either one can significantly determine the terms of service. They are in competition. If one lowers prices (or more generally offers a better value for price) the other has to follow suit -- or lose market share. What is it the big one can do that the little one can't? I agree that common sense says that the big one is the one that should be watched more carefully to be sure it isn't engaging in anti-competitive practices. Other than that, I don't see the practical significance to being a monopoly by this definition.

If that's all there is to being a monopoly, I think we need a new word to bandy about, perhaps "anti-competitive" (or as *bicker* would say in some cases: not-doing-what-I-like ).

Of course, as has been stated before, most people automatically associate "monopoly" with "bad", "evil", etc., so "monopoly" will continue to be used when people feel they have only one choice to get what they want and don't like the deal they're getting.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

dlfl said:


> As I understand this, any seller with a "huge market share" is probably a monopoly. I can envision cases were there are two sellers in a market. One has 90% of the market; the other has 10%. I don't see by your definition where the big one is any more of a monopoly than the small one. Either one can significantly determine the terms of service. They are in competition. If one lowers prices (or more generally offers a better value for price) the other has to follow suit -- or lose market share. What is it the big one can do that the little one can't? I agree that common sense says that the big one is the one that should be watched more carefully to be sure it isn't engaging in anti-competitive practices. Other than that, I don't see the practical significance to being a monopoly by this definition.
> 
> If that's all there is to being a monopoly, I think we need a new word to bandy about, perhaps "anti-competitive" (or as *bicker* would say in some cases: not-doing-what-I-like ).
> 
> Of course, as has been stated before, most people automatically associate "monopoly" with "bad", "evil", etc., so "monopoly" will continue to be used when people feel they have only one choice to get what they want and don't like the deal they're getting.


As far as I know, having a large market share doesn't make a company an anticompetitive monopoly as long as they aren't actively trying to prevent competition. Cable companies certainly appear to be anticompetitive in their behavior with their changing and extending standards before they can be implemented, or dragging their feet so they can introduce the next big thing before the standard is approved.

The real problem with cable is that it's a natural monopoly much like the power company. Due to geography and infrastructure it stands to reason that only one operates in a given area. Larger communities might have two or more, but for most places only one cable provider is the norm. We have laws that govern natural monopolies and cable television shouldn't be any different.

It would not surprise me a bit if it was discovered that cable companies delayed the implementation of cable card so it would be incompatible with their systems when it was approved just so they could offer value added hardware.

TWC in my area has gone to SDV, but the number of channels hasn't changed, they are even using SDV on analog channels which confuses me as well since I still have analog sets that get those channels fine, yet when my TA fails I get a message that the channel wasn't available. Too bad the HD and S3's won't fall back on an analog signal if the one it's looking for isn't there.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

dlfl said:


> As I understand this, any seller with a "huge market share" is probably a monopoly. I can envision cases were there are two sellers in a market. One has 90% of the market; the other has 10%. I don't see by your definition where the big one is any more of a monopoly than the small one. Either one can significantly determine the terms of service. They are in competition. If one lowers prices (or more generally offers a better value for price) the other has to follow suit -- or lose market share. What is it the big one can do that the little one can't? I agree that common sense says that the big one is the one that should be watched more carefully to be sure it isn't engaging in anti-competitive practices. Other than that, I don't see the practical significance to being a monopoly by this definition.
> 
> If that's all there is to being a monopoly, I think we need a new word to bandy about, perhaps "anti-competitive" (or as *bicker* would say in some cases: not-doing-what-I-like ).
> 
> Of course, as has been stated before, most people automatically associate "monopoly" with "bad", "evil", etc., so "monopoly" will continue to be used when people feel they have only one choice to get what they want and don't like the deal they're getting.


Yes, absolutely, any company that controls a huge market share would be a monopoly, that is why it isn't illegal just to be a monopoly. When dealing with a monopoly you should be considering the entire market (or area market in our talks) not just the customers that one has but also the ones they don't have. Yes if you are a customer of the small provider they significantly control their customers, but not the whole market. If the small provider changes rates it affects 10% of the market in your example compared to 90% if the large one did. Bigger influence on the market.

Interesting questions to consider, When do you become a monopoly? Are you a monopoly if you have more than 50%? how about more than 2x your closest competitor? Do you have to control a market nation wide? globally? regionally? by state?

Granted the general perception is negative, but usually its being used when people are complaining about a practice that they consider anti-competitive. If its being used in that context I usually figure they are complaining about something. If its being used to describe the market share they control I figure that its not being used negatively. Its all about context.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

Stormspace said:


> As far as I know, having a large market share doesn't make a company an anticompetitive monopoly as long as they aren't actively trying to prevent competition. Cable companies certainly appear to be anticompetitive in their behavior with their changing and extending standards before they can be implemented, or dragging their feet so they can introduce the next big thing before the standard is approved.
> 
> The real problem with cable is that it's a natural monopoly much like the power company. Due to geography and infrastructure it stands to reason that only one operates in a given area. Larger communities might have two or more, but for most places only one cable provider is the norm. We have laws that govern natural monopolies and cable television shouldn't be any different.
> 
> ...


+1 :up:


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Stormspace said:


> ............
> The real problem with cable is that it's a natural monopoly much like the power company. ..........


I disagree that cable is a monopoly for delivery of cable network programming (because of satellite) but we've beat that topic to death here so I'll stifle.

It's good that the OP is still hanging in here and brought the thread back to its original topic. :up:

The *really* real problem is that cable is a monopoly as far as using a TiVo with cable network programming, and when the cable is TWC it's a *super *really real problem!

The biggest problem with my TiVo HD is the unreliability and poor quality of channels as received by the TiVo-CableCARD-TA combination, and I blame the cable industry for that -- not TiVo. In particular I have come to believe that TWC is the worst offender, or one of the worst, in terms of poor performance and reliability of this Rube Goldberg design, although probably just by negligence rather than on purpose.


----------



## Grumock (Dec 16, 2008)

dlfl said:


> In particular I have come to believe that TWC is the worst offender, or one of the worst, in terms of poor performance and reliability of this Rube Goldberg design, although probably just by negligence rather than on purpose.


Not to say you're wrong, because i don't necessarily think you are, but what other cable company experience do you have with your TIVO?

I cant make a lot of complaints because I personally have not had many issues with TWC, since MRV is not really something I even bother with.

I only ask BTW because I have no other exp. with another cable company. They say ignorance is bliss.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

dlfl said:


> I disagree that cable is a monopoly for delivery of cable network programming (because of satellite) but we've beat that topic to death here so I'll stifle.
> 
> It's good that the OP is still hanging in here and brought the thread back to its original topic. :up:
> 
> ...


Just one more thing and I'll get off my soapbox, I promise, but I would really like to know. I've talked a lot about what I think and what about this or that. Out of curiosity, how would you define monopoly? Does there have to be ONLY one source or can you have competition and still have a monopoly? Could you also give a hypothetical example.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Grumock said:


> Not to say you're wrong, because i don't necessarily think you are, but what other cable company experience do you have with your TIVO?
> .........


I have no experience with another cable co so you are right to question my belief. I have an *impression* from reading these forums but .... far from conclusive.

If the rest are as bad as TWC, lord help us!


----------



## Grumock (Dec 16, 2008)

dlfl said:


> I have no experience with another cable co so you are right to question my belief. I have an *impression* from reading these forums but .... far from conclusive.
> 
> If the rest are as bad as TWC, lord help us!


So very true LOL.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

JWThiers said:


> Just one more thing and I'll get off my soapbox, I promise, but I would really like to know. I've talked a lot about what I think and what about this or that. Out of curiosity, how would you define monopoly? Does there have to be ONLY one source or can you have competition and still have a monopoly? Could you also give a hypothetical example.


Let's try this:


> Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service


Monopolies always cost consumers more or limit their choices, which is bad. But there are monopolies that must be accepted such as:
1. Necessary monopolies, declared so by governments (e.g., utilities) 
2. Property rights monopolies: Someone owns the only gold mine in the world.
4. Intellectual property rights monopolies: They have the patent(s).
5. Political monopolies (Post office, Dept. of Defense, etc.)
6. <Whatever I've left out.>
All these accepted monopolies are subject to government regulation, although I would argue a property rights monopoly should not be.

I don't see how you can avoid the question of "monopoly of what?" when defining monopolies. For example, Microsoft has an intellectual propery rights monopoly of Windows and the Office Suite. But Microsoft does NOT have a monopoly of any kind over graphical operating systems or office productivity software - even though they dominate those markets. In fact competitors do exist in those markets.

I can't imagine this isn't going to lead to more discussion, so I don't know why you said you'd get off your soapbox!  Maybe a thread in the Happy Hour forum?


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

dlfl said:


> Let's try this:
> 
> Monopolies always cost consumers more or limit their choices, which is bad. But there are monopolies that must be accepted such as:
> 1. Necessary monopolies, declared so by governments (e.g., utilities)
> ...


Thanks, that's a reasonable definition and I agree with it as far as it goes. I have already posted my views and definitions so I'll climb off my soapbox and stick to answering questions and replying to coments directed my way that may require answer.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was always under the impression that the whole purpose of cablecards was to allow the customer to purchase their own STBs, or even to eliminate the need for STB's altogether. When I first heard about cablecards, I envisioned a future where I could walk into a Best Buy and choose from a plethora of STB's with different price points and features. Obviously, this concept seems laughable now, but I really think this was how the people who came up with the idea for cablecards thought it was going to play out. My question is, what the hell went wrong?


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

dlfl said:


> As I understand this, any seller with a "huge market share" is probably a monopoly. I can envision cases were there are two sellers in a market. One has 90% of the market; the other has 10%. I don't see by your definition where the big one is any more of a monopoly than the small one. Either one can significantly determine the terms of service. They are in competition. If one lowers prices (or more generally offers a better value for price) the other has to follow suit -- or lose market share. What is it the big one can do that the little one can't? I agree that common sense says that the big one is the one that should be watched more carefully to be sure it isn't engaging in anti-competitive practices. Other than that, I don't see the practical significance to being a monopoly by this definition.
> 
> If that's all there is to being a monopoly, I think we need a new word to bandy about, perhaps "anti-competitive" (or as *bicker* would say in some cases: not-doing-what-I-like ).


The word you are looking for is oligopoly, which is a market controlled by a few big players. That defines the pay TV market, where for most people you have your choice of one cableCo and two satCos and that's it. But as you said, in this case the cableCo usually has, what, 80% share?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

gweempose said:


> My question is, what the hell went wrong?


at the point in those initial meetings when the phrase "we are from the Government and we are here to help" was uttered and the broadcast execs all started laughing.

Then the satellite execs all got up to use the bathroom and never returned.

Then the Govt. guys said "we just want separable security, but you guys figure out how to deploy it so you can do it easily and fairly"


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Excellent! I don't even have to know any of the facts or details to sense that's the way it went!


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

dlfl said:


> Excellent! I don't even have to know any of the facts or details to sense that's the way it went!


Speaking from personal experience (I work for the government BTW) it probably went down exactly like that.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

JWThiers said:


> Speaking from personal experience (I work for the government BTW) it probably went down exactly like that.


I worked for the Federal Government for 16 years. The people are not the problem -- it's just the nature of government organizations. The people are a mix just like in any other walk of life. Some good. Some bad. If a situation exists (in government, private industry, anywhere) that rewards unethical behavior with monetary or power gains the bad apples will do it. Government just doesn't have the natural mechanisms for eventually rooting out such people or behavior. In private industry the unethical behavior tends to result in either the company going out of business or the guilty person being fired. When a government agency fails to achieve its mission, or wastes a lot of money doing it, they are just as likely to be rewarded with a budget increase.

One of the standing jokes is that you darn well better spend your budget this year, even if it means wasting money, or it's for sure your budget next year will be cut.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

dlfl said:


> I worked for the Federal Government for 16 years. The people are not the problem -- it's just the nature of government organizations. The people are a mix just like in any other walk of life. Some good. Some bad. If a situation exists (in government, private industry, anywhere) that rewards unethical behavior with monetary or power gains the bad apples will do it. Government just doesn't have the natural mechanisms for eventually rooting out such people or behavior. In private industry the unethical behavior tends to result in either the company going out of business or the guilty person being fired. When a government agency fails to achieve its mission, or wastes a lot of money doing it, they are just as likely to be rewarded with a budget increase.
> 
> One of the standing jokes is that you darn well better spend your budget this year, even if it means wasting money, or it's for sure your budget next year will be cut.


I wish they would give NASA a bit more of those dollars. I've worked there for 20 years and our budget has been basically flat for the entire time. NASA's biggest problems are politics. Every year the politicians try to change NASA's priorities and fund for one project over another or do things like wait until hardware for Space Station is being built and the decide that we need to change the mission an design 3 times in 2 years, basically throwing away all the money spent to date and then wonder why its over budget and cut funding some more. But when I was in the Navy it wasn't a joke to basically waste money at the end of the year. Literally we would buy 5 or 6 complete toolboxes we didn't need just so our budget wouldn't shrink next year.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Sorry but I've been away. I had a death in the family.


JWThiers said:


> You made it personal, and now that someone is calling you out on it you say its all just a distraction. Bull. You are the one that is being deceitful not me and if you can't take the heat for your comment tough.


You're way off. All I care about is objection to the deception that is inherent in the labeling of cable companies as monopolies. I will post whatever is necessary to undercut the self-centered, cynical and myopic blathering of folks who try to make cable companies sound like nefarious monopolies. My refusal to help you or others craft a defense of such an indefensible bit of rhetoric is indicative of nothing other than my conviction on this matter. Period.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

JWThiers said:


> Literally we would buy 5 or 6 complete toolboxes we didn't need just so our budget wouldn't shrink next year.


I understand the human nature of such an action, but I never understood the full concept. If you had spent all the money on effective things already and had as surplus - then maybe, just maybe the budget should shrink next year. It is not like you need to keep adding to your tool box collection at the end of the year.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> objection to the deception that is inherent in the labeling of cable companies as monopolies.
> <snip>
> try to make cable companies sound like nefarious monopoli


so how would you, Bicker, describe cable companies then?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Service providers.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

I find this discussion about cable companies being monopolies funny. Don't you think that if it was even slightest chance that they could be classified as the monopolies, lawyers would be standing in line to file class action lawsuits?


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

samo said:


> I find this discussion about cable companies being monopolies funny. Don't you think that if it was even slightest chance that they could be classified as the monopolies, lawyers would be standing in line to file class action lawsuits?


Why? There is nothing illegal with just being a monopoly. And that is, at least part of, bickers problem with the word. And true to my word I will dispels fallacy when I see it come up. In order for there to be a need for a lawyer some kind of anti-competitive practice or abuse of the monopoly would need to take place. Then some kind of determination that a company has a monopoly for the complaint to go forward.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

samo said:


> I find this discussion about cable companies being monopolies funny. Don't you think that if it was even slightest chance that they could be classified as the monopolies, lawyers would be standing in line to file class action lawsuits?


Good point! Although I suspect lawyers *are* lining up, that being the nature of our litigious society. However, assuming they aren't *succeeding* in court then I would just modify your statement accordingly.

Edit: In response to *JWThier'*s post, I'm adopting the populist definition of monopoly in this post, i.e., monopoly = bad. I *think* that's the right context for *samo*'s post.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

samo said:


> I find this discussion about cable companies being monopolies funny. Don't you think that if it was even slightest chance that they could be classified as the monopolies, lawyers would be standing in line to file class action lawsuits?


Don't confuse the issue with cogent logic.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

here's a fine example of how monopolies aren't inherintly bad. And it's a very close relative to cable. 

ATT for the first ~100 years. 

The government allowed (perhaps even endorsed) ATT to be THE national phone provider for a very long time. THey did it to make sure the country got a ubiquitous(sp?) communications system. In exchange for a REGULATED profit- anyone anwhere that wanted phone service was set up on the system. (that's the crux- regulated- there's nothing wrong in my mind with a monopoly that is regulated- perhaps it's even better than competition for certain things). 

It wasn't untill the system was basically completely built out that the government decided that ATT was evil for being a monopoly and then set out to DESTROY the company. And the interesting thing is that for phone service (or maybe even utilities as a whole) maybe a monopoly is a good idea- since it seems for the most part that the broken up phone market really is now in the hands of just a few players even after having been in the hands of tens of company's at one point. 

It's rather interesting I think, maybe phone again needs to be similar to a monopoly becasue they again have to spend large sums of money to rebuild their networks. And why is that? To compete with cable. It's all rather funny how in some ways there are few choices but other ways you slice it there are more choices then ever.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> I understand the human nature of such an action, but I never understood the full concept. If you had spent all the money on effective things already and had as surplus - then maybe, just maybe the budget should shrink next year. It is not like you need to keep adding to your tool box collection at the end of the year.


the problem with that logic (which makes perfect sense) is that usually the people with the budgets dont use the opposite logic that some years you actually need more than your budget to do the right thing. So instead, systematically everyone tries to keep their budget as large as they can- just in case they need it one year- becasue it's so hard to get extra when a need comes up...

BTW- it doesn't just happen in the government- same thing happens at many large companies.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

gweempose said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was always under the impression that the whole purpose of cablecards was to allow the customer to purchase their own STBs, or even to eliminate the need for STB's altogether. When I first heard about cablecards, I envisioned a future where I could walk into a Best Buy and choose from a plethora of STB's with different price points and features. Obviously, this concept seems laughable now, but I really think this was how the people who came up with the idea for cablecards thought it was going to play out. My question is, what the hell went wrong?


I'd say a big part of it came from continuing to exempt satellite TV from the open network approach. At one point (after they had their waiver) directv argued that rather then cablecards the FCC should mandate a 'universal tuner' sort of approach- i recall a filing or press release where they argued instead of smart cards the fcc should mandate a pack of cards sized widget that would allow the mythical plethora of 3rd party devices to work with either cable or satellite (or maybe even FIOS, IPTV, whatever).

What's really funny is Directv at the time seemed afraid that cable would be islick enough to use cablecard to gain marketshare. It seems that directv was afraid of a day when every tv, every vcr/dvr/recording device, came with a cablecard slot and all one needed to do was get a cablecard and away you would go. Cable would have in effect had consumers subsidize their entire customer premises equipment budget and gained some major inertia because the cablecard slot was just there to use.

Luckily for the satellite providers cable has decided to fight the cablecard all the way.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> here's a fine example of how monopolies aren't inherintly bad. And it's a very close relative to cable. ATT for the first ~100 years. The government allowed (perhaps even endorsed) ATT to be THE national phone provider for a very long time. THey did it to make sure the country got a ubiquitous(sp?) communications system. In exchange for a REGULATED profit-


Yup: A set percentage return on _expenses_. Yup... whenever we weren't making our revenue targets, we were casually instructed to spend more money, because the higher the expenses, the more profit our shareholders benefited from. I bet Comcast and TWC and Charter and Cox and the rest would jump at the chance of having the kind of regulated profit we enjoyed at the Bell System.

However, we had a revolution in our country in the early 1980s. WE THE PEOPLE wanted to pare down regulated services to the smallest portion of the service that was essential and open the rest of the service, allowing any company that had the resources available to build their own network to do so. MCI did so. Sprint did so. (Yup, that's right: Long distance telephone service was determined non-essential.) WE THE PEOPLE got what we wanted: A more nimble, dynamic and frenetic service sector. Now we get to live with the consequences of that quantum shift.



MichaelK said:


> anyone anwhere that wanted phone service was set up on the system.


USF made that possible. Let's be clear: It is a *TAX*. The infrastructure for what you're asking for was paid for by all of us in the form of a tax. If you want to start talking about creating a new tax to sponsor an infrastructure that the public should have a say with regard to provision of universal service, then go ahead. I won't talk against you but I bet a lot of folks in this thread would. But don't think you can talk about an infrastructure that the public should have a say with regard to provision of universal service without that being paid-for by the public: That's called an unfunded mandate onto a private enterprise, and that's an anathema -- the very worst kind of government regulation from the standpoint of about half of the voters in our country. Don't expect that your preference for such an unfairness should trump their righteous and overridingly powerful rejection of such a prospect.

And yes, I do recognize that many of the people on both sides of this issue are the same people, who simply don't realize that they're being two-faced, paying lip-service to the consumerist perspective, while voting for the business perspective.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> Yup: A set percentage return on _expenses_. Yup... whenever we weren't making our revenue targets, we were casually instructed to spend more money, because the higher the expenses, the more profit our shareholders benefited from.....


that's a funny downside



bicker said:


> However, we had a revolution in our country in the early 1980s. WE THE PEOPLE wanted to pare down regulated services to the smallest portion of the service that was essential and open the rest of the service, allowing any company that had the resources available to build their own network to do so. MCI did so. Sprint did so. (Yup, that's right: Long distance telephone service was determined non-essential.) WE THE PEOPLE got what we wanted: A more nimble, dynamic and frenetic service sector. Now we get to live with the consequences of that quantum shift.


I'm not super familiar- i was younger at the time- but I remember that one of them (MCI?) sued to get the right to create/sell their own network. But then what happened that the gov decided to destroy (er, "break up") ATT? Was it decided that was the only way to be "fair" to the new competitors?



bicker said:


> USF made that possible. Let's be clear: It is a *TAX*. The infrastructure for what you're asking for was paid for by all of us in the form of a tax. If you want to start talking about creating a new tax to sponsor an infrastructure that the public should have a say with regard to provision of universal service, then go ahead. I won't talk against you but I bet a lot of folks in this thread would. But don't think you can talk about an infrastructure that the public should have a say with regard to provision of universal service without that being paid-for by the public: That's called an unfunded mandate onto a private enterprise, and that's an anathema -- the very worst kind of government regulation from the standpoint of about half of the voters in our country. Don't expect that your preference for such an unfairness should trump their righteous and overridingly powerful rejection of such a prospect.
> ...


Yep- I'm aware of the part of the USF to make that work now. But in the beginning didn't the government basically rely on ATT taking profits from one division (long distance) to pay for another (local service in rural places)? I was under the impression that early on ATT didn't have the benefit of the tax and was just required to do what it needed to to provide service to all? (I dont know whtat's why I'm asking)

Right now a similar (but NOT universal) thing happens with cable franchise agreements- in exchange for permission to provide service in a given jurisdiction usually cable gets requirements to serve all premises that meet certain minimums (X houses per mile of something like that i think is typical?). Even the statewide franchises seem to have certain minimum build out requirements.

I dont have any preference one way ot the other for any "unfairness". I haven't thought about it enough to have an opinion about if something like the USF should happen for broadband- but it seems that the train is half way out the station with all the stimulus founds being spent on the underserved areas- isn't it something like 7.5 billion of the taxpayer dollars so far? And I think the USF already pays for broadband for certain places like schools and the like. Seems it's almost already been decided by the powers that be that it's a good idea? I can see the point that just as people deemed phone service essential in the 20th century that broadband should be deemed essential in the 21st. But haven't really throught through the implications of that enough to know what I'd prefer.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> It wasn't untill the system was basically completely built out that the government decided that ATT was evil for being a monopoly and then set out to DESTROY the company. And the interesting thing is that for phone service (or maybe even utilities as a whole) maybe a monopoly is a good idea- since it seems for the most part that the broken up phone market really is now in the hands of just a few players even after having been in the hands of tens of company's at one point.


Some of us lived through the beginnings of deregulation. Let me help you with your history. It wasn't that the government "set out" to destroy the company. It was that AT&T was not just a monopoly, AT&T was *evil incarnate.* They worked hard at it. There was a reason why Lily Tomlin's funniest skit included:

_We don't care.
We don't have to.
We're the phone company._

Fortunately, things like the FCC's Carterphone decision began the process of opening up the network. Until then you couldn't even use an acoustic coupler to connect.

As something of a last gasp, a bozo named deButts leading AT&T pushed the Primary Instrument Concept. This brilliant proposal said that, yes, you could attach other phones to their precious network, but you still had to rent a huge, ugly, black POS phone from them. Thankfully that proposal was rejected by the FCC.

Finally, don't cry for the AT&T shareholders. If you owned AT&T stock back when it was broken up, and you kept it until today, you would have tremendous capital appreciation. And you would own AT&T and Verizon stock, both of which generate incredible cash flow and pay 6.5% dividends.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Regarding AT&T, anyone remember this funny?

Sorry about the 20 sec commercial lead in. Couldn't find a better link.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> that's a funny downside


It was a very remarkable place to work.



MichaelK said:


> I'm not super familiar- i was younger at the time- but I remember that one of them (MCI?) sued to get the right to create/sell their own network. But then what happened that the gov decided to destroy (er, "break up") ATT? Was it decided that was the only way to be "fair" to the new competitors?


Actually, the two weren't directly related. Divestiture itself was mostly driven by our (AT&T's) desire to get into competitive businesses, where we could make more profit than the paltry regulated 13% (I think) return on expense. Divestiture led to the opening MCI wanted to satisfy their desire to compete against Long Lines.



MichaelK said:


> Yep- I'm aware of the part of the USF to make that work now. But in the beginning didn't the government basically rely on ATT taking profits from one division (long distance) to pay for another (local service in rural places)?


Our division, at least, made money based on how much money we _spent_. The more money we spent developing the network, the more profit we made. The money needed to expand service came either from USF (mostly covering the differential related to providing service in rural areas) or was passed-along to rate-payers.



MichaelK said:


> I was under the impression that early on ATT didn't have the benefit of the tax and was just required to do what it needed to to provide service to all? (I dont know whtat's why I'm asking)


That would be news to me. Of course, I wasn't working there in 1885.



MichaelK said:


> Right now a similar (but NOT universal) thing happens with cable franchise agreements- in exchange for permission to provide service in a given jurisdiction usually cable gets requirements to serve all premises that meet certain minimums (X houses per mile of something like that i think is typical?). Even the statewide franchises seem to have certain minimum build out requirements.


See above, regarding unfunded mandates. The mandates of universal telephone service were not unfunded, as far as I remember, not all through the USF, but if not instead directly from rates.

It would be like a cable company essentially taking whatever their costs are, multiplying by 113%, then dividing that by the number of customers, and then requiring each customer to pay that much, with no alternative whatsoever for getting subscription television service any other way (i.e., banning Internet video, satellite service, etc.)



MichaelK said:


> I haven't thought about it enough to have an opinion about if something like the USF should happen for broadband-


I think the answer will be yes, unless the Republicans really make major gains next year. However, regardless, that answer is notably different from the answer as it pertains to subscription television service. Broadband *is *the next telephone. Television never was or would be.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> ...
> 
> Finally, don't cry for the AT&T shareholders. If you owned AT&T stock back when it was broken up, and you kept it until today, you would have tremendous capital appreciation. And you would own AT&T and Verizon stock, both of which generate incredible cash flow and pay 6.5% dividends.


I dont cry for ATT sharholders- my dad actually owned some and held on and wound up with the 54 or whatever odd companies that ATT spawned and did quite well.

But I dont KNOW that breaking up ATT did anything that regulation could not have. Carterphone regulations didn't require ATT to be destroyed.

There was plenty of good that came from ATT- the computer you and I are using owes it's existance to the transistor which a bunch of ATT scientists invented just because ATT paid them to sit around and experiment. (along with a million other things they invented) Bell labs was one of the great general research labs in the world, now most of their labs are literally growing trees in the lobby becasue they were abandoned. And NO ONE does that sort of research anymore- well maybe google?

And screw the shareholders there's tons of PEOPLE that lost their good paying blue collar jobs. Manufacturing and utility worker jobs. Many that moved to some far off land.

and what do we have to show for that? Now instead of ATT we have Verizon and the "new" ATT (which is just a bunch of parts of the old ATT) that have basically divided the market between themselves. MCI who may have helped instigate the whole thing is part of verizon- and sprint- the other competitor left the wired market completely. Lucent is dead and owned by the French and heading into oblivion. There's probably not a single manufacturing job in the US related to what was once ATT. And no one is sitting around Murry Hill trying to invent something 'just because". Beyond that I read a paper once that the price of a phone call in real dollars basically dropped at a linear rate througough the 20th centurally. There was a blip immediately around the divestiture where it dropped really big. But if you draw the line straight it's linear. So the savings we have didn't even accelerate in real terms for it.

I just dont know that unleashing the anti-trust dogs helped the country. And one could argue that regulation could have done a better job. (maybe not- but it's not clean cut that it WAS a slam dunk)


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> ...
> I think the answer will be yes, unless the Republicans really make major gains next year. However, regardless, that answer is notably different from the answer as it pertains to subscription television service. Broadband *is *the next telephone. Television never was or would be.


'zactly- tv is tv.

But broadband is another issue.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

samo said:


> I find this discussion about cable companies being monopolies funny. Don't you think that if it was even slightest chance that they could be classified as the monopolies, lawyers would be standing in line to file class action lawsuits?


No. Being a monopoly is not actionable. Indeed, no state of being is ever actionable, even if the state of being is illegal. In order to win a lawsuit, class action or otherwise - one must be able to establish culpability for an action or willful inactivity which directly results in unavoidable damages to the injured party or parties. If they charge you for service for a year without ever hooking up your service, then you can (successfully) sue them to recover your money. If their installer drives his van through your living room, then you can sue them. Even if you can show their pricing practices in your area are predatory, you might be able to win a suit, but they have to actually do something injurious. Just being a monopoly is not injurious. While being a monopoly is not necessarily illegal, even if it were, doing something illegal is not in and of itself grounds for a suit. Suppose, for example, your local CATV company puts itself in violation of FCC regulations (this has happened, and the penalties have sometimes been stiff, even ruinous). Doing so is patently illegal. The fact does not allow you to sue them, unless whatever they are doing to violate FCC regulations also costs you money or damages you or your property.

Of course, anyone can file suit for anything, but if you don't want to have the suit summarily dismissed, you have to be able to show damages, you have to show the company was aware of the environment which fostered the damages, and you have to show either negligence or malice aforethought on the part of the individuals involved. Take the example of the van sitting in your living room. It is widely known operating a motor vehicle involves certain hazards. It is up to the company to see to it its representatives (including contractors) properly maintain and operate their vehicles, and secure them when not in use. Unless the van is hurled there by a tornado, it would be very hard for the company to argue operating the vehicle in any reasonable fashion could result in it winding up in your living room. If they can show the incident was the result of a totally random and unpreventable mechanical failure, they might win the suit, but in reality very few CATV operators (or their insurers) would really want to try to go to court in such a case. As long as no one was injured, they almost certainly would pay to have the damages repaired without an argument.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> Just one more thing and I'll get off my soapbox, I promise, but I would really like to know. I've talked a lot about what I think and what about this or that. Out of curiosity, how would you define monopoly? Does there have to be ONLY one source or can you have competition and still have a monopoly? Could you also give a hypothetical example.


By strict definition, a monopoly is a commercial enterprise whose goods and / or services cannot be obtained from any other source in a reasonably sized area. In reality, that large a stranglehold is rarely ever encountered. There is almost *always* some competing product or distribution channel, albeit perhaps only a very small ones. The problem with any entity gaining a large fraction of a market is it then has the almost unbridled ability to employ anti-competitive practices. They can, for example, undertake to undermine the competition with predatory pricing. One means of doing this is to lower prices below cost anywhere their competition has a foothold. They can either subsidize this loss by raising prices in markets not served by the competition, or they can merely live with the deficit long enough to cripple or even mortally wound the competition. In the areas where the prices drop precipitously, the consumers will flock to the company with the "better deal". A grocery company for which I used to work did this very thing to drive Safeway out of their geographic area. Safeway had just opened a number of stores in Texas, and were in desperate need to recover the investment. The company for which I worked, while not as large as Safeway, was very large, had a huge penetration in the Texas market, and had a lot of cash reserves on hand, not to mention a vast amount of debt-free inventory. They slashed their prices to way below cost for several months, operating strictly at a loss. With interest and start-up costs to pay, Safeway was forced to shut down their stores in Texas.

The funny part of this story is it is a David and Goliath one. Safeway was and is a giant corporation, and while HEB (at the time) was the largest privately owned company in America, it was still nowhere nearly the size of Safeway. Nor were either company in any strict sense a monopoly in Texas or elsewhere, but HEB was more than large enough to control the local business sector well enough to drive Safeway out of business in Texas. Today (over 35 years later) there are a relative handful of Safeway affiliate and Safeway owned stores in Texas, while there are hundreds of HEBs.

On the other hand, by definition a trust is not a monopoly, although a company can be both. The same problem exists with either. Suppose, for example, one company has an 80% market share in Los Angeles, but no significant holdings elsewhere. Another company, however, has only a 10% market share in Los Angeles, but has better than 50% market share in every other major American city. By raising their prices by just a little bit in Chicago, New York, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, etc. they can build up enough resources to slash prices in Los Angeles for an extended period of time. Since they have lower prices, Los Angelians will abandon their competition and flock to the nationwide competitor. It won't take too many months of this for investors to abandon the local company and for the nationwide company to obtain enough of a hold on the Los Angeles market to bring their prices back up and eventually recover all they lost and more.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

MichaelK said:


> 'zactly- tv is tv.
> 
> But broadband is another issue.


And who owns that industry? Lets see, Att, Verizon, ComCast, BHN, ... Looks like basically the same players in a only very slightly different game. Come to think about it, I think it was a comment that I made about bandwidth caps possibly being anti-competitive to internet distribution of Premium TV services, that started bicker and I on our monopoly disagreement, those many months ago in a different thread.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

However, you're not willing to admit that what you want is either socialism or magic.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

Nor you Fascism or magic. So why not lay off the personal attacks.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

lrhorer said:


> On the other hand, by definition a trust is not a monopoly, although a company can be both. The same problem exists with either. Suppose, for example, one company has an 80% market share in Los Angeles, but no significant holdings elsewhere. Another company, however, has only a 10% market share in Los Angeles, but has better than 50% market share in every other major American city. By raising their prices by just a little bit in Chicago, New York, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, etc. they can build up enough resources to slash prices in Los Angeles for an extended period of time. Since they have lower prices, Los Angelians will abandon their competition and flock to the nationwide competitor. It won't take too many months of this for investors to abandon the local company and for the nationwide company to obtain enough of a hold on the Los Angeles market to bring their prices back up and eventually recover all they lost and more.


Interesting, I thought that trust and monopoly were basically the same thing. But the wiki entry here says that "Eventually the term was used to refer to monopolies in general", but I can see some difference. The devils in the details.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

lrhorer said:


> No. Being a monopoly is not actionable. Indeed, no state of being is ever actionable, even if the state of being is illegal. In order to win a lawsuit, class action or otherwise - one must be able to establish culpability for an action or willful inactivity which directly results in unavoidable damages to the injured party or parties. If they charge you for service for a year without ever hooking up your service, then you can (successfully) sue them to recover your money. If their installer drives his van through your living room, then you can sue them. Even if you can show their pricing practices in your area are predatory, you might be able to win a suit, but they have to actually do something injurious. Just being a monopoly is not injurious. While being a monopoly is not necessarily illegal, even if it were, doing something illegal is not in and of itself grounds for a suit. Suppose, for example, your local CATV company puts itself in violation of FCC regulations (this has happened, and the penalties have sometimes been stiff, even ruinous). Doing so is patently illegal. The fact does not allow you to sue them, unless whatever they are doing to violate FCC regulations also costs you money or damages you or your property.
> 
> Of course, anyone can file suit for anything, but if you don't want to have the suit summarily dismissed, you have to be able to show damages, you have to show the company was aware of the environment which fostered the damages, and you have to show either negligence or malice aforethought on the part of the individuals involved. Take the example of the van sitting in your living room. It is widely known operating a motor vehicle involves certain hazards. It is up to the company to see to it its representatives (including contractors) properly maintain and operate their vehicles, and secure them when not in use. Unless the van is hurled there by a tornado, it would be very hard for the company to argue operating the vehicle in any reasonable fashion could result in it winding up in your living room. If they can show the incident was the result of a totally random and unpreventable mechanical failure, they might win the suit, but in reality very few CATV operators (or their insurers) would really want to try to go to court in such a case. As long as no one was injured, they almost certainly would pay to have the damages repaired without an argument.


If he had just opened the double french doors on the patio they could have easily parked the van there. It is obviously the homeowners fault for not opening the doors for the van.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Is this the latest version of a "truck roll" ? 

In other words they're not only rolling the truck when that's not the answer, but they're rolling it right into your house?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> So why not lay off the personal attacks.


Labeling your perspectives is not a personal attack.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> Labeling your perspectives is not a personal attack.


Where did I say I want socialism? How does my belief that a company (any company not just the cable companies) can have competition and still be a monopoly equate to socialism? You are making some pretty big leaps regarding peoples motivations and intents, which its what I was trying to point out by saying you wanted fascism. You must come here just looking to argue with people. Kind of makes me feel sorry for you.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> > Labeling your perspectives is not a personal attack.
> 
> 
> Where did I say I want socialism?


I take it from your reply that you admit that I didn't make a personal attack.



JWThiers said:


> How does my belief that a company (any company not just the cable companies) can have competition and still be a monopoly equate to socialism?


That wasn't the entirety of what you wrote.



JWThiers said:


> You are making some pretty big leaps regarding peoples motivations and intents


You were the one who started bad-mouthing service providers.



JWThiers said:


> You must come here just looking to argue with people.


Actually, I come here seeking valid information, not the self-entitled whining that I typically post responses in reply to.



JWThiers said:


> Kind of makes me feel sorry for you.


I pity for you for going through life so consistently disappointed with what service providers provide you, given you consistent holding of unfounded expectations.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

No, I do take it as a personal attack to say that I want socialism. I have NEVER said or implied that. And I would appreciate it if you didn't try to put words into my mouth. You read way to much into things. I have never "Bad mouthed" a service provider, I have defended a view that I think they have a monopoly, but like I have been repeatedly saying a monopoly isn't a bad thing, (it isn't a good thing either) it just describes the level of control that they have over a market. If you think that is socialism, I think I know what your problem is. Besides monopolies, you don't know what socialism is either.

Have a nice day.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> No, I do take it as a personal attack to say that I want socialism.


You shouldn't. It's not. Wanting government to dictate how services are delivered to the public is a perspective that some folks are proud of espousing. If you're not, then stop espousing them.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> You shouldn't. It's not. Wanting government to dictate how services are delivered to the public is a perspective that some folks are proud of espousing. If you're not, then stop espousing them.


So the definition of monopoly espouses socialism?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> So the definition of monopoly espouses socialism?


I'll refer you back to my earlier statement


bicker said:


> That wasn't the entirety of what you wrote.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

JWThiers said:


> And who owns that industry? Lets see, Att, Verizon, ComCast, BHN, ... Looks like basically the same players in a only very slightly different game. Come to think about it, I think it was a comment that I made about bandwidth caps possibly being anti-competitive to internet distribution of Premium TV services, that started bicker and I on our monopoly disagreement, those many months ago in a different thread.


there's a difference between broadband and tv but people seem to lump them (not saying you). As bicker points out there is NOT a TV monopoly for the vast vast vast majority of the country. Directv's offering is really similar to cable - some probably consider it superior. Same for Dish. So aside from the poor souls that dont have a clear view of the sats there are choices. Then a decent percentage of the population has access to a second wired TV provider in Fios or RCN (or other over builders)- some might even consider Uversa to be a reasonable wired provider. I wouldn't know the %'s for alternative wired providers but considering verizon has done many of the large north east cities and the vast majority of NJ, plus some texas and CA, I'd guess that maybe 25% of the population has a second wired provider as an option.

BUT the state of broadband competition is very different in some parts of the country there's not even ONE provider capable of providing a broadband connection capable of working with the new internet video providers like hulu, netflix, amazon, and other video providers. And many areas only have a single wired provider.

But seems the government is starting to notice broadband is something to regulate - some would certainly argue that todays broadband is like the 1900's telephone.

The broadband seed money in the stimulus bill, "net neutrality" reqs, and the advent of LTE and Wimax should probably wind up together making more broadband options availible to many places.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> Some of us lived through the beginnings of deregulation. Let me help you with your history. It wasn't that the government "set out" to destroy the company. It was that AT&T was not just a monopoly, AT&T was *evil incarnate.* They worked hard at it. There was a reason why Lily Tomlin's funniest skit included:
> 
> _We don't care.
> We don't have to.
> ...


My dad had a phone he picked up from somewhere and we'd get calls from AT&T once a month asking how many phones we had in the house. They were apparently monitoring the voltage on the line to see how many phones rang. This one had the ringer disconnected so it was throwing them off. We had to buy the two phones we had, and pay for each monthly. Now, they run a line to your house and you hook up as many as you want, much better.

Of course they've reincarnated themselves with wireless service by once again charging for each phone. At least this time each has their own number.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

MichaelK said:


> there's a difference between broadband and tv but people seem to lump them (not saying you). As bicker points out there is NOT a TV monopoly for the vast vast vast majority of the country. Directv's offering is really similar to cable - some probably consider it superior. Same for Dish. So aside from the poor souls that dont have a clear view of the sats there are choices. Then a decent percentage of the population has access to a second wired TV provider in Fios or RCN (or other over builders)- some might even consider Uversa to be a reasonable wired provider. I wouldn't know the %'s for alternative wired providers but considering verizon has done many of the large north east cities and the vast majority of NJ, plus some texas and CA, I'd guess that maybe 25% of the population has a second wired provider as an option.
> 
> BUT the state of broadband competition is very different in some parts of the country there's not even ONE provider capable of providing a broadband connection capable of working with the new internet video providers like hulu, netflix, amazon, and other video providers. And many areas only have a single wired provider.
> 
> ...


There are fewer differences between broadband providers and cable tv providers and telephone providers than I think you realize. It is all DIGITAL communication. Networks (Be it Cable TV providers, Telephone providers, or broadband providers, Satellite providers) are all in the business of moving digital data from one location to another.

There are no NATIONAL cable TV monopolies, no one company has more than about 25% of a NATIONAL market share. Regardless, as I have pointed out just because there is competition doesn't mean the can't be a monopoly. Monopoly simply means "a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it." For example Microsoft got in trouble for using its monopoly in the OS market to pressure OEM's into bundling IE with their PC. Microsoft had and still has competition from Apple, Linux, Unix, OS2(at the time) and had about an 80% market penetration. Get away from the large markets where only 1 land based cable company operates (which is actually most of the country) and in those areas they conservatively have what 65%, 70%? including satellite and all other sources. How many satellite dishes do you see in your neighborhood? I'm not complaining about the service they provide, but IMO they meet the definition of a monopoly. For 65%+ of the market they determine what channels are available, how much it costs to view them, even if you can view them at all. Know anyone 1 block outside the area they cover? Or their house is too far off the country road the house is on (you can get service you just have to pay to run the cable) None of that is illegal, or even ureasonable but it just shows that they significantly control how you can access their service. The level of control is what determines if something is a monopoly not the number of competitors. If your opinion is that the cable TV providers don't have significant control that would be a valid argument but if the argument is their is competition there can't be a monopoly you would be wrong. The closest Definition that I found said and I am paraphrasing, the textbook definition is one source of a product or service, but in the real world that isn't always true and then used Microsoft as an example.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

JWThiers said:


> There are fewer differences between broadband providers and cable tv providers and telephone providers than I think you realize. It is all DIGITAL communication. Networks (Be it Cable TV providers, Telephone providers, or broadband providers, Satellite providers) are all in the business of moving digital data from one location to another.
> 
> There are no NATIONAL cable TV monopolies, no one company has more than about 25% of a NATIONAL market share. Regardless, as I have pointed out just because there is competition doesn't mean the can't be a monopoly. Monopoly simply means "a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it." For example Microsoft got in trouble for using its monopoly in the OS market to pressure OEM's into bundling IE with their PC. Microsoft had and still has competition from Apple, Linux, Unix, OS2(at the time) and had about an 80% market penetration. Get away from the large markets where only 1 land based cable company operates (which is actually most of the country) and in those areas they conservatively have what 65%, 70%? including satellite and all other sources. How many satellite dishes do you see in your neighborhood? I'm not complaining about the service they provide, but IMO they meet the definition of a monopoly. For 65%+ of the market they determine what channels are available, how much it costs to view them, even if you can view them at all. Know anyone 1 block outside the area they cover? Or their house is too far off the country road the house is on (you can get service you just have to pay to run the cable) None of that is illegal, or even ureasonable but it just shows that they significantly control how you can access their service. The level of control is what determines if something is a monopoly not the number of competitors. If your opinion is that the cable TV providers don't have significant control that would be a valid argument but if the argument is their is competition there can't be a monopoly you would be wrong. The closest Definition that I found said and I am paraphrasing, the textbook definition is one source of a product or service, but in the real world that isn't always true and then used Microsoft as an example.


I've been paying attention- I know your defination of monopoly. AND I AGREE WITH IT.

BUT FOR PAY TV- I am of the general opinion that there is NOT any monopoly except for some very small subsets of the country. Directv, Dish, and cable duke it out pretty good in my mind. Just look at the numbers- directv has 18 million subs. Dish has like 13 million. that's about 1/4 to 1/3rd of the tv housholds (I think neilson says there are a a bit over 100 million households). But we can agree to disagree onthat point. It is what it is. If you dont think Direct and Dish have any sway then we just plain disagree- I happen to think they do.

if anything Dish and Directv have control of MORE places then cable does- those rural places only have those two as a choice and we can't blame cable for the prices those folks pay for TV.

As far as broadband I inderstand that it's all bits- might be dense on some things but I think I understand how fdigital cable works- laughing. But I happen to beleive that Broadband IS currently different then tv. I can buy just broadband without buying TV from the cable company, and I can buy broadband from non-tv providers. Most of the country by population can buy cable or dsl broadband- most actually dont have 2 chouces of wired tv provider.Sure it's all bits from the head end to your house if you have a cable line. But there's a but of that pipe set aside that connects me to the internet. Broadcast TV, satellite radio, cell phones are all just bits too. Being digital doesn't mean it's all the same. If you want to say that a bit delivery pipe= broadband then cable has tons of competition becasue all those others can send you bits to your house too. It's just differnet in my mind. Again we can agree to disagree.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> I've been paying attention- I know your defination of monopoly. AND I AGREE WITH IT.
> 
> BUT FOR PAY TV- I am of the general opinion that there is NOT any monopoly except for some very small subsets of the country. Directv, Dish, and cable duke it out pretty good in my mind. Just look at the numbers- directv has 18 million subs. Dish has like 13 million. that's about 1/4 to 1/3rd of the tv housholds (I think neilson says there are a a bit over 100 million households). But we can agree to disagree onthat point. It is what it is. If you dont think Direct and Dish have any sway then we just plain disagree- I happen to think they do.
> 
> ...


Satellite service can't be considered competition in this sense mainly because of the high cost of adoption. Sure, you can occasionally find a bundle deal, but typically you have to invest in the equipment to receive the signal. This is onerous on the user due to the excessive cost. Cable on the other hand has a very low cost of adoption and all TV's are capable of receiving the signal out of the box.

IIRC satellite also requires a separate box for every TV in the home with a limit of two boxes per dish. So for a house with 4 sets the cost doubles. Not to mention the wiring requirements for a house with sat service is different since the TV's sometimes have to be wired in series. That may have changed, but the last house we were in we had to rewire it because the previous owners had sat service.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> here's a fine example of how monopolies aren't inherintly bad. And it's a very close relative to cable.
> 
> ATT for the first ~100 years.


That's specious. At the risk of being cliche, even the darkest cloud has a silver lining. It is arguable that war is the ultimate immorality (although if you ask me, it's congress), and without question the misery, injustice, and evil that accompanies any war is beyond calculation, yet war almost inevitably produces a very large number of positive effects. Those effects do not even come close to being a justification for waging war, although there are those who profit greatly from war and care nothing for the death and suffering they support that might actually have the chutzpah to disagree. The point, however, is that pointing to an incidental positive effect of an evil does not provide support for the notion the artifact is not evil in the first place.



MichaelK said:


> The government allowed (perhaps even endorsed) ATT to be THE national phone provider for a very long time. THey did it to make sure the country got a ubiquitous(sp?) communications system. In exchange for a REGULATED profit- anyone anwhere that wanted phone service was set up on the system.


It's a bit of an oversimplification, but your narrative here is more or less accurate.



MichaelK said:


> (that's the crux- regulated- there's nothing wrong in my mind with a monopoly that is regulated- perhaps it's even better than competition for certain things).


You're painting with too broad of a brush here for anyone to really make a relevant comment. To try to separate the chaff from the wheat, however, what seems often to get lost in the maelstrom is that legislation is primarily about morality and justice, not economy and convenience. A just, equitable political system is expensive, and cutting corners is always going to result in injustice and inequity. (Note spending a lot doesn't guarantee the opposite, either.) Furthermore, as a rule of thumb, if a regulation is necessary for a monopoly, then it is also generally necessary for a free market, whether it seems like it, or not. In addition, just because something is necessary does not mean it is good. Necessary evils abound. Indeed, every law is at best a necessary evil, even if the law in question applies more to businesses rather than individuals.



MichaelK said:


> It wasn't untill the system was basically completely built out that the government decided that ATT was evil for being a monopoly and then set out to DESTROY the company.


That's a revisionist history. AT&T was positively *thrilled* to be rid of its local franchises. At the time, they were not profitable (in part because AT&T was required to provide local service to anyone no matter how much it cost them), and the long distance business was subsidizing the cost of the local operations.



MichaelK said:


> And the interesting thing is that for phone service (or maybe even utilities as a whole) maybe a monopoly is a good idea- since it seems for the most part that the broken up phone market really is now in the hands of just a few players even after having been in the hands of tens of company's at one point.


That's not cogent at all. The fact something may be true, may come to pass, or even may be inevitable in no way argues that it may be a good thing. Sooner or later, I am going to die. It is an inevitable fact. While there are those who may argue with me about just how bad such an event will be, and while I am not in the least inclined to prove the statement, it is nonetheless inarguably true and arguably (at least by me) bad.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

MichaelK said:


> I've been paying attention- I know your defination of monopoly. AND I AGREE WITH IT.
> 
> BUT FOR PAY TV- I am of the general opinion that there is NOT any monopoly except for some very small subsets of the country. Directv, Dish, and cable duke it out pretty good in my mind. Just look at the numbers- directv has 18 million subs. Dish has like 13 million. that's about 1/4 to 1/3rd of the tv housholds (I think neilson says there are a a bit over 100 million households). But we can agree to disagree onthat point. It is what it is. If you dont think Direct and Dish have any sway then we just plain disagree- I happen to think they do.
> 
> ...


I can agree to disagree on your conclusions, there are reasonable doubts. Just as I think my conclusions are reasonable. And the whole digital communication is still basically in its childhood (I think its been around long enough to be out of the infancy stage LOL) There are definite differences (now) but I think that in a relatively short time those differences will start to fade. That is why net neutrality is important.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

Stormspace said:


> Satellite service can't be considered competition in this sense mainly because of the high cost of adoption. Sure, you can occasionally find a bundle deal, but typically you have to invest in the equipment to receive the signal. This is onerous on the user due to the excessive cost. Cable on the other hand has a very low cost of adoption and all TV's are capable of receiving the signal out of the box.
> 
> IIRC satellite also requires a separate box for every TV in the home with a limit of two boxes per dish. So for a house with 4 sets the cost doubles. Not to mention the wiring requirements for a house with sat service is different since the TV's sometimes have to be wired in series. That may have changed, but the last house we were in we had to rewire it because the previous owners had sat service.


You might want to check again. Directv (probably dish too) has had no equipment to buy & no start-up costs for several years (I think you have to commit to a contract?) and with multi switches you can hook up any number of receivers to a single dish. The only additional wiring changes you might want to have (but isn't required if you only want to watch 1 channel) is 2 cables to each set, so you could record channels with different polarities at the same time. Even that isn't required but you would have to buy additional equipment to get around that and the equipment costs a fair amount. you might need a second dish to get locals but that depends on where you are and the signal from the second dish is muxed in with the main dish so there is no additional wires for that.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> Interesting, I thought that trust and monopoly were basically the same thing. But the wiki entry here says that "Eventually the term was used to refer to monopolies in general", but I can see some difference. The devils in the details.


Well, they are philosophically related. One might call one an unbridled "vertical" expansion, and the other a "horizontal" one, as it were. Basically a monopoly may be contained - perhaps temporarily - geographically through whatever means, while a trust may be restrained to a specific fraction of each market, but may expand into many markets. In short, a monopoly is basically the "only game in town", but may be limited to just one town. A trust may be only one of many providers in a town, but may have its teeth in to lots and lots of towns. Of course AT&T prior to divestiture was both, being a service provider in almost every city in the entire U.S. and having a virtual 100% penetration into every market they serviced. Part of the problem with being either one is it makes it easy, perhaps almost irresistible, to become the other.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

lrhorer said:


> Well, they are philosophically related. One might call one an unbridled "vertical" expansion, and the other a "horizontal" one, as it were. Basically a monopoly may be contained - perhaps temporarily - geographically through whatever means, while a trust may be restrained to a specific fraction of each market, but may expand into many markets. In short, a monopoly is basically the "only game in town", but may be limited to just one town. A trust may be only one of many providers in a town, but may have its teeth in to lots and lots of towns. Of course AT&T prior to divestiture was both, being a service provider in almost every city in the entire U.S. and having a virtual 100% penetration into every market they serviced. Part of the problem with being either one is it makes it easy, perhaps almost irresistible, to become the other.


That's food for thought.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> Satellite service can't be considered competition in this sense mainly because of the high cost of adoption.


This directly contradicts the decision of the US Court of Appeals, and as such everything you based on this faulty premise is unsupportable as well. Satellite service is competition in all senses, and any failure to integrate that into regulatory considerations is indefensible, as a matter of law.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

JWThiers said:


> You might want to check again. Directv (probably dish too) has had no equipment to buy & no start-up costs for several years (I think you have to commit to a contract?) and with multi switches you can hook up any number of receivers to a single dish. The only additional wiring changes you might want to have (but isn't required if you only want to watch 1 channel) is 2 cables to each set, so you could record channels with different polarities at the same time. Even that isn't required but you would have to buy additional equipment to get around that and the equipment costs a fair amount. you might need a second dish to get locals but that depends on where you are and the signal from the second dish is muxed in with the main dish so there is no additional wires for that.


That is definitely news to me. We looked at sat service several years ago, and I've been looking at the ads in the local papers and still see equipment costs in the installation fees. Is it just one provider that doesn't have the equipment costs? Maybe it's different in your area?

2 years ago my daughter got Dish and I'm certain they had to pay for the equipment.

Either way, if they've stopped charging for equipment that's a good thing.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Looks like Dish has their own copy protection racket going.

I also found quite easily on the DirecTV site that there are no equipment costs, but on the Dish site I wasn't able to find that easily.

Also an observation. Choosing satellite service appears to be entirely more involved than cable with equipment, channel, and service selection. There also appear to be fees for everything imaginable from support to insurance?

Granted I only spent 10 minutes on each site, but it's certainly looks confusing at first glance. It's certainly not the easy choice and I wouldn't pick it with out doing some serious research before taking the plunge.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Stormspace said:


> .......Also an observation. Choosing satellite service appears to be entirely more involved than cable with equipment, channel, and service selection. There also appear to be fees for everything imaginable from support to insurance?
> 
> Granted I only spent 10 minutes on each site, but it's certainly looks confusing at first glance. It's certainly not the easy choice and I wouldn't pick it with out doing some serious research before taking the plunge.


More confusing than my TWC lineup web page ? I haven't found anyone yet who considered it useful -- including TWC reps! Just determining what channels I'm supposed to get - by any means - is difficult.

More confusing than CableCARDS and Tuning Adapters and all their associated problems and installation issues? (Unless you're one of the lucky ones who never have problems with these devices.) Of course these TiVo-specific issues don't count if you're making a general comparison between cable and satellite, i.e., for non-TiVo users. (Which you were.)


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

Stormspace said:


> Looks like Dish has their own copy protection racket going.


At least they're doing it right and allowing a one time move to a PocketDish, whatever that is.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

dlfl said:


> More confusing than my TWC lineup web page ? I haven't found anyone yet who considered it useful -- including TWC reps! Just determining what channels I'm supposed to get - by any means - is difficult.
> 
> More confusing than CableCARDS and Tuning Adapters and all their associated problems and installation issues? (Unless you're one of the lucky ones who never have problems with these devices.) Of course these TiVo-specific issues don't count if you're making a general comparison between cable and satellite, i.e., for non-TiVo users. (Which you were.)


Touché


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

JWThiers said:


> ... The only additional wiring changes you might want to have (but isn't required if you only want to watch 1 channel) is 2 cables to each set, so you could record channels with different polarities at the same time. Even that isn't required but you would have to buy additional equipment to get around that and the equipment costs a fair amount. ....


the single wire multiswitch doodad still isn't the "normal install"? I haven't been paying attention so i dont know- but at some point I'd think they would just go that route by default.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Stormspace said:


> ....
> 
> Also an observation. Choosing satellite service appears to be entirely more involved than cable with equipment, channel, and service selection. There also appear to be fees for everything imaginable from support to insurance?
> 
> Granted I only spent 10 minutes on each site, but it's certainly looks confusing at first glance. It's certainly not the easy choice and I wouldn't pick it with out doing some serious research before taking the plunge.


that's a joke right?

(I'm kidding myself behing a little sarcastic)

Just read the umpteen threads here about cablecard fees and inconsistant billing that happens all the time with the cable companies.

Cable is movingto "all" digital which will require a box of some sort on every tv. And if you get more than the basic channels an "addtional outlet fee" which is basically that same exact thing as sat's "mirror" feee.

Cable isn't any less confusing when you get into the digital relm. at least dish and directv have one set of uniform pricing and one set of lineups no matter where you are in the country. Every Comcast/cablevision/twc/etc headend seems to price things differently and have differnet channels availible.

when I left directv to go to cable- i needed to make a spreadsheet to try and figure out what I'd pay each month with cable with all thepossible possibilities.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

JWThiers said:


> I can agree to disagree on your conclusions, there are reasonable doubts. Just as I think my conclusions are reasonable. And the whole digital communication is still basically in its childhood (I think its been around long enough to be out of the infancy stage LOL) There are definite differences (now) but I think that in a relatively short time those differences will start to fade. That is why net neutrality is important.


yep- I dont think your conclusions are insane- i just dont agree.

I think that it's still too early to know if the differences will fade in broadband or not. I think much of it depends on what laws and regulations get put into place. Depends on how things shake out with "net neutrality"- it could very well end up that you get a pipe and do with it what you please. On the flip side it might wind up very fragmented and limited depending on the provider. Will certainly be interesting to see what shakes out and then find out what everyone's definition of "net neutrality" is- depends on who you talk to at the moment.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

MichaelK said:


> the single wire multiswitch doodad still isn't the "normal install"? I haven't been paying attention so i dont know- but at some point I'd think they would just go that route by default.


I haven't had a sat since Feb 08 and IIRC the thing (can't recall what it was called) that put it all on 1 wire cost over $100. So I don't think they have made it the normal install. They figure that they have to install at least one run because if the wiring is old they have to replace it anyway and if you are doing one the second run is just the cost of the wire and connectors. its just cheaper overall for DTV to do that if they are paying for the install.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

MichaelK said:


> I think that it's still too early to know if the differences will fade in broadband or not. I think much of it depends on what laws and regulations get put into place. Depends on how things shake out with "net neutrality"- it could very well end up that you get a pipe and do with it what you please. On the flip side it might wind up very fragmented and limited depending on the provider. Will certainly be interesting to see what shakes out and then find out what everyone's definition of "net neutrality" is- depends on who you talk to at the moment.


Agreed, its still very early, but I'm hopeful.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

I'm getting tired of our elected officials and judiciary being so stupid about technology. It seems like every company with something to protect piles on DRM and then convinces lawmakers it's a good thing, knowing full well that milllions of sheeple won't complain and those that do will be such a small minority nothing will get done to change things....


----------



## DougJohnson (Dec 12, 2006)

Stormspace said:


> I'm getting tired of our elected officials and judiciary being so stupid about technology. It seems like every company with something to protect piles on DRM and then convinces lawmakers it's a good thing, knowing full well that milllions of sheeple won't complain and those that do will be such a small minority nothing will get done to change things....


"Sheeple" is such a grand word. It lets the user show how much smarter and more insightful he is than the unwashed masses. -- Doug


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Use of the word "sheeple" does smack of an arrogance on the part of the person using the word, essentially displaying inexcusable disrespect for others who might hold to different beliefs and values, have different priorities, or simply feel that consumerism isn't the be-all and end-all of existence, and that the rights of property ownership have merit.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

I disagree. I truly think that companies and lobbyists take into account how many people will be effected and what the push back will be when they push for legislation. So sheeple in this sense is everyone that is going about their lives without knowing better until the wolf is at their door. How many people have we seen come on this forum and ask where the copy protection is coming from? They had no clue these things were being done.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

This isn't the only consumer concern there is -- people encounter such situations at least once every day or so. Just as consumerism is pervasive, consumers encountering asset protection is pervasive. There is no way you can claim that it is a big shocker to anybody. So what do people do? Do they vote more and more consistently for the candidate who most favors consumerists? No. Quite the opposite. People are voting more and more consistently for the candidate who favors a healthy business environment that fosters jobs, fosters the value of investments, keeps taxes as low as possible. Both political parties are offering that perspective now, because Americans generally agree about those things.

People aren't stupid. They just don't value what you want them to value.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

bicker said:


> This isn't the only consumer concern there is -- people encounter such situations at least once every day or so. Just as consumerism is pervasive, consumers encountering asset protection is pervasive. There is no way you can claim that it is a big shocker to anybody. So what do people do? Do they vote more and more consistently for the candidate who most favors consumerists? No. Quite the opposite. People are voting more and more consistently for the candidate who favors a healthy business environment that fosters jobs, fosters the value of investments, keeps taxes as low as possible. Both political parties are offering that perspective now, because Americans generally agree about those things.
> 
> People aren't stupid. They just don't value what you want them to value.


No, People aren't stupid. I do think our law makers and judiciary don't understand technology issues and believe lobbyists and others that "explain" it to them from only a business perspective.

Just an example of unintended consequences and our lawmakers not thinking things through is the DVD encryption on public domain works that makes it illegal to copy something that is freely copyable. Chillingeffects.org lists some of the other issues with the DMCA. This is just one example of a pro business effort that has effects people either didn't think of, or didn't expect when the legislation was passed. So now that it has we have to live with it.

I fear the same is happening to cable television, its just that TiVo users are the first to feel it.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> I fear the same is happening to cable television, its just that TiVo users are the first to feel it.


My fear is that we will completely lose the ability to record TV onto removable media. The intent of the regulations absolutely was to preserve that ability, but the shift from VCRs to DVRs has basically already made us lose it (since "copy once" is a lot more restrictive for a DVR than for a D-VHS recorder).


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

Stormspace said:


> No, People aren't stupid. I do think our law makers and judiciary don't understand technology issues and believe lobbyists and others that "explain" it to them from only a business perspective. ..... I fear the same is happening to cable television, its just that TiVo users are the first to feel it.


The reason TiVo users are the ones who feel it is because of the way TiVo implemented MRV. Except for TiVo users nobody else has the problem with the copy flags. Why should law makers or judiciary change the law or all the "Sheeple" (the rest of us) care about the problems TiVo users have?
Much easier fix is for TiVo users to try to influence TiVo to fix a problem by implementing streaming or for TiVo users to switch to the different DVR if copy flags are the major issue for them.
You have to realize that TiVo users are just another special interest group and unless this special interest group can come up with justifiable reason to lobby law makers to change the law, the only solution to the problem is to be proactive and either work with TiVo or walk away from TiVo.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Brainiac 5 said:


> My fear is that we will completely lose the ability to record TV onto removable media. The intent of the regulations absolutely was to preserve that ability,


there was never any ruling that was about a right to record to removable media. It was a ruling that fair use allowed for recording in home to watch by that household at a a later time.

The copy once flag is legit but the broadcasters are applying it wholesale against even the content owners wishes.
However Samo is correct that stand alone DVR users that employ cable cards (soon to include MS media center) are a small special interest group and they really have no right to expect they can copy something after initial recording. This really needs a technology solution versus a rule change, especially since the tech solution is already shown to be viable.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> there was never any ruling that was about a right to record to removable media. It was a ruling that fair use allowed for recording in home to watch by that household at a a later time.


Well, there was a ruling concerning making backup copies of computer disks. I'm not sure how specific the language was, but taken broadly, it might cover the same intent.

Part of the problem, however, is technology is moving faster than lawmaking. This in and of itself presents a problem, but even setting legal coverage aside, I think it breeds a sort of paranoia on the part of all concerned. Each interested party is not only wanting to make sure they get everything they don't yet know they want, but they are also worried that one of the other parties is going to be able to take what they think might be unfair advantage of something of whch no one has yet thought. The result is a mess.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

+1 :up:


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> Well, there was a ruling concerning making backup copies of computer disks. I'm not sure how specific the language was, but taken broadly, it might cover the same intent.


The limitation on exclusive rights of copyright owners does *not* extend beyond computer programs:
TITLE 17, CHAPTER 1, § 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: *Computer programs*

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a *computer program* to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the *computer program* in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the *computer program* should cease to be rightful.​


lrhorer said:


> Part of the problem, however, is technology is moving faster than lawmaking.


No it isn't. That's a rationalization. The law addresses such current topics as secondary transmission by satellite carriers, underserved localities (such as Bristol County, MA), etc. The law is not vague or cagey about this. 
Subject to sections 107 through 122, *the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following*:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.​
Sections 107 through 122 list specific exclusions, each one serving a public good. The only leg that pirates have to stand on in this regard is the Sony-Betamax decision which tried to justify unauthorized copying using the Fair Use Doctrine, apparently asserting that making a durable copy of a movie for later viewing actually qualified as "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching..., scholarship, or research".  Rest assured that if any aspect of Sony-Betamax ever makes it back to the Supreme Court for review, it'll be overturned. Remember who voted for Sony-Betamax: 

Stevens - Still serving.
Burger - Succeeded by William Rehnquist, who almost always voted "with the prosecution in criminal cases, with business in antitrust cases, with employers in labor cases, and with the government in speech cases". 
Brennan - Replaced by David Souter, so that's probably a wash.
White - Replaced by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, so that's probably a wash.
O'Connor - replaced by Samuel Alito appointed by George W. Bush. As a government lawyer, Alito urged President Reagan to veto a consumer protection bill.
So a 5-4 decision, now with at least two of those five justices now replaced by less consumerist justices... you do the math.

The reality is that if I own something, such as the right to make copies of a video presentation, I should be able to offer licenses to view that video presentation with any terms and conditions whatsoever. It's mine. I own that right completely and without encumbrance. And if someone doesn't like the terms and conditions, then they can refuse my offer and do without it.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> there was never any ruling that was about a right to record to removable media. It was a ruling that fair use allowed for recording in home to watch by that household at a a later time.


I purposefully didn't use the word "right" for just that reason. However, we had the ability to record to removable media before, and the regulations were written thinking that we'd be recording to D-VHS digital tape, which was removable. They absolutely intended to allow (and do allow) D-VHS to work.



> The copy once flag is legit but the broadcasters are applying it wholesale against even the content owners wishes.


In the scenario that was originally envisioned, we'd record to D-VHS and "copy once" would not have been as restrictive. For instance, you could take the tape to any room of your house; we wouldn't need MRV.



> However Samo is correct that stand alone DVR users that employ cable cards (soon to include MS media center) are a small special interest group and they really have no right to expect they can copy something after initial recording.


Yes, it was never intended that you could make a second-generation copy, that's why we have the "copy once" AKA "copy one generation" value. However, the rules were meant to more or less keep the status quo with respect to what you could legally do before; because of the shift from VCRs to DVRs, we've lost some of the abilities we had before.



> This really needs a technology solution versus a rule change, especially since the tech solution is already shown to be viable.


Well, either a technology solution _or_ a rules change would do. A reasonable rules change might be to allow "copy once" programs to be copied to other (non-removable media) DVRs in the same house, enabling MRV. But it's true that a technical solution would be easier than re-negotiating how the copy flags work.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Brainiac 5 said:


> I purposefully didn't use the word "right" for just that reason. However, we had the ability to record to removable media before, and the regulations were written thinking that we'd be recording to D-VHS digital tape, which was removable. They absolutely intended to allow (and do allow) D-VHS to work.
> 
> In the scenario that was originally envisioned, we'd record to D-VHS and "copy once" would not have been as restrictive. For instance, you could take the tape to any room of your house; we wouldn't need MRV.


I am reasonably sure the rules had no regard for removable media or the ability to move it around in the house. You indeed did not say right but you did use the phrase "The intent of the regulations absolutely was to preserve that ability" and that is incorrect. I think removable media is just a red herring in this conversation.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

bicker said:


> The reality is that if I own something, such as the right to make copies of a video presentation, I should be able to offer licenses to view that video presentation with any terms and conditions whatsoever. It's mine. I own that right completely and without encumbrance. And if someone doesn't like the terms and conditions, then they can refuse my offer and do without it.


I strongly disagee. The reason copyright even exists is because the Constitution says:

_To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;_​
But special interests always prevail over *We the People*. So "limited Times" has been corrupted into "forever". Half of Disney's DVDs wouldn't exist if they weren't allowed to steal the story from works in the public domain. And yet we now have eternal copyright duration.

You can own something forever, and attach "any terms and conditions whatsoever" to it. Just don't ask me and my tax dollars to enforce that right for you forever. You have bribed the legislators and in doing so violated the terms of the deal you made with the people, so *F*** Y***. (Not you personally, just the concept of unlimited duration of copyright). That's why I don't give a flying f*** about all the pirating that goes on. The media companies deserve it. I, however, choose not to participate mainly because I'm not "judgement proof", and not because I think Disney is in the right.

We can discuss this further just as soon as I can get a legal public domain copy of _Casablanca_ or _It's a Wonderful Life._ It's been long enough.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> I am reasonably sure the rules had no regard for removable media or the ability to move it around in the house. You indeed did not say right but you did use the phrase "The intent of the regulations absolutely was to preserve that ability" and that is incorrect.


The second quote is not actually a quote - I said "They absolutely intended to allow (and do allow) D-VHS to work." That is, you are allowed to record a "copy once" program onto D-VHS, which is a removable media. I agree that the rules don't mention removable vs. non-removable media, but on the other hand, they were purposefully written in such a way as to allow a particular example of removable media, D-VHS.



> I think removable media is just a red herring in this conversation.


It's tangential to the points that many people are making, yes. I mentioned it in response to Stormspace talking about unintended consequences - it's an example of us no longer being able to do some things that we used to be able to do, without anyone ever deciding that we wanted to take those things away.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> But special interests always prevail over *We the People*. So "limited Times" has been corrupted into "forever". Half of Disney's DVDs wouldn't exist if they weren't allowed to steal the story from works in the public domain. And yet we now have eternal copyright duration.





> That's why I don't give a flying f*** about all the pirating that goes on. The media companies deserve it.


But the question of duration is separate from whether we should have copyright at all. Or do you only think pirating older works is okay, that would be in the public domain without the extensions? What about new works that would be copyrighted even if the duration had never been extended? I think copyright is desirable, for the reasons put forth in the constitution, and I wouldn't want to throw the baby out with the bath water.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

hmmm... "....*useful* arts..." hmmm.....

And we're talking about cable tv programming, right?

In addtion to "limited" getting stretched to "eternal", it seems some other stretching has been done. 

EDIT: Ok! Ok! I know it must be useful or we wouldn't pay for it.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Brainiac 5 said:


> My fear is that we will completely lose the ability to record TV onto removable media. *The intent of the regulations absolutely was to preserve that ability,* but the shift from VCRs to DVRs has basically already made us lose it (since "copy once" is a lot more restrictive for a DVR than for a D-VHS recorder).





Brainiac 5 said:


> The second quote is not actually a quote - I said "They absolutely intended to allow (and do allow) D-VHS to work."


 I bolded it for you. you clearly were saying the regulations intended for consumers to keep the ability to record to removable media.



> That is, you are allowed to record a "copy once" program onto D-VHS, which is a removable media. I agree that the rules don't mention removable vs. non-removable media,


 then stop arguing that they were. The rules were merely about the consumer's ability to make use of technology to record a show and have it available to play back for that household at a later time. No place shifting mentioned though that was just inherent in the technology of the time. Also again technology will allow for removable media in the form of a DVD recorder or D-vhs or plain old VHS or even a Sony Betamax if you want.

The rules simply are not about MRV.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> Rest assured that if any aspect of Sony-Betamax ever makes it back to the Supreme Court for review, it'll be overturned.


So much for Stare Decisis. While you are correct about the fair uses you listed, according to wikipedia, The Supreme Court specifically ruled that



> the making of individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time-shifting does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use.


Usually, unless the previous supreme court ruling is so far off base that it is constitutionally laughable (and even then they try to shy away from it if possible) the courts would say something along the lines of that is settled law. And even when they do revisit a case they tend to look specifically at a NEW aspect of the case. They have been dodging Roe v Wade for years this way, why would they revisit time-shifting TV shows, when it is spelled out so specifically? I'm not saying they couldn't revisit it I just don't think they would.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

dlfl said:


> hmmm... "....*useful* arts..." hmmm.....
> 
> And we're talking about cable tv programming, right?
> 
> ...


"Eternal" might be stretching it but I think originally a copyright was for 7 years. That has changed to be what is it now? The life of the original rights holder plus how many years? 50? that will change again once mickey gets close to that. It might as well be eternal.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

That abortion of justice was so egregious that it does qualify as "constitutionally laughable". Rest assured, that one would be effectively overturned if the Supreme Court got their shot at it... they might not set aside the previous decision out-of-hand, but would establish some differentiator (probably "digital") to qualify their effectively reversing the impact of Sony-Betamax.

Mark my words.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> We can discuss this further just as soon as I can get a legal public domain copy of _Casablanca_ or _It's a Wonderful Life._ It's been long enough.


record either off TV, the main reason they play them so much is because they are public domain and thus no need to pay content owner a fee any longer


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> record either off TV, the main reason they play them so much is because they are public domain and thus no need to pay content owner a fee any longer


No, neither of those movies are in the public domain.

It's a Wonderful Life was thought to be in the public domain at one time because the copyright had not been properly renewed, but in 1993 Republic Pictures successfully asserted copyright over it on the grounds that it was a derivative work of the story "The Greatest Gift," which was still under copyright.

The copyright for Casablanca is currently held by Turner Entertainment.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

> the making of individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time-shifting does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use.


So what is your problem? Making copy of the program to your DVR for the time-shifting is allowed. Making second copy for MRV or archiving is for your convenience and it is not protected right under fair use.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

Brainiac 5 said:


> No, neither of those movies are in the public domain.
> 
> It's a Wonderful Life was thought to be in the public domain at one time because the copyright had not been properly renewed, but in 1993 Republic Pictures successfully asserted copyright over it on the grounds that it was a derivative work of the story "The Greatest Gift," which was still under copyright.
> 
> The copyright for Casablanca is currently held by Turner Entertainment.


You do realise that you are arguing about the movies that can be purchased for under $10? And that would include copyright and media.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> I bolded it for you. you clearly were saying the regulations intended for consumers to keep the ability to record to removable media.


Thanks, I see what you mean. I think we're splitting hairs here - perhaps the statement that they intended to keep the ability to record to removable media is too strong, but on the other hand, they did not intend to outlaw it either. They fully intended to allow D-VHS, which uses removable media. In the post you mentioned, what I was trying to express is that as the rules stand today, you are allowed to record to removable media (D-VHS), and I would find it regrettable if we lose that ability completely.



> then stop arguing that they were. The rules were merely about the consumer's ability to make use of technology to record a show and have it available to play back for that household at a later time. No place shifting mentioned though that was just inherent in the technology of the time.





> The rules simply are not about MRV.


I never meant to say that they were, or that they explicitly allowed place shifting. What I meant to say is that there are currently legal ways to do place shifting, and I hope that doesn't change even though it looks like it might.



> Also again technology will allow for removable media in the form of a DVD recorder or D-vhs or plain old VHS or even a Sony Betamax if you want.


Currently, D-VHS is dead to most people. Even though there are rules requiring cable companies to provide boxes with a functional Firewire port (required for D-VHS), most cable companies do not, and the FCC doesn't do anything about it. Plain old VHS and Betamax are not manufactured anymore. There's still the DVD recorder, as you say, but that's pretty much the only thing left (and it's clearly not as good as D-VHS, which can record HD).


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

samo said:


> You do realise that you are arguing about the movies that can be purchased for under $10? And that would include copyright and media.


Sorry, I didn't actually mean to argue - I'm not agreeing with Phantom Gremlin. I just wanted to correct a fact.

I suppose I often confuse people by pointing out things that may be considered detrimental to my "side" of a discussion. I'm a middle-of-the-road guy, so even though I may be on one side of an issue, I still think it's important to understand the other side and to remember that not everything someone on that side says is automatically wrong.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> That abortion of justice was so egregious that it does qualify as "constitutionally laughable". Rest assured, that one would be effectively overturned if the Supreme Court got their shot at it... they might not set aside the previous decision out-of-hand, but would establish some differentiator (probably "digital") to qualify their effectively reversing the impact of Sony-Betamax.
> 
> Mark my words.


Your entitled to your opinion, I don't think they would take it up again in the first place, given how it was ruled so explicately.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

Actually thinking it thru, right now nothing is preventing the rights holders from make an infringement case right now. Fair use is a defense for a claim of infringement, and as the Fair use wiki points out under "Common Misunderstandings" (I love wiki for plain language definitions of complex subjects.)



> Fair use interpretations, once made, are static forever. Fair use is decided on a case by case basis, on the entirety of circumstances. The same act done by different means or for a different purpose can gain or lose fair use status. Even repeating an identical act at a different point in time can make a difference due to changing social, technological, or other surrounding circumstances.


I know you don't agree with that from previous discussions but it does support your notion that "Digital" is a differentiator. It is a change to the technological circumstances. And I could see that as a valid point if they wanted to pursue it. Of course it would have to work its way thru the courts again and how any court decides anything these days is beyond me so who knows. I don't see what damage has been done in any event. If anything it expands the viewing audience giving more opportunity to advertisers.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> I don't see what damage has been done in any event. If anything it expands the viewing audience giving more opportunity to advertisers.


Except that when you record a show and watch it later, you can skip past the advertisements.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

Brainiac 5 said:


> Sorry, I didn't actually mean to argue - I'm not agreeing with Phantom Gremlin. I just wanted to correct a fact.
> 
> I suppose I often confuse people by pointing out things that may be considered detrimental to my "side" of a discussion. I'm a middle-of-the-road guy, so even though I may be on one side of an issue, I still think it's important to understand the other side and to remember that not everything someone on that side says is automatically wrong.


+1+1+1 :up::up::up:


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

Brainiac 5 said:


> Except that when you record a show and watch it later, you can skip past the advertisements.


The operative word is CAN skip past commercials I usually do but not always and this has been happening for a while, which is why you are see more product placement advertising in shows. Notice how its Coke and Pepsi not cola.

Also if ANYONE is not skipping the commercials that is 1 more set of eyes that saw the commercial rather than NONE because we couldn't time shift. If you were an advertiser would you rather have some of the time shifters, rather than none of the people who couldn't time shift.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

bicker said:


> Rest assured that if any aspect of Sony-Betamax ever makes it back to the Supreme Court for review, it'll be overturned.


I can think of other Supreme Court decisions that are on pretty thin ice, but have stood for quite some time...

Anyway, did the decision allow anything other than recording from TV and watching it later? Even if the decision was overturned, I don't think that's going to go away - Congress would pass something to make it explicitly legal. For one reason, there are too many businesses built around recording TV (TiVo being an example).


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

Brainiac 5 said:


> I can think of other Supreme Court decisions that are on pretty thin ice, but have stood for quite some time...
> 
> Anyway, did the decision allow anything other than recording from TV and watching it later? Even if the decision was overturned, I don't think that's going to go away - Congress would pass something to make it explicitly legal. For one reason, there are too many businesses built around recording TV (TiVo being an example).


Agree 100%


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

> If you were an advertiser would you rather have some of the time shifters, rather than none of the people who couldn't time shift.


Unfortunately that may be assuming that they are more logical than they are. 

Although seriously, it's true that Neilson is now providing more data about people who time shift, so maybe advertisers will take that into account when deciding how much to pay for time. But traditionally, they've just assumed that time shifters won't watch the commercials and therefore aren't worth anything to them as viewers.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

Brainiac 5 said:


> Unfortunately that may be assuming that they are more logical than they are.


So true


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Brainiac 5 said:


> they've just assumed that time shifters won't watch the commercials and therefore aren't worth anything to them as viewers.


depends on the type of ad - those veteran day sales ads are pretty worthless right now - no matter the extra eyeballs from time shifting after Wednesday.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Brainiac 5 said:


> I can think of other Supreme Court decisions that are on pretty thin ice, but have stood for quite some time...


And some that were overturned, reversed, or effectively obviated.



Brainiac 5 said:


> Anyway, did the decision allow anything other than recording from TV and watching it later? Even if the decision was overturned, I don't think that's going to go away - Congress would pass something to make it explicitly legal. For one reason, there are too many businesses built around recording TV (TiVo being an example).


Yes, but it would put to bed, once and for all, the notion that durable copies, or moving of copies, are protected from infringement claims.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

Brainiac 5 said:


> But the question of duration is separate from whether we should have copyright at all. Or do you only think pirating older works is okay, that would be in the public domain without the extensions? What about new works that would be copyrighted even if the duration had never been extended? I think copyright is desirable, for the reasons put forth in the constitution, and I wouldn't want to throw the baby out with the bath water.


Of course I believe in copyright, without it there would be no way that eye candy like Transformers could ever get funded. We would only have movies like the recent one that's still out there (about the haunted house), which I believe cost $15,000 to make.

But I think maybe a duration of say 20 years would be reasonable. By then, a company will have extracted at least 80% of the "economic value" of the film. The public then gets unfettered rights to the movie, as a result of paying for the guns and the sheriffs and the judges needed to enforce copyright for those 20 years.

And don't forget that copyright can be "renewed" in a new medium. E.g. after 20 years I get all rights to a movie I own on DVD. But I don't own the original masters. So if someone like Spielberg wants to dig into the vaults and remaster Star Wars, then he gets another 20 years for the new version. Or, something like Blu Ray comes along. If a studio creates a new, higher quality transfer to the new medium, they now have 20 year protection on the new work (but not on the original I own on DVD). Sadly, something this common sense won't happen as long as companies can bribe people like Duke Cunningham and William Jefferson outright, and give millions in legal bribes aka "campaign contributions" to the rest of congress.

As for pirating, that's simple. There is no honor among thieves. Disney steals from the whole country, so I think it's OK for amoral slackers to steal from Disney. As Zathras might say: "at least there is symmetry".


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

samo said:


> You do realise that you are arguing about the movies that can be purchased for under $10? And that would include copyright and media.


Yes, but although "bicker" is the only one on TiVo Community with a "copyright" on that screen name, he's not the only one with that gene.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

bicker said:


> Yes, but it would put to bed, once and for all, the notion that durable copies, or moving of copies, are protected from infringement claims.


If Disney can extend copyright "forever", I should be able to "time shift forever". Fair is fair. Or is that "fair use is fair use"?


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> And some that were overturned, reversed, or effectively obviated.
> 
> Yes, but it would put to bed, once and for all, the notion that durable copies, or moving of copies, are protected from infringement claims.


It would also put to bed the whole notion that time shifting in any form is fair use. So that would mean that there would be no legal way for Tivo to exist, or Moxi, or VCR's, or HTPC or what ever the next device that can time shift OTA TV signals. Where is the line drawn? Is a tivo simply doing time shifting (No MRV, no TTG, no FF thru commercials just watch and delete) is that violation? Overturn that fair use decision and that is violation.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> But I think maybe a duration of say 20 years would be reasonable.


However, we don't each get to make up our own set of laws that we ourselves will abide by. We live in community with others, and laws (_including_ the determination of how long copyright protection endures) are defined in accordance with defined procedures, not by personal fiat of each prospective user.

Personally, I am partial to "death of originator(s) or 40 years, whichever comes later", but it isn't up to me, alone, either.



Phantom Gremlin said:


> Sadly, something this common sense won't happen as long as companies can bribe people like Duke Cunningham and William Jefferson outright, and give millions in legal bribes aka "campaign contributions" to the rest of congress.


That's a cop-out, and only feeds a puerile and illegitimate excuse for transgressing: "Oh woe is me; other people have more political power than I do so I'm going to do what I want." That's nothing but a rationalization for poor behavior, no different from, "Other people have more purchasing power than I do so I'm going to steal from stores." The only difference is that with creative and intellectual works, it is harder to apply enforcement of the law.



Phantom Gremlin said:


> Disney steals from the whole country, so I think it's OK for amoral slackers to steal from Disney.


That is an abusively self-centered and indefensible perspective. *You *don't get to decide that Disney's legal machinations is "stealing" -- it isn't, while *the law defines* that what you're advocating is a *violation*.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> If Disney can extend copyright "forever", I should be able to "time shift forever". Fair is fair. Or is that "fair use is fair use"?


More self-serving claptrap. Again, no one person gets to impose their own personal preferences on the law. The law is the determination of society the product of duly following established procedures for lawmaking, not the product of self-centered opportunism.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> It would also put to bed the whole notion that time shifting in any form is fair use. So that would mean that there would be no legal way for Tivo to exist, or Moxi, or VCR's, or HTPC or what ever the next device that can time shift OTA TV signals.


No... note one word from the message you replied to that you perhaps glossed over: durable. The permitted use (I won't call it "fair use" because that's an abortion of justice) would be the making of *ephemeral* copies. There are already such exclusions in copyright law, written mostly pertaining to commercial rebroadcast. CCI-like technology can be used to ensure compliance. The application of a more general exclusion for ephemeral copies accomplishes all objectives in the public interest: People get to time-shift, and content owners get protection for their property.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> No... note one word from the message you replied to that you perhaps glossed over: durable. The permitted use (I won't call it "fair use" because that's an abortion of justice) would be the making of *ephemeral* copies. There are already such exclusions in copyright law, written mostly pertaining to commercial rebroadcast. CCI-like technology can be used to ensure compliance. The application of a more general exclusion for ephemeral copies accomplishes all objectives in the public interest: People get to time-shift, and content owners get protection for their property.


All the Sony betamax case did was affirm that recording a television show for the purposes of time shifting wasn't a violation of copyright (it also said that VTR makers aren't liable for illegal use of a VTR). Whether you call it "permitted use" (your term) or "fair use" (the Supreme Courts term) isn't the point. Without that decision, the rights holders could just as easily as not say "As rights holders we don't want you to be able to record any of our programs for time shifting purposes. We hold exclusive rights as to how our content is used and displayed and since time shifting isn't fair use we don't have to allow it." That is what Universal City Studios was arguing during Betamax. Its their content and it is a violation of copyright law for Sony to manufacture a device that infringes on their rights. Rather than rewrite law which courts can't or shouldn't do, the courts interpreted recording for the purpose time-shifting to be a fair use. which is the term that is already included in the law.

Believe it or not, I'm all for reasonable copyright restrictions. I don't have the right to distribute content, make public showings of content, etc. But I do think that I have a right to time shift content under permitted/fair use. I also think that there are ways to allow things like MRV while still protecting legitimate concerns of the rights holders (ie, stream or move content so only 1 usable copy exists at a time). While you are advocating for the concept of permitted use being the making of ephemeral (nice word by the way) copies. How long should you be allowed to keep these short lived copies? a day, a week a month, 3 months, 6 months, more? Personally, I generally don't keep anything I record from TV for more than a month or so. OK I've had Schindlers list for several months, but every time I sit down to watch it something pops up and I can't finish it. I'd probably keep stuff longer If I could move it to a server, but since that isn't an option right now I'll suffer thru. How long do you keep content recorded from TV?


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

bicker said:


> Yes, but it would put to bed, once and for all, the notion that durable copies, or moving of copies, are protected from infringement claims.


This may be preaching to the choir, but I don't think the existing decision means that those things are protected, and the court could even explicitly rule them not protected without invalidating Sony-Betamax.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> As Zathras might say: "at least there is symmetry".


But no one ever listens to poor Zathras, no.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Brainiac 5 said:


> But no one ever listens to poor Zathras, no.


OK, I'll see your Zathras and raise you one Khalil Gibran.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

dlfl said:


> OK, I'll see your Zathras and raise you one Khalil Gibran.


Here's one from him for the forums:

"Exaggeration is truth that has lost its temper."


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

Brainiac 5 said:


> This may be preaching to the choir, but I don't think the existing decision means that those things are protected, and the court could even explicitly rule them not protected without invalidating Sony-Betamax.


Exactly, But things like DMCA and CCI bytes cover that.

But time shifting? Which is what the Betamax case was about? They (The Courts) may (and that's a big may) revisit it because of different circumstances (digital copies now), but IMO that would be a big stretch for reversing the general idea of time-shifting being fair use.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> All the Sony betamax case did was affirm that recording a television show *for the purposes of time shifting *wasn't a violation of copyright


Emphasis added. That supports my contention regarding ephemeral versus durable copying. Regardless of the dispute about the foundation for defending time-shifting, it is a double-abuse to try to use a defense against infringement that is "for the purposes of time-shifting" as a defense against infringement for archival purposes. (Heck, I won't make the argument, but an argument can readily be defended asserting that it is indefensible to try to use a defense against infringement that is "for the purposes of time-shifting" as a defense against infringement for the purposes of place-shifting.)



JWThiers said:


> Believe it or not, I'm all for reasonable copyright restrictions. I don't have the right to distribute content, make public showings of content, etc. But I do think that I have a right to time shift content under permitted/fair use. I also think that there are ways to allow things like MRV while still protecting legitimate concerns of the rights holders (ie, stream or move content so only 1 usable copy exists at a time).


Despite the fact that there might not be a legitimate defense against infringement for the purposes of place-shifting (see above), there *are *ways to allow MRV.... *TiVo* decided not to implement MRV that way. Don't blame content owners for defending their rights when the fault for what you're complaining about rests completely on TiVo's shoulders, due to a specific, arguably ill-advised design decision.



JWThiers said:


> ephemeral (nice word by the way)


Hehe... it's not my word -- as I indicated above, it is already part of the law, just not directed towards the personal/residential context.



JWThiers said:


> How long should you be allowed to keep these short lived copies? a day, a week a month, 3 months, 6 months, more?


The standard for some similar things is 24 hours. Perhaps it should be 24 hours from initiation of playback for the first time.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> Whether you call it "permitted use" (your term) or "fair use" (the Supreme Courts term) isn't the point.


It may not be "the" point but it is "a" point, and an important one: Fair use is 17 USC *107*. I feel time-shifting should have been covered under 17 USC *112*.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

bicker said:


> Don't blame content owners for defending their rights when the fault for what you're complaining about rests completely on TiVo's shoulders, due to a specific, arguably ill-advised design decision.


I don't blame content owners (HBO) for defending their rights. Customers who want an archival copy of True Blood can purchase a DVD. A customer who wants to "time shift" can use HBO VoD or record an episode.

The current price of hard drives is starting to blur the distinction between time shifting and archiving. We can "archive" a lot of shows on our tivo.

I don't think cable companies should have the right to make such decisions. Cable companies don't own the copyright and (JMO) shouldn't have the right to impose restrictions.

*I agree the blame rests with tivo.* Tivo has the option of developing a MRV solution that's legal. Tivo also has the opportunity to lobby congress/FCC for different regulations regarding CCI flags. It's certainly fair to question if a cable company should be allowed to enforce copyright restrictions not authorized by the copyright holder. I think the tivo is in a better position then individual customers to lobby for such a change.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> It may not be "the" point but it is "a" point, and an important one: Fair use is 17 USC *107*. I feel time-shifting should have been covered under 17 USC *112*.


Not to be flip about it it really doesn't matter where you or me thinks it should be covered, the Supreme Court said time shifting is fair use, legally that makes it fair use. If you or Universal, HBO, CBS, ... thinks the Supreme Court made a filing error, I'm sure there is a mechanism to address it. But honestly it doesn't matter to me where its covered, the point is that its covered somewhere.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> ... the Supreme Court said time shifting is fair use, legally that makes it fair use.


True, but to be clear, only five of them said it. It was a 5-4 decision. It still "counts" for sure, and the determination is pretty much without defense on the merits AFAIC, so a different Supreme Court (such as the one we have today) would probably not agree, and my earlier point was that I believe if given the chance they'd actually "fix" the bad decision.



JWThiers said:


> If you or Universal, HBO, CBS, ... thinks the Supreme Court made a filing error, I'm sure there is a mechanism to address it. But honestly it doesn't matter to me where its covered, the point is that its covered somewhere.


It does matter, because of the manner in which people are beginning to exploit other ramifications of the "filing error".


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

bicker said:


> I believe if given the chance they'd actually "fix" the bad decision.
> 
> It does matter, because of the manner in which people are beginning to exploit other ramifications of the "filing error".


And why do you think anything needs to be "fixed"? Don't you know that if "it ain't broken ..."?
I think the way things are now is a very reasonable compromise between rights of copyright holders and consumers.
Consumers can timeshift using either old technology (VCR) or new technology (DVR) and CC flags take care of the potential abuse of the law.
Copyrighted entertainment material costs have been reduced dramatically in past decade and most of the complaints about CC flags are from people who want to get "something for nothing" or chosen to use non-compliant technology like TiVo.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

bicker said:


> True, but to be clear, only five of them said it. It was a 5-4 decision. It still "counts" for sure, and the determination is pretty much without defense on the merits AFAIC, so a different Supreme Court (such as the one we have today) would probably not agree, and my earlier point was that I believe if given the chance they'd actually "fix" the bad decision.


Wow. That path leads to nothing but chaos. There are many 5-4 decisions I agree with and am thankful for. There are many I strongly disagree with. Thankfully for both sides, relatively few decisions get "fixed" in the way you're advocating.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

samo said:


> And why do you think anything needs to be "fixed"? Don't you know that if "it ain't broken ..."?
> I think the way things are now is a very reasonable compromise between rights of copyright holders and consumers.


I agree. If they change the law and "fix" things, then only us law abiding citizens get screwed. 
The pirates will just keep on doing what they do.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> True, but to be clear, only five of them said it. It was a 5-4 decision. It still "counts" for sure, and the determination is pretty much without defense on the merits AFAIC, so a different Supreme Court (such as the one we have today) would probably not agree, and my earlier point was that I believe if given the chance they'd actually "fix" the bad decision.


I seriously doubt even if the court was made up entirely of 9 Scalia's or Alito's would they revisit any case unless their was proof of real harm being done. In that vein, that bad decision helped spawn a multi-billion dollar industry. So I doubt that even anyone in the entertainment industry could with a straight face, seriously claim that time shifting TV programs harmed them more than it helped them and prove it, given how the case was argued headed at the time. Could it have been done differently just as effectively? possibly, maybe even more effectively. But that was how they decided then and the courts are really not to fond of reversing themselves except in cases where real harm is being done, as opposed to them being philosophically opposed to a ruling. Otherwise every decision would be re-decided every time there was a philosophical change in the balance courts. That would lead to chaos in the courts every time a justice retired.


bicker said:


> It does matter, because of the manner in which people are beginning to exploit other ramifications of the "filing error".


You mean there might be unintended consequence to how a law or regulation is written, implemented or interpreted? Interesting concept. I wonder where else that could apply?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

The point you're all missing is how folks are abusing those ramifications to rationalize their piracy. If you're intent on ignoring the selfish conduct and ignoring the disrespect of property rights, then nothing is going to make a difference to you -- until it starts affecting your kid's college funds or your retirement savings.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

If you are saying that if you time shift TV shows and keep the show on our tivo for more than a few days we are all pirates, I guess the point you are missing is that the vast majority of people are NOT pirates. Yes they exist, but they will continue to exist no matter what they do to stop them. 

Using that kind of logic, many crimes are committed by people with guns, lets pass tougher gun control laws. Many people legitimately feel that way, The framers never considered semi automatic handguns or assault rifles when they wrote the second amendment, therefore we need to fix the law because it is obviously not working properly. For the record, I think the second amendment is fine the way it is. If you want a gun (within reason ie no full auto 50 cal machine guns or military grade weapons) more power to ya. But if you commit a crime with a gun I have no sympathy you should go away for a long time.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

I confess I have trouble following all the legal aspects and history that have been discussed here, atlhough I find it interesting and hope I'm learning something.

I don't understand the connection between these legal issues and the kind of piracy that does significant financial damage to copyright holders. My picture is that these seriious pirates could care less what the law says, and CCI flags or any other kind of DRM have little effect on them.

If "piracy" is intended to include someone who makes an archival copy purely for their personal viewing, then I don't see how that does any significant damage to the copyright holders, or to anyone.

Edit: Correction, if the archival copy means the person will not buy the DVD, that hurts the copyright holder. I was biased by my own case: I'm too cheap to buy the DVD, so no damage is done.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> If you are saying that if you time shift TV shows and keep the show on our tivo for more than a few days we are all pirates


No surely not at this time, but I do believe it would be fair for content owners to restrict us to watching what they offer subject to the terms and conditions they elect to include as part of the offer, including a limit on how long we'd be allowed to watch the program. If we don't like it, then we can decline their offer, and do without what they're offering. No harm, no foul.


----------



## dmdeane (Apr 17, 2000)

bicker said:


> The point you're all missing is how folks are abusing those ramifications to rationalize their piracy. If you're intent on ignoring the selfish conduct and ignoring the disrespect of property rights, then nothing is going to make a difference to you -- until it starts affecting your kid's college funds or your retirement savings.


There are no "property rights" under discussion here. There are the very limited monopoly rights granted by the Federal Government as specified in the US Constitution. "Intellectual property rights" have been extended way, way beyond the intent of the writers of the US Constitution. A return to the original intent is far overdue, but that won't happen as long as the corporations are allowed to buy the US Congress and lobbyist are allowed to literally write the law and have Congress rubber-stamp it. The problem here isn't "selfish" TV watchers, the problem is runaway, completely unchecked corruption of our government. Constantly saying "the law is the law and must be obeyed" entirely misses the point.


----------



## alansh (Jan 3, 2003)

Exactly. If they want to make those terms, fine, but they can also give up their government enforced, taxpayer financed monopoly rights.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

dmdeane said:


> There are no "property rights" under discussion here. There are the very limited monopoly rights granted by the Federal Government as specified in the US Constitution. "Intellectual property rights" have been extended way, way beyond the intent of the writers of the US Constitution. A return to the original intent is far overdue, but that won't happen as long as the corporations are allowed to buy the US Congress and lobbyist are allowed to literally write the law and have Congress rubber-stamp it. The problem here isn't "selfish" TV watchers, the problem is runaway, completely unchecked corruption of our government. Constantly saying "the law is the law and must be obeyed" entirely misses the point.





alansh said:


> Exactly. If they want to make those terms, fine, but they can also give up their government enforced, taxpayer financed monopoly rights.


<Sigh>
Ok bicker you win on the monopoly thing people just don't understand what monopolies are and that they aren't illegal. I will refrain from using the term at all in the future but please remember that I do understand the proper usage of the word and if I use it most likely was an error and I most likely forgot about this post, just cough or something and don't take offense.

Anybody have any ketchup for this crow. Can I at least pluck the feathers?


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> No surely not at this time, but I do believe it would be fair for content owners to restrict us to watching what they offer subject to the terms and conditions they elect to include as part of the offer, including a limit on how long we'd be allowed to watch the program. If we don't like it, then we can decline their offer, and do without what they're offering. No harm, no foul.


There is harm. Consumers would have their fair use rights diminished from what current law allows. The Supreme Court said it is fair use to time shift, I am pretty sure they understood EXACTLY what that meant at the time they ruled. They could not foresee what technologies would supplant VTR's so there always is an element of unintended consequences but that goes to any ruling or law or regulation. If the negative consequences ever rise to the level that content owners ever try to sue again and it goes to the Supreme Court again they will have the opportunity to clarify their ruling taking into account the existing conditions if/when the case is ruled on again. Until then, existing law is existing law and time shifting is fair use.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

dlfl said:


> I don't understand the connection between these legal issues and the kind of piracy that does significant financial damage to copyright holders.


Piracy does absolutely no damage whatsoever to copyright holders. It merely prevents them from obtaining as much revenue as they would like, but obtaining revenue is neither a right nor a privilege protected by any law. Piracy is illegal, but financially it is nothing but another type of competition. Companies like to trot out statistics about how much some competitive venue is "costing" them, but it is pure hogwash, the fact it has been bought hook, line and sinker again and again by lawmakers, industry people, and laymen alike notwithstanding. It's totally specious. It "sounds" reasonable, but it is crap, and using the argument as a justification for making pirating illegal is bootstrapping, plain and simple. (Note, there are very good, solid reasons why pirating should be illegal, but a so called "loss" to copyright holders is not one of them.)

In our business sector, AT&T gulps over 100 $billion a year in revenue. We scarf a couple of $billion a year in total revenue. When they go before congress, they talk about how much money we cost them. Well, by the very same token, they cost us $100 Billion a year or more. See how stupid the notion is?



dlfl said:


> Edit: Correction, if the archival copy means the person will not buy the DVD, that hurts the copyright holder.


That's like saying reading a book from the library rather than buying a DVD is pirating. It's utter horse pookey. The copyright and patent environment is very badly broken. A number of industry experts are predicting a total collapse, and there is virtually no one in the middle of it who doesn't think it's a mess. The entire situation is a holdover from 15th and 16th century law, and it was never very workable in the first place.

Here's my $.02 worth:

1. Eliminate patent and copyright restrictions on distribution. Anyone who has the resources should be allowed to distribute product. The copyright / patent holder should not be allowed to determine who can and cannot manufacture and distribute the product. The inventor, author, or artist should be assured they will profit from the distribution of their product. They should *not* be allowed to limit or control that distribution.

2. Eliminate the onus on the copyright or patent owner to enforce their rights. The owner (or anyone else) should be able to report any suspected infringement to the U.S. attorney, and the justice system should handle it from there.

3. Make it a felony, not an actionable item for a civil suit, to avoid paying copyright or patent royalties. Don't just fine them, throw them in jail, right down to the janitor if it can be shown they had any knowledge of the illegal activities of the company. As with any felony, the judge and jury can of course order the guilty party to make restitution to the injured party as part of the judgment.

4. Eliminate the ridiculous restriction forcing the copyright / patent holder to give up their rights if they do not bring action against an entity who infringes on the rights. Such enforcement should be up to the legal system, not the patent holder.

5. Eliminate corporate ownership of patents or copyrights. Require the rights attach to a person or specific group of people, not some corporation. If a company fires one of the principles on a patent, the patent goes with him. With no exceptions, every single company that produces a product should pay royalties. Tying the salary of an employee to that royalty is fine, and making the salary dependent on producing patents or copyrights is also fine. The patent holder should not, however, be allowed to leave the company (voluntarily or otherwise) and subsequently prevent the company from producing the product. Guidelines would need to be established for what constitutes proper royalties for a product based upon volume of sales.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

> Piracy does absolutely no damage whatsoever to copyright holders. It merely prevents them from obtaining as much revenue as they would like, but obtaining revenue is neither a right nor a privilege protected by any law. Piracy is illegal, but financially it is nothing but another type of competition.


What an absurd statement! By your standards shoplifting is also another type of competition because it merely prevents stores from obtaining as much revenue as they would like.
The rest of your "dissertation" is absurd as well, but I'm not going to argue with somebody who just doesn't get it.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

lrhorer said:


> 1. Eliminate patent and copyright restrictions on distribution. Anyone who has the resources should be allowed to distribute product. The copyright / patent holder should not be allowed to determine who can and cannot manufacture and distribute the product. The inventor, author, or artist should be assured they will profit from the distribution of their product. They should *not* be allowed to limit or control that distribution.


I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but you do realize this would take a constitutional amendment right?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dmdeane said:


> There are no "property rights" under discussion here.


Incorrect. A creator of a creative or intellectual work owns that work and has rights to it. It should be noted that those rights are permanent, and transferable. That's the way ownership of property works. The time limit applies only to the point in time after which there is a defense against infringing on those rights... but even after people are allowed to infringe on those rights, the ownership itself still endures. There is no justification whatsoever for ignoring the reality of the property rights for intellectual property.



JWThiers said:


> There is harm. Consumers would have their fair use rights diminished from what current law allows.


Those rights you assert wouldn't be diminished. Consumers can entertain themselves and inform themselves either by paying for the works created by others for that purpose at a market rate, or do without. Again, no harm, no foul.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> Those rights you assert aren't actual. Consumers can entertain themselves and inform themselves either by paying for the works created by others for that purpose at a market rate, or do without. Again, no harm, no foul.


You seem to be saying that changing fair use laws to take away some rights that are currently legally enjoyed by millions of people doesn't harm the millions.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I'm not talking about changing Fair Use. I'm talking about understanding that time-shifting should be permissible under rules already in place for broadcasters and government entities regarding ephemeral copies. That would preclude the self-centered revisionism of that decision's implications that has ensued. As you yourself said, the decision was predicated on the use being for time-shifting, specifically, and therefore it should not be inferred by anyone that that decision gave them any rights beyond time-shifting. It didn't afford viewers place-shifting or archival privileges. It didn't allow purchasers of videotapes or video discs the right to make back-up copies. These selfish actions are often defended on perverse distortions of the law.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

bicker said:


> It should be noted that those rights are permanent, and transferable. That's the way ownership of property works. The time limit applies only to the point in time after which there is a defense against infringing on those rights... but even after people are allowed to infringe on those rights, the ownership itself still endures.


I'm not sure what you're getting at here. You own the copyright; at some point, the copyright expires and there's nothing to own anymore.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Brainiac 5 said:


> I'm not sure what you're getting at here. You own the copyright; at some point, the copyright expires and there's nothing to own anymore.


Agreed. The copyright expires and the work goes into the "public domain". Basically the work is owned by the public at large.

Google is "working around" a lot of copyright laws/and or getting policies changed.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Brainiac 5 said:


> I'm not sure what you're getting at here. You own the copyright; at some point, the copyright expires and there's nothing to own anymore.


No. What you *own* is the creative or informational work -- the intellectual property. Due to that ownership (which does not expire) you are granted a copyright (which does expire). The copyright is a *protection *granted to you by the law for a limited time -- you don't "own" the copyright.



lew said:


> Agreed. The copyright expires and the work goes into the "public domain". Basically the work is owned by the public at large.


That is simply *not *the case. A work going into the public domain simply means it can be used by all. Its ownership is unaffected, except for the fact that such ownership is no longer significant.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

bicker said:


> No. What you *own* is the creative or informational work -- the intellectual property. Due to that ownership (which does not expire) you are granted a copyright (which does expire). The copyright is a *protection *granted to you by the law for a limited time -- you don't "own" the copyright.


I'm afraid I don't agree - do you have some legal reference that uses your interpretation? (I ask out of genuine curiosity.) When you transfer ownership of the work to someone else, the contract will say that you are selling the copyright, and that's what you're doing. What you own is a set of rights with respect to the work. If someone copies your work, what they've stolen is your sole right to make or authorize reproductions of it.



> That is simply *not *the case. A work going into the public domain simply means it can be used by all. Its ownership is unaffected, except for the fact that such ownership is no longer significant.


So you own it, except that after a while you have no rights with respect to it, people say it is "in the public domain," and and in every other way your "ownership" of it is meaningless? Even if you're right, the difference doesn't seem to have any practical consequence. But in any case, again out of curiosity, where does it say that the ownership is permanent?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I refer to dictionaries. For example:*intellectual property* 
Creations of the mind - creative works or ideas embodied in a form that can be shared or can enable others to recreate, emulate, or manufacture them.​The copyright is a separate thing:*copyright*
sole legal right to reproduce an artistic or literary creation​Two separate things.

[Source: USPTO Patent and Trademark Glossary]


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> I'm not talking about changing Fair Use. I'm talking about understanding that time-shifting should be permissible under rules already in place for broadcasters and government entities regarding ephemeral copies. That would preclude the self-centered revisionism of that decision's implications that has ensued. As you yourself said, the decision was predicated on the use being for time-shifting, specifically, and therefore it should not be inferred by anyone that that decision gave them any rights beyond time-shifting. It didn't afford viewers place-shifting or archival privileges. It didn't allow purchasers of videotapes or video discs the right to make back-up copies. These selfish actions are often defended on perverse distortions of the law.


OK I understand that. I would suspect (I'm not a lawyer, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night so this is purely opinion and speculation on my part) that the sections of the law which you are referring don't apply to anyone except broadcasters and government entities. It may seem to make sense now looking back to put it there but would probably require modifying those sections to apply. Looking back at what originally transpired you have to remember that Universal (primarily, others joined in) was trying to get the courts to rule that Sony was libel for damages for enabling copyright infringement by manufacturing and selling Betamax machines. In effect they wanted to stop Sony from making Betamax altogether, not just limit its use they wanted to eliminate its use. In being so aggressive Universal basically opened themselves up to an all or nothing ruling. They forced the courts to decide if there were any legitimate non-infringing uses of a VTR. If the courts had sided with Universal the outcome would have been there would be no VTR machines. Sony would have been forced to stop making Betamax and pay a fine. The only defense Sony could use was Fair Use. If the courts sided with Sony the courts in explaining its decision would have to give an example of a non-infringing use. That I think explains WHY in the courts decision they had to show fair use. As I put it earlier "Filed" or (misfiled in you reply). As to the place shifting and archiving. Again you have to look at how things were when the court made its decision. In order to make a recording you needed a VTR and a tape. They were and are separate. If you record on tape NOTHING prevents you from ejecting the tape and going to a different machine (Place shifting) and NOTHING prevents you from not erasing the tape as soon as you are done watching it in essence archiving. I really don't want to dig into the entire record correlate them with other developments 30 years ago to try to reconstruct actual thinking or state of technology or court testimony. I don't know if its a case of unintended consequences or if they actually thought about place shifting or archiving. Courts are not supposed to make law they examine facts and determine if law has been violated. The case before them at the time was one of copyright infringement and the only defense that could be mounted was fair use. Fair use won.

Now what they could do is try to get laws changed to limit the time you can keep a recording and the rest that you are advocating, but now that 30 years has transpired and the result of that ruling was a multi-billion dollar industry, I think they would have to show some actual harm to change how things are. DMCA and CCI bytes do an effective job on cutting back on the average users ability to move content around whose only concern is being able to watch a show in a different room in his house from the one it was recorded on or who keep an archive copy of it on the off chance they might want to watch it again. In doing the little bit of research that I did do I think this would be called de minimis copying (trivial use and so no infringement). But it does nothing to stop the real pirates that are making hundreds of copies and selling them without permission. In other words they have done a good job of keeping the average consumer from a trivial use infringement, but a poor job of stopping the real violators.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> DMCA and CCI bytes do an effective job ...


Isn't the whole point that people are *attacking *DCMA and the application of CCI bytes? If people weren't railing against the way things are now, this whole discussion would never have taken place.



JWThiers said:


> But it does nothing to stop the real pirates that are making hundreds of copies and selling them without permission.


There are separate measures needed to address that side of the problem. I agree that there should be *different* approaches toward enforcing copyrights with regard to general viewers versus "real" pirates.



JWThiers said:


> In other words they have done a good job of keeping the average consumer from a [isolated*] use infringement, but a poor job of stopping the real violators.


It is inappropriate to measure the effectiveness of something for something it is not intended. Here's an example of the application of an approach toward addressing the transgressions of what you termed "real" pirates:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/08/05/state/n211344D93.DTL&type=business

So copy protection effectively addresses the personal-use transgressor, while "undercover buy" operations are a good example of how to address the wholesale transgressor -- each enforcement approach applied suitable to its intended purpose.

______
* Just because the transgressions are isolated doesn't mean that together they don't represent non-trivial money.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

(About intellectual property and copyright -)


bicker said:


> Two separate things.


Okay, I understand that. But my understanding is that you own intellectual property _rights_, the intellectual property itself being an intangible thing, and there being no real meaning to owning it. I don't know of a legal basis or consequence for owning the intellectual property itself, as separate from the rights. Is this a philosophical thing unrelated to the law, or a legal thing?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Brainiac 5 said:


> ... the intellectual property itself being an intangible thing, and there being no real meaning to owning it ...


That's kind-of what we're arguing about. 



Brainiac 5 said:


> I don't know of a legal basis or consequence for owning the intellectual property itself, as separate from the rights. Is this a philosophical thing unrelated to the law, or a legal thing?


The law is grounded in reality. Legal protections stem from actuality, such as the ownership of intellectual property. Just right there... it's called intellectual "property" not just intellectual "stuff".

Let's say you own a piece of land. You can sell rights to traverse it, a "right-of-way", to someone else. That can even be a _durable _right-of-way, complete with resale rights. The ownership of the property itself is unaffected by this sale and perhaps resale of the "ownership" of rights regarding use of the property.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

bicker said:


> That's kind-of what we're arguing about.


Got me with that one! 



> The law is grounded in reality. Legal protections stem from actuality, such as the ownership of intellectual property. Just right there... it's called intellectual "property" not just intellectual "stuff".


It's an open question as whether law is grounded in actuality - legal scholars are not in agreement about whether it is, or if it is a completely artificial construct. So this is a natural law argument - that you inherently own the intellectual property because you created it? That is certainly a reasonable argument, although not the only possible one. There's also the fact that it does specifically say in the constitution that the rights to your intellectual property are secured for you in order "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," which seems to provide a different justification for intellectual property rights than natural law. I'm well aware that people use that language to promote all kinds of unsavory ideas, but it doesn't change the fact that that's what is says.



> Let's say you own a piece of land. You can sell rights to traverse it, a "right-of-way", to someone else. That can even be a _durable _right-of-way, complete with resale rights. The ownership of the property itself is unaffected by this sale and perhaps resale of the "ownership" of rights regarding use of the property.


But the law defines what ownership of the land means. As far as I know, intellectual property law only defines ownership of the copyright (or patent, etc.). Ownership of the property itself seems to be something that one can argue the creator has a moral right to, but not something that is derived from, or that has any bearing on, written law. (But maybe I'm jumping to conclusions, and you weren't saying anything different?)


----------



## texaslabrat (Oct 24, 2007)

Brainiac 5 said:


> (About intellectual property and copyright -)Okay, I understand that. But my understanding is that you own intellectual property _rights_, the intellectual property itself being an intangible thing, and there being no real meaning to owning it. I don't know of a legal basis or consequence for owning the intellectual property itself, as separate from the rights. Is this a philosophical thing unrelated to the law, or a legal thing?


You are basically correct, and Bicker is taking the "property" thing too far in his dictionary-based argument (rather than using the actual legal workings as a basis).

Intellectual property falls into 4 main categories in the U.S. : Patents, Copyrights, Trade Secrets, and Trademarks. To "own" intellectual property is to "own" a legal grant by the government of one of the aforementioned categories. If one does not "own" one of those, one does not "own" anything...despite being the originator of said idea/name/technology/process etc. Some "grants" are automatic, some must be applied for, but in the end it is those 4 main categories that are the actual "tangible" intellectual property that may be sold, rented, licensed, etc.

Unless a valid Patent, Copyright, Trade Secret, or Trademark is held, there *is* no intellectual property under the law. Just as when a patent is challenged and overturned...the "property" portion of the affected device/process ceases to exist and the idea/process/work instead becomes public domain (ie owned by all and/or nobody...depending on your perspective). While one could conceivable transfer some sort of intellectual property without having a valid government recognition of ownership (patent, etc)...one could not successfully prevent someone from simply using/taking it for free since it is not actually owned by the first party as recognized by the government.

In short, it is impossible "legally" to own an idea (genie out of the bottle sort of thing)...but one *can* be granted a monopoly by the government on an idea's use and/or reproduction of the idea's result for a period of time so as to allow the originator (or subsequent party that the monopoly is tranferred to) to profit from it and thereby encourage further innovation/artistic enrichment of society.

In Bicker's analogy of owning land, and granting an easement....it falls down because in the intellectual property realm there was no land to own in the first place because, unlike land, there is no scarcity to be dealt with in the form of a title or deed granting sole ownership of the actual item as opposed to simply its use. In intellectual property...the only thing that the government recognizes is the right of use since the item itself is intangible and ethereal. In short, the copyright, patent, trademark, and trade secret *IS* the intellectual property.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> > In other words they have done a good job of keeping the average consumer from a* [isolated*]* use infringement, but a poor job of stopping the real violators.
> 
> 
> It is inappropriate to measure the effectiveness of something for something it is not intended.


[emphasis added]

Is it any more inappropriate to use a quote to attribute something to me and then change my words to mean something that I did not intend? What I said was (Bold text is where you quote me red is where you change my words).



JWThiers said:


> DMCA and CCI bytes do an effective job on cutting back on the average users ability to move content around whose only concern is being able to watch a show in a different room in his house from the one it was recorded on or who keep an archive copy of it on the off chance they might want to watch it again. In doing the little bit of research that I did do I think this would be called de minimis copying (trivial use and so no infringement). But it does nothing to stop the real pirates that are making hundreds of copies and selling them without permission. *In other words they have done a good job of keeping the average consumer from a trivial use infringement, but a poor job of stopping the real violators.*


I can justify and explain my intents, why I use particular words, help clarify any misunderstanding that you may be having about my exact words, But I can not defend or justify incorrect quotes attributed to me. If you would like a reasoned debate on a subject don't misquote people.

The explanation for the use of the word Trivial is because it is a plain English translation for the legal term de minimis. According to the Copyright Infringement wiki (You know I love wiki) section on defenses to infringement the word de minimis is defined as follows:


> The legal doctrine of de minimis non curat lex, "the law does not care about trivial things," provides a de minimis copying defense against infringement. When the plaintiff establishes only a trivial use of the copyrighted work by the defendant, there is no infringement.


Hence I used the word trivial if you would prefer I will use the phrase de minimis. The word isolated is not what my intent was. For what its worth I have NOT looked at your link yet because I object very strongly to your misleading quote that you attribute to me. IMO doing so is ethically questionable and at worst misleading and a lie. Oh and FYI the "they" that I was referring to in "In other words *they *have done a good job of keeping the average consumer..." is the copyright holders not CCI bytes and DMCA. That they is intended to be using a measure of effectiveness of both campaigns to "Stop piracy"


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> [emphasis added] Is it any more inappropriate to use a quote to attribute something to me and then change my words to mean something that I did not intend?


Are you aware of the usage of the square brackets and what it typically implies? It is clear to everyone that you think the infringement is trivial, and it is clear to everyone that I believe you're wrong. Do you *disagree *that such infringements are individually small rather than individually massive?



JWThiers said:


> I can justify and explain my intents, why I use particular words, help clarify any misunderstanding that you may be having about my exact words, But I can not defend or justify incorrect quotes attributed to me.


You can choose to participate or not as you wish.



JWThiers said:


> If you would like a reasoned debate on a subject don't misquote people.


I didn't "misquote" you. I very clearly changed the words, and used standard typographical marks to indicate that I considered your assertion that the infringement was trivial was a mistake on your part (i.e., it does not qualify under the definition you quoted) and that I instead inserted my replacement wording, because of your error.



JWThiers said:


> For what its worth I have NOT looked at your link yet


Then do so, because it is part of this discussion whether you like it or not.


----------



## Mike Lang (Nov 17, 1999)

If you guys can't stay on topic and keep from getting personal, you'll need to be removed.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

This discussion isn't going anywhere anyway. I'll let JW get the last word. I'm done.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

texaslabrat said:


> .........
> In short, it is impossible "legally" to own an idea (genie out of the bottle sort of thing)...but one *can* be granted a monopoly by the government on an idea's use and/or reproduction of the idea's result for a period of time so as to allow the originator (or subsequent party that the monopoly is tranferred to) to profit from it and thereby encourage further innovation/artistic enrichment of society.
> 
> In Bicker's analogy of owning land, and granting an easement....it falls down because in the intellectual property realm there was no land to own in the first place because, unlike land, there is no scarcity to be dealt with in the form of a title or deed granting sole ownership of the actual item as opposed to simply its use. In intellectual property...the only thing that the government recognizes is the right of use since the item itself is intangible and ethereal. In short, the copyright, patent, trademark, and trade secret *IS* the intellectual property.


Excellent! Thanks for bringing us back to basics: IP is fundamentally different from real property -- there is no scarcity.

There is a sense in which the creator "owns" the creation. Call it a "common" sense or a "natural" sense or a "moral" sense. A fair minded person feels that the creator has some claim on what is created. But this type of ownership has practical meaning only to the degree that moral suasion changes human behavior. In some cases this can be a powerful effect. A primary example is that the very laws that define IP resulted from this moral impulse.


----------



## texaslabrat (Oct 24, 2007)

But back on topic...yes, the Tivo is losing its value. Depending on what I hear in January (or don't hear, as the case may be) regarding a new product from Tivo and the reports on how well the upcoming 4-tuner Ceton cards work with SDV under Windows Media Center...it is very possible that I'll be moving away from Tivo. I'm getting sick of having to play computer scientist, electrical engineer, and lineman just to watch a friggin television show. The cable company's STB's "just work"...Tivo should too if they want to compete in my household. I don't want to hear excuses, I want results. The only saving grace that Tivo has at the moment is the interface versus the cable STB...but even that edge is rapidly diminishing with the new generation of equipment that is becoming available.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

Sadly, I'm guessing that there will be nothing new from TiVo for some time. The next logical step is Tru2Way, but it's time has not yet come.

It would be nice if they'd introduce a new design that didn't necessarily have any new features but which corrected some of the problems people have.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

texaslabrat said:


> But back on topic...yes, the Tivo is losing its value.


Try naming something that doesn't with time.



texaslabrat said:


> Depending on what I hear in January (or don't hear, as the case may be) regarding a new product from Tivo and the reports on how well the upcoming 4-tuner Ceton cards work with SDV under Windows Media Center...it is very possible that I'll be moving away from Tivo.


For some reason you find the notion of a 4 tuner DVR to have some value over and above that of a 2 tuner DVR. It has none whatsoever to me, and I suspect it doesn't to most people, at least not in actual use.



texaslabrat said:


> I'm getting sick of having to play computer scientist, electrical engineer, and lineman just to watch a friggin television show.


I've long been sick of people who whine about "wanting things to just work". Why should anyone expect to enjoy the benefits of any object unless they are willing to take the time and effort to understand it? At best, any venture which involves no effort is empty and unfulfilling. At worst it is likely to be doomed to failure.

'Sorry, but you've pushed one of my buttons, here.



texaslabrat said:


> The cable company's STB's "just work"...


No, they don't. I've had plenty of problems with leased STBs. When I worked for a CATV company, the cost of repairing converters for just this city was several times my salary - and I'm not exactly paid in pennies. You don't think they spent all that money on something that worked as advertised, do you?

Secondly, even the basic CATV STB has a lot of issues. I would frequently miss recording 2 or 3 days worth of programs when my S1 was paired with a leased STB because the units would frequently autonomously shut down - usually due to a software upgrade.

Thirdly, you are comparing apples and oranges. An STB is not a DVR. I can assure you, the CATV DVRs have quite a lot of problems in addition to the fact they are perfectly lousy DVRs in the first place. Dealing with a leased Scientific Atlanta 8300HD DVR was a perfectly horrible experience. It was terrible in the extreme. It was barely an improvement on a VCR. In some ways it was worse than a VCR. HAd the unit been mine, instead of the CATV company's, I would have gleefully set fire to it the moment my S3 arrived.



texaslabrat said:


> Tivo should too if they want to compete in my household. I don't want to hear excuses, I want results. The only saving grace that Tivo has at the moment is the interface versus the cable STB...but even that edge is rapidly diminishing with the new generation of equipment that is becoming available.


The CATV company DVRs have absolutely nothing I want over or above what my Tivos offer me, and would cost me $40 a month, to boot. Meanwhile the list of absolutely unacceptably missing features and abilities of the CATV DVRs is exceedingly long. Many of the deal-breakers will never, ever be available on a leased DVR.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Brainiac 5 said:


> Sadly, I'm guessing that there will be nothing new from TiVo for some time. The next logical step is Tru2Way, but it's time has not yet come.


Why sadly? Would you be buying one if it did? I wouldn't. In another 2 years, when my 3 year service on the THD is up, I may consider a new DVR, unless of course one of mine fails catastrophically. I certainly would not buy a tru2way unit unless I am certain I can shut the utility down and lock it down tight. There is absolutely no way I would allow such software to run on any device in my house, even if it provided anything at all that I wanted, which it doesn't. The only thing which might tempt me to replace the unit in the theater would be a Gig-E interface and the CPU stones to back it up.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

texaslabrat said:


> In short, it is impossible "legally" to own an idea (genie out of the bottle sort of thing)...but one *can* be granted a monopoly by the government on an idea's use and/or reproduction of the idea's result for a period of time so as to allow the originator (or subsequent party that the monopoly is tranferred to) to profit from it and thereby encourage further innovation/artistic enrichment of society.


That's *supposed* to be the idea. In reality our patent and copyright system stifles creativity and all but guarantees the creative individual will have great difficulty ever seeing any significant profit from their efforts.



texaslabrat said:


> In Bicker's analogy of owning land, and granting an easement....it falls down because in the intellectual property realm there was no land to own in the first place because, unlike land, there is no scarcity to be dealt with in the form of a title or deed granting sole ownership of the actual item as opposed to simply its use.


That, and a number of other reasons. Among them is the fact that our entire definition of ownership derives from the 15 century notion that in order to "own" something, the entity had to be able to defend and protect it. Although the notion has evolved some in the intervening time, all of our notions and procedures concerning property ownership are based in their core on that basic definition. Intellectual property tends to undermine that foundation, and it is one very real reason why the laws are so inept to deal with it. That, and of course the fact that the vast majority of our lawmakers are morons.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

lrhorer said:


> I've long been sick of people who whine about "wanting things to just work". Why should anyone expect to enjoy the benefits of any object unless they are willing to take the time and effort to understand it? At best, any venture which involves no effort is empty and unfulfilling. At worst it is likely to be doomed to failure.


If I have a toaster I really don't want to know more than I plug it in the wall, put bread in, push a lever, and a few minutes later out pops toast. SOME things should just work. My Tivo, good machine, but I have to admit, sometimes it can really annoy me.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> Why sadly? Would you be buying one if it did? I wouldn't.


I have to admit, mainly just because it would give TiVo a reason to make new hardware (that hopefully would have other improvements).



> The only thing which might tempt me to replace the unit in the theater would be a Gig-E interface and the CPU stones to back it up.


That would be great.


----------



## texaslabrat (Oct 24, 2007)

lrhorer said:


> Try naming something that doesn't with time.


Well, since you insist on being pedantic...ok...gold bars generally don't.



> For some reason you find the notion of a 4 tuner DVR to have some value over and above that of a 2 tuner DVR. It has none whatsoever to me, and I suspect it doesn't to most people, at least not in actual use.


I'm sorry if you thought that I was speaking for anybody but myself. I thought I made it quite clear with the use of "I" throughout my post....

As for the 4-tuner thing. It's quite simple...a 4-tuner card can replace 2 Tivos or (in my case) a Tivo and a SA 8000 DVR (with extenders, of course). It's not unusual to find that, during primetime, there are 3 shows in the same timeslot that we want to watch/record thus a limitation of 2 tuners in the home wouldn't cut it. However, as I said in my previous post, I'll be waiting to see how the SDV performance is once the Ceton card goes relatively mainstream. I have no desire to spend even MORE money to have the same failings as the Tivo has brought.



> I've long been sick of people who whine about "wanting things to just work". Why should anyone expect to enjoy the benefits of any object unless they are willing to take the time and effort to understand it? At best, any venture which involves no effort is empty and unfulfilling. At worst it is likely to be doomed to failure.


Yeah, because having something you paid hundreds of dollars for to work as advertised is soooo irritating. There's a big difference between "understanding how something works" and "reverse engineering" the device to get it to function. For a device that is supposed to allow me to enjoy television programming which I purchase from my cable company, said device will prove itself to be fulfilling if it reliably delivers said programming. I find enough technical challenge in my daily job to keep me satisfied in that realm.



> 'Sorry, but you've pushed one of my buttons, here.


I could really care less about your buttons. As I said before, I was speaking for myself. If you want to continually have to fuss and mess with line attenuation and the like to get a channel to tune in, that's your perogative. I don't (although I'm far more technical than the average bear and I *can* do it...it doesn't mean that I enjoy being *forced* to do so).



> No, they don't. I've had plenty of problems with leased STBs. When I worked for a CATV company, the cost of repairing converters for just this city was several times my salary - and I'm not exactly paid in pennies. You don't think they spent all that money on something that worked as advertised, do you?


Again, you've mistaken my comments as applying to you. If I meant you, I would have included you. In *my* experience...yes, the STB's do indeed "just work". I've had to reboot my SA 8000 one time in the 4+ years I've had it...and that was because we had a power glitch that freaked it out (it's now on a UPS) It's never missed a recording. It's never mysteriously shown a blank screen when I changed channels. It's never done anything but "just work". That's the standard I expect Tivo to match since, you know..I PAID for the Tivo outright in *addition to* paying an equivalent monthly charge for the privilege of having it.



> Secondly, even the basic CATV STB has a lot of issues. I would frequently miss recording 2 or 3 days worth of programs when my S1 was paired with a leased STB because the units would frequently autonomously shut down - usually due to a software upgrade.


Once again, your experiences are not universal.



> Thirdly, you are comparing apples and oranges. An STB is not a DVR. I can assure you, the CATV DVRs have quite a lot of problems in addition to the fact they are perfectly lousy DVRs in the first place. Dealing with a leased Scientific Atlanta 8300HD DVR was a perfectly horrible experience. It was terrible in the extreme. It was barely an improvement on a VCR. In some ways it was worse than a VCR. HAd the unit been mine, instead of the CATV company's, I would have gleefully set fire to it the moment my S3 arrived.


As I noted before, I am comparing the SA 8000 DVR vs the Tivo. And as I noted in my previous post...I agree that the Tivo's interface and experience (when the Tivo works) is superior. However, there's only so much that eye candy can do when the device does not function properly.



> The CATV company DVRs have absolutely nothing I want over or above what my Tivos offer me, and would cost me $40 a month, to boot. Meanwhile the list of absolutely unacceptably missing features and abilities of the CATV DVRs is exceedingly long. Many of the deal-breakers will never, ever be available on a leased DVR.


But I, for one, am not willing to overlook such "minor" features that the Tivo brings to the table such as failure to tune to requested channel, random reboots, lockups, etc. For me, the Tivo monthly cost (with cable cards) is the same as the STB/DVR rental. For equal monthly cost (never mind the upfront purchase price) I expect the Tivo to be *at least* as good in basic functionality as the cable box. As of today, it is not. Once again, my previous post was regarding my experiences and my viewpoint.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> If I have a toaster I really don't want to know more than I plug it in the wall, put bread in, push a lever, and a few minutes later out pops toast.


Understanding how that toaster works will allow you to get the best service from it. A toaster is a very simple device, and there just is no excuse for not knowing how it works and how to clean and maintain the unit. Additionally, knowing how it works fosters other understanding and helps to prevent such utter nonsense as claiming magnets prevent sea-sickness.

Oh, and just for the record, my toaster is a bit more complex than that. In addition to the darkness control, there are buttons for different types and thicknesses of bread, including danishes and bagels. It also has a separate pair of eject buttons, and a removable crumb tray.



JWThiers said:


> SOME things should just work.


I don't know of anything which should "just work". The simplest machines of which I can think that are employed daily by the average individual are a knife and fork. An understanding of how those devices are made and how they work allows one to use them most effectively and to properly maintain them so they work well and last a long time. I have razor sharp carving knives over 30 years old with wooden handles. I have seen knives half that age that are dull, have chipped and corroded blades, and rotting handles. By investing ten minutes worth of reading and understanding, I help to insure that the things I own will give me a maximum of benefit for a maximum of time. There is never a case where RTFM is inappropriate.

That's not to mention the fact that handling a knife and fork safely requires some care and skill. There is nothing of value which anyone may obtain without paying some dues. Those of us with some sense pay those dues by exercising due dilligence in learning how to properly and safely handle and care for our possessions. Those without it may pay them by losing a digit.



JWThiers said:


> My Tivo, good machine, but I have to admit, sometimes it can really annoy me.


Sure, but a lot less than a teenage daughter. 

The more complex a machine, the more failure modes it has. It is a simple and unavoidable fact. There are only a handful of very preventable ways a carving knife can fail, most having to do with carelessness. (I still have all my fingers.) There are quite literally millions of ways the Space Shuttle can fail. The TiVo is a relatively inexpensive but complex consumer device with all that implies. It is not entirely accidental that I have rather few problems with my TiVos. It is not accidental at all that when I do have a problem (occasionally of my own making) with one of them, the problem gets resolved quickly and without much trouble.

In contrast, if I were to lease a unit and hand over maintenance to the CATV company, there is no way in Hell the systems would be less trouble to me, even if they would allow me the features I demand, which is not the case.

To make the TiVo more robust would require a number of things, one of the most obvious and important being a likely increase in cost. To give the TiVo more features falls under the same guidelines. There is a very real and rather small limit to how much I, at least, am willing to pay for additional reliability in these units, especially given the fact they are already fairly reliable and the fact one generally enjoys diminishing returns on such incremental investments. Would I be willing to pay another $50 per unit for substantially increased reliability? Yeah, I think so. $75? Maybe. $100? No, I think not. OTOH, I am not inclined to pay anything at all for features in which I have no interest, and four tuners definitely falls in that category. A Gig-E interface does not, especially given that it should cost much less than supporting four tuners. Perhaps more to the point, however, is the question of whether I would abandon my three Tivos for three units with Gig-E interfaces. Definitely not any time soon. I might abandon one, and in 2 years I think I definitely might abandon the THD, which is on a 3 year plan. At this point, I have no intention of abandoning my lifetime service units any time soon.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

texaslabrat said:


> ........., because having something you paid hundreds of dollars for to work as advertised is soooo irritating. There's a big difference between "understanding how something works" and "reverse engineering" the device to get it to function. For a device that is supposed to allow me to enjoy television programming which I purchase from my cable company, said device will prove itself to be fulfilling if it reliably delivers said programming. I find enough technical challenge in my daily job to keep me satisfied in that realm.
> ...........


In another thread I maintained that my TiVo HD, which has about the same problems as you mention for yours, does not meet basic DVR performance expectations as implied by any reasonable interpretation of TiVo marketing, i.e, essentially the same as saying it didn't "work as advertised". I met stiff opposition from another poster who said that TiVo never "promised" that performance level and, even more bizarre, said I deserved what I got because I hadn't checked the SEC filings for TiVo to see they haven't generally been profitable for a long time. I prefer your viewpoint!

I do believe in "caveat emptor". Thus I don't think TiVo should be sued for "not performing as advertised" -- the offense isn't that blatant. I believe they are making a good faith effort against very difficult challenges. However that doesn't mean I'm going to pretend I'm satisfied or that I believe the product performs acceptably.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

texaslabrat said:


> Well, since you insist on being pedantic...ok...gold bars generally don't.


Oh, they frequently have. Although the price has never been tiny, the price of gold has often fallen. I was speaking of durable consumer goods, however, not of investment goods. Name one invention whose 2006 model is more valuable today than in 2006.



texaslabrat said:


> I'm sorry if you thought that I was speaking for anybody but myself. I thought I made it quite clear with the use of "I" throughout my post....


It depends on what you mean. In terms of asking for a feature on the TiVo, by definition you are speaking for everyone who buys the TiVo. If a feature (like 4 tuners or increased reliability) is implemented, then the cost of said feature is borne by all who purchase the unit. Conversely, if a feature is not implemented, then no one benefits by it, but they save some money when buying one.



texaslabrat said:


> As for the 4-tuner thing. It's quite simple...a 4-tuner card can replace 2 Tivos or (in my case) a Tivo and a SA 8000 DVR (with extenders, of course).


Not unless they are on the same TV, although by "extenders" do you mean a device which allows the user to play the content from one DVR in another room? Assuming not, then one must have two DVRs in any case. Assuming so, then the additional cost of the extenders must be added to the additional cost of the 4 tuner model. I expect that cost to be similar to the cost of 2 TiVos, albeit perhaps a little less costly.

So what do we have?

1. A higher cost for the primary unit for a feature in which the average user is not terribly interested. This means lower sales.

2. An extender employing proprietary protocols. This means the consumer is basically "locked in" to the system. If the primary fails, they either have to allow themselves to be confined to purchasing the same primary unit, or else chunk both (or all three, or four, or ...) units and start all over again. Many people (myself included) do not find that an attractive proposition. Some find it a "sleazy" or "deceptive" business practice. I disagree, but I don't find it a prudent one.

3. A much more complex system, with all the associated failure modes. Weren't you the one who just said the TiVo should "just work"?



texaslabrat said:


> It's not unusual to find that, during primetime, there are 3 shows in the same timeslot that we want to watch/record thus a limitation of 2 tuners in the home wouldn't cut it.


Well, first of all, merely having a conflict is not an issue. It is only an irresolute conflict that is an issue. If any one of the three (or two of the four or three of the five...) are broadcast at a different time, then there isn't a fundamental issue. There may be a non-fundamental one in that TiVo's conflict handling still leaves much to be desired.

For me personally, I have no idea when any of my programs are recorded, but I know the vast bulk of them are not during primetime. There is very little worth watching then, for one thing. I do recall a couple of conflicts - it's been a while - at 02:00 or 03:00. With six tuners, of course, there are never any I cannot resolve, but ordinarily I have no problem resolving them right on the TiVo where the conflict arises. It's a bit of a bother, yes, but improved conflict handling could easily handle that without resorting to a hardware upgrade.



texaslabrat said:


> However, as I said in my previous post, I'll be waiting to see how the SDV performance is once the Ceton card goes relatively mainstream. I have no desire to spend even MORE money to have the same failings as the Tivo has brought.


It's Windows based. Need I really say more? Windows is the industry standard for instability and unreliability.



texaslabrat said:


> Yeah, because having something you paid hundreds of dollars for to work as advertised is soooo irritating.


You lost me, there.



texaslabrat said:


> There's a big difference between "understanding how something works" and "reverse engineering" the device to get it to function.


Well, first of all, not so much. Most engineering is pretty obvious, by design. I'll admit I have seen some horrible exceptions. (Like Windows, come to think of it.) Secondly, RTFM and at most a few minutes' research are all that is required to resolve most issues, Tivo or otherwise. There is certainly nothing complex required of the TiVo owner to get it to work. Unplugging the TA (both power and USB), waiting 30 seconds, re-applying power, waiting 30 seconds, and then plugging the USB port back in is *NOT* reverse engineering the TiVo. As it happens, doing so on the TiVo in my living room is difficult and rather painful, because I am partially paralyzed, and the TiVo / TA pair do not sit where I can easily get to them. Given the infrequency of the problem, I'm not complaining, though.

Oh, just BTW, much of the TiVo software is open source, and has been published, so no reverse engineering is required. 'Try getting Microsoft to publish the source code for Windows some time. Then try fixing something in Windows when it breaks.



texaslabrat said:


> For a device that is supposed to allow me to enjoy television programming which I purchase from my cable company, said device will prove itself to be fulfilling if it reliably delivers said programming. I find enough technical challenge in my daily job to keep me satisfied in that realm.


Then you must have a far more challenging job than I do. I'm only an engineer, and the technical challenges at work, while satisfying, are far too limited to keep me fully satisfied. That said, my TiVos don't really provide much of a challenge to me. For the most part, they just sit there and hum along, while I go stamp out fires in my servers or deal with my leaky roof (damn it!). When I'm not dealing with one of my certifiable relatives, that is.



texaslabrat said:


> I could really care less about your buttons. As I said before, I was speaking for myself. If you want to continually have to fuss and mess with line attenuation and the like to get a channel to tune in,


'My point exactly. If you took the time to understand signal levels, then you would realize that one never has to fuss or mess with attenuation, and that your fiddling with it is a fool's errand. If your signal levels are out of whack, then it's probably a problem with the CATV plant, and the CATV provider needs to fix it. If not, then applying the proper attenuation and tilt compensation *once* will completely and finally resolve the issue. If signal levels are varying any significant amount, then it is absolutely a problem with the CATV plant and, once again, the CATV provider needs to fix it. Let's see, that took, what, one minute for me to type? A few seconds to understand? Oh, yeah,that's a lot of reverse engineering all right. 

Oh, and bad signal levels are not the TiVo's fault in any case. As an aside, I did a few signal level tests on two of my TiVos a few months ago, and I was surprised by the results. The TiVos have an astoundingly good dynamic range (although I have no firm data suggesting the CATV tuners are any worse), far better than any analog TV with which I have ever dealt. I knew the dynamic range would be really good, but I didn't expect it to be *that* good.



texaslabrat said:


> that's your perogative. I don't (although I'm far more technical than the average bear and I *can* do it...it doesn't mean that I enjoy being *forced* to do so).


The overall gain in this house was set shortly after I moved in, when I (well, the contractor) ran drops to all the rooms back in 2000. It hasn't been touched since, other than adding the TAs (which have a 3dB gain) and the odd splitter installed here or there. Since that time, there have been three or four issues with signal levels, although in all but one case these were problems with the return, not the downstream, and in all but the one case it impacted my internet service, not my TV.



texaslabrat said:


> Again, you've mistaken my comments as applying to you. If I meant you, I would have included you. In *my* experience...yes, the STB's do indeed "just work". I've had to reboot my SA 8000 one time in the 4+ years I've had it...and that was because we had a power glitch that freaked it out (it's now on a UPS) It's never missed a recording.


An STB does not record. I never rebooted any of the STBs I had (I've had several over the course of the last 26 years). They did it themselves with no notice, usually about 04:00. TWC does not consider this an issue at all, since it is deliberate. I never rebooted the 8300HD DVR, either, that I recall. I never said it locked up. It just would fail to record about 20% or more of the programs it said it was going to record. It was also all but impossible to use.



texaslabrat said:


> It's never mysteriously shown a blank screen when I changed channels.


I never change channels. I did with the 8300, of course, because I was forced to. The fact was one of the myriad annoyances with the unit. For me, "changing channels" means selecting another entry in the NPL. The TAs on my TiVos do indeed lock up from time to time, but far less often than the PC at which I now sit, which BTW locked up twice on Friday and rebooted itself autonomously once yesterday. With the TAs, I have missed recording perhaps ten or twenty shows at the original recording time (in over 9 months), and none permanently. I can't count the number of shows which failed to record on the 8300HD in roughly the same time frame. Typically, in a 9 month period, the old STBs would usually reboot themselves three or four times. When they did, I would lose all the recordings for typically three or four days. At the time, I only had one TiVo, so a reboot of the STB meant I lost all the shows during that time. Some, of course, would be re-broadcast. When I have lost a TA, with only one exception it has been only on one TiVo, and then I usually only lose SDV channels. Since this only represents a modest fraction of the things being recorded, and since most of the SDV channels enjoy multiple re-broadcasts, it just isn't a big deal. I would be positively *thrilled* for this to be the worst aggravation which which I am forced to deal. I would be ecstatic if it were tenth on the list.
Would I like to see the TA become rock - solid? You bet. Does the fact they are not make me want to run over them with a Mac truck? No. They're more stable than a lot of things, including my relatives.



texaslabrat said:


> It's never done anything but "just work".


The 8300HD doesn't "work" period. It doesn't do a fraction of the things I absolutely require from a DVR, including the very most important ones. The few things it did do it did very poorly and it required *ME* to do them. That is unacceptable. That the things I had to do were arduous and excessively time wasting made it even moreso. I'm given to understand the Navigator package may be much better than SARA. I can only comment on SARA, however, and it is among the worst software with which I have ever had to deal, and that includes some which didn't have an English UI.



texaslabrat said:


> That's the standard I expect Tivo to match since, you know..I PAID for the Tivo outright in *addition to* paying an equivalent monthly charge for the privilege of having it.


In most cities, less than you pay for the privilege of having an 8300.



texaslabrat said:


> Once again, your experiences are not universal.


No one's experiences are universal.



texaslabrat said:


> As I noted before, I am comparing the SA 8000 DVR vs the Tivo. And as I noted in my previous post...I agree that the Tivo's interface and experience (when the Tivo works) is superior. However, there's only so much that eye candy can do when the device does not function properly.


I don't use the TiVo UI, unless you call pressing <play>, using the UI. The TiVos do their thing, finding and recording shows without my even turning the TV on, most often while I am at work or asleep. The fact I was forced to use the SARA UI was one of the most unacceptable things about it. The fact the UI was intensely aggravating, and required me to deal with a friggin' on screen guide made it worse than worthless. While requiring the use of any guide whatsoever is utterly unacceptable in the extreme, the SARA guide was exceptionally horrible.

The tiny hard drive didn't help, either, although I believe they have since enabled the eSATA port. One still can not upgrade the internal drive, however, which gets low marks on my scale.

When I do undertake to manage my Tivos, I virtually never do it from the TiVo itself, as its far too clumsy and slow - albeit much less so than the 8300. Instead, I do it sitting right where I am now, in front of one of my PCs. I did not have that (absolutely essential) ability with the 8300.



texaslabrat said:


> But I, for one, am not willing to overlook such "minor" features that the Tivo brings to the table such as failure to tune to requested channel


I don't overlook anything. I just compare the impact to my experience from such events - which have been rather minimal - to similar events from competing platforms, and then consider that impact in light of the overall experience gained from both. The 8300HD experience was just torturous, start to finish. Literally and without exaggeration, I have never cursed so loudly or continuously as when I turned on the TV to deal with the 8300HD. I only occasionally have cursed more vehemently.



texaslabrat said:


> random reboots


In over 8 years, and five different Tivos, the only one with which I have ever experienced any significant number of reboots was the S3 sitting under my Mitsubishi DLP set, and they weren't exactly random. The position of the TiVo under the set (there really isn't any place else to put it) exposes it to EMP from the TV when it is turned on. With an external HD, about one time in twenty or so, turning on the TV would cause the Tivo to lock up. Replacing the eSATA cable with a better shielded one helped a great deal. Removing the external hard drive eliminated the problem altogether. Other than that, virtually the only autonomous reboots have been during upgrades. I can definitely live with a reboot every three months or so.



texaslabrat said:


> lockups, etc.


I admit I don't recall ever having the 8300 lock up, but then that's like saying I should prefer a tricycle to my Chevy because the tricycle never had a dead battery. Other than the unit under the DLP, by the way, my Chevy has had a dead battery in the morning more often than any of my TiVos have locked up.



texaslabrat said:


> For me, the Tivo monthly cost (with cable cards) is the same as the STB/DVR rental.


That's possible, but highly dependent upon your personal decisions. In my case, for example, I pay $6.95 a month for the one TiVo not on lifetime plus $14.95 a month for CableCards. (If I had THDs, it would be $8.97, but c'est la vie.) For three leased DVRs I would pay $39.85. That's 17.95 a month difference, which isn't exactly chump-change in order to receive vastly inferior service.



texaslabrat said:


> For equal monthly cost (never mind the upfront purchase price) I expect the Tivo to be *at least* as good in basic functionality as the cable box.


The basic functionality of the leased box is unacceptable at any price. They would have to pay me - a rather large amount considering how much of my time it wastes - to use one.



texaslabrat said:


> Once again, my previous post was regarding my experiences and my viewpoint.


No, it wasn't. You are suggesting TiVo should fix something. They cannot fix the TA, since it doesn't belong to them, unless it is code inside the TiVo which is causing the problems. Given the symptoms and the way the system is designed, that's somewhat unlikely. For the rest, the majority of users out there are not experiencing any great amount of problems. Exactly what should TiVo fix?


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

dlfl said:


> In another thread I maintained that my TiVo HD, which has about the same problems as you mention for yours, does not meet basic DVR performance expectations as implied by any reasonable interpretation of TiVo marketing, i.e, essentially the same as saying it didn't "work as advertised". I met stiff opposition from another poster who said that TiVo never "promised" that performance level and, even more bizarre, said I deserved what I got because I hadn't checked the SEC filings for TiVo to see they haven't generally been profitable for a long time.


Yeah, but consider the source.



dlfl said:


> I do believe in "caveat emptor". Thus I don't think TiVo should be sued for "not performing as advertised" -- the offense isn't that blatant. I believe they are making a good faith effort against very difficult challenges. However that doesn't mean I'm going to pretend I'm satisfied or that I believe the product performs acceptably.


I can't argue that, although the fact you are having problems does not necessarily imply those problems are a failing on the part of the TiVo. I'm not saying they aren't either, just that there is not sufficient evidence one way or the other. (With technical issues the only sufficient evidence is to find and implement a fix, after which point one is usually assured of knowing the source of the problem.)

As to what is advertised, I never rely on that for my purchasing decisions. I rarely, if ever, limit my use to advertised functionality, and that goes triple for a DVR. That, and of course advertised functionality is often a load of hogwash. One of funniest documents I ever read was RCA's spec sheet for their CATV trunk amplifiers. It was almost pure fiction, surely written by a comedian.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

You know, I just though of something interesting. The last major release of TiVo software purportedly was designed to alleviate certain problems encountered by some FIOS customers. Now I don't really suspect it to be the case, but what if the software fix alleviated the issues of some fraction of FIOS customers but subsequently is now causing problems for some TWC or Comcast subscribers. Again, this is a hypothetical, but what if the fix for FIOS customers is completely incompatible with a fix for Comcast and / or TWC customers? Who should TiVo ignore? Whose demands are more reasonable?


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> .......the fact you are having problems does not necessarily imply those problems are a failing on the part of the TiVo.........


Unfortunately for TiVo the marketplace doesn't care who's fault it is.


lrhorer said:


> ....... One of funniest documents I ever read was RCA's spec sheet for their CATV trunk amplifiers. It was almost pure fiction, surely written by a comedian.


Oh Oh, guess I won't place that order for Extenze!  The ads were so convincing!

I have the same philosophy about misleading ads as I do about politicians. The reason they mislead is because it works on us. If we stopped falling for it, they would stop misleading. BTW, there is no other practical solution (at least none where the cure isn't worse than the disease).


----------



## texaslabrat (Oct 24, 2007)

lrhorer said:


> ..a bunch of blather


LOL...try as you may...you are not going to convince me that my experiences are my imagination. As I keep telling you (and you seem to have some sort of learning disability which prevents you from comprehending) I am speaking for myself. I have laid out my experiences, and the fact that they don't match yours don't make them imaginary or less valid. Tivo does not work as well as the cable-company supplied equipment in my home. They have the same cable plant to work from. What does that tell you?

And yes, I *am* suggesting that Tivo fix something. Their product is sub-par when compared to the reliability of the cable-company-supplied equipment that I have used. That is unacceptable to me given how much money I have had to pay for the privilege of owning the Tivo. There is a reason why I still have the SA 8000HD (which is a DVR and an STB, depsite your assertions) and not 2 Tivos. My experience with the first Tivo made buying a second a non-starter. If Tivo comes out with a NEW product that FIXES all the issues that a GREAT MANY folks are having with the current products..then MAYBE will I consider buying another Tivo someday. As it is, if things remain as they are today, I won't. Therefore...Tivo *is* losing its value insofar that they are about to lose me as a customer overall, and they have already lost me as a repeat customer in the past year as I have skipped buying a second Tivo for my home.


----------



## texaslabrat (Oct 24, 2007)

lrhorer said:


> Again, this is a hypothetical, but what if the fix for FIOS customers is completely incompatible with a fix for Comcast and / or TWC customers? Who should TiVo ignore? Whose demands are more reasonable?


It's certainly possible, though in my case I am having the same issues pre-patch as post patch. Attenuation of the line to place the received signal within recommended specifications has made the problem much less prevalent, but it has not completely cured it. Yet, the SA box keeps on chugging along perfectly as usual.

This next year will be very interesting for me to see how the new competition stacks up in reliability vs Tivo.

As for "who should Tivo ignore?"...if the Tivo hardware and/or software were as robust as they should be...there wouldn't have been a need to pick one to begin with. I would offer a quip regarding "you get what you pay for" as an excuse for the subpar performance I've experienced versus the SA box, but unfortunately I've spent far more on my Tivo than I ever will with the SA 8000HD rental fees.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> Again, this is a hypothetical, but what if the fix for FIOS customers is completely incompatible with a fix for Comcast and / or TWC customers? Who should TiVo ignore? Whose demands are more reasonable?


The TiVo knows what cable company you have (or could) by the lineup. So in the worst case, they should be able to make it act one way on FIOS and another on Comcast or TWC. At least, that's what I'd do if I were them and such a truly irreconcilable difference in how the TiVo needed to work came up...


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

lrhorer said:


> Understanding how that toaster works will allow you to get the best service from it. A toaster is a very simple device, and there just is no excuse for not knowing how it works and how to clean and maintain the unit. Additionally, knowing how it works fosters other understanding and helps to prevent such utter nonsense as claiming magnets prevent sea-sickness.
> 
> Oh, and just for the record, my toaster is a bit more complex than that. In addition to the darkness control, there are buttons for different types and thicknesses of bread, including danishes and bagels. It also has a separate pair of eject buttons, and a removable crumb tray.
> 
> ...


I can think of at least one thing that does just work. Gravity, You don't have to think about it you don't have to maintain it, it just works 24/7/365. Gravity it's not just a good idea, it's the law.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

dlfl said:


> Unfortunately for TiVo the marketplace doesn't care who's fault it is.


That may be an overstatement. A lot of people want someone to blame, and I think a reasonable fraction may really be concerned about placing blame fairly.



dlfl said:


> Oh Oh, guess I won't place that order for Extenze!  The ads were so convincing!


Some of us just don't need it, either way. 



dlfl said:


> I have the same philosophy about misleading ads as I do about politicians. The reason they mislead is because it works on us.


Don't include me in that "us". Your main point, however, is pretty obvious, or almost so. They *BELIEVE* it works on "us". Lots of people don't buy it, literally or figuratively, respectively. The point is a good one, however, because they probably wouldn't believe it if there weren't at least some indications it might be true.



dlfl said:


> If we stopped falling for it, they would stop misleading.


Yeah, maybe. Maybe not. I think their abilityto delude themselves is just as great as John Q. Public's. Some studies a few years ago were able to identify two classes of individuals, called "goats" and "sheep". "Goats" tended to be skeptical, cynical, independent, and often introverted. They tend to not only distrust but to dismiss authority figures, and insist on independent verification of things they are told. "Sheep" tended to not be skeptical, but to take things as offered to them - especially if offereed by an authority figure. One might think the "goats" would tend to be leaders, but they don't. Rather, it is the extroverted "sheep" that tend to be leaders, despite the fact they tend to be as gullible as the rest of the "sheep".

In the 1884 Presidential election, the James Blaine campaign accused Grover Cleveland of fathering an illegitimate child, feeling the accusation would possibly destroy Cleveland's chances of election. The tactic backfired badly when Cleveland admitted that he had had an affair with the woman and that the child very possibly was his. Of course it is impossible to say whether Cleveland would have lost had he tried to cover up the fact, but how many politicians to this very day would admit just before an election to having fostered an illegitimate child?



dlfl said:


> BTW, there is no other practical solution (at least none where the cure isn't worse than the disease).


Of course there is! It's simple, direct, practical, and has no negative consequences for the consumer / voter or any honest manufacturer (there's no such thing as an honest politician - Cleveland was a one in a million aberration). It's simply this: caveat emptor. Never believe what you have read, seen, or been told without verification from independent, unbiased sources. Note the plural. Even then, don't believe it, just accept it as a working hypothesis until someone shows it to be false. Assume everyone has an agenda, even if it happens to be an unconscious one. Assume no one knows anything about which they speak unless they can provide solid credentials and are willing to back up their statements with solid evidence. Realize even then that the best and most talented professionals frequently only bat maybe .400. Einstein, arguably the most accurate and ultimately well supported scientist of all time by a very wide margin, batted about .750, maybe .800. (Actually, the most amazing thing about Einstein wasn't just his uncanny accuracy, it was the fact that almost every time he hit the ball, it was a grand slam right out of the ballpark.)


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

lrhorer said:


> Never believe what you have read, seen, or been told without verification from independent, unbiased sources. Note the plural. Even then, don't believe it, just accept it as a working hypothesis until someone shows it to be false. Assume everyone has an agenda, even if it happens to be an unconscious one. Assume no one knows anything about which they speak unless they can provide solid credentials and are willing to back up their statements with solid evidence. Realize even then that the best and most talented professionals frequently only bat maybe .400.


I think that medical term for it is Paranoia.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

texaslabrat said:


> LOL...try as you may...you are not going to convince me that my experiences are my imagination.


I never suggested they were. There is a very big difference, however, between accurately reporting a fact and properly interpreting the implications of the fact.



texaslabrat said:


> As I keep telling you (and you seem to have some sort of learning disability which prevents you from comprehending) I am speaking for myself.


I comprehend very well. What you don't understand is that speaking only for your self, you have no cause to request any company-wide response from TiVo. If you have a bad unit, then TiVo should address the issue per your contract with them (e.g. your warranty), which unfortunately for you might mean not at all. If you expect them to address the problem at the engineering level, then you must speak from the position of a significant fraction of TiVo owners or potential TiVo owners.



texaslabrat said:


> I have laid out my experiences, and the fact that they don't match yours don't make them imaginary or less valid.


Your experiences in and of themselves do not demonstrate a design flaw in the TiVo product. The fact many of us do not experience any problems at all suggests there may not be one, at all. The fact some people are experiencing an issue may simply be the luck of the draw on winding up with a unit susceptible to whatever is causing the issue. It's also possible there is a flaw related to a particular manufacturing run, and some people got bad units. Perhaps you just wound up with a randomly bad unit. It's also possible it could be a design flaw, but the fact you are having problems doesn't differentiate between any of the possibilities.



texaslabrat said:


> Tivo does not work as well as the cable-company supplied equipment in my home. They have the same cable plant to work from. What does that tell you?


Virtually nothing whatsoever. A statistical sample of one contains zero information. If you had ten TiVos in your house, all exhibiting the same issue and ten CATV leased units, none of which were having any problems, then it would say quite a bit more about the nature of the issue, but the fact you have one "bad" Tivo says nothing, except that you have a TiVo which isn't working properly. It does not suggest TiVo should embark on some nationwide recall and a total re-design of their product,or that they should do something functionally different in any new units. I'm sorry, but it just does not.

Try this thought experiment. Suppose you had not only your one malfunctioning TiVo in your house, but also my four well functioning TiVos, so that one out of five of your units had a problem. Now what should TiVo do? Fix all five?



texaslabrat said:


> And yes, I *am* suggesting that Tivo fix something. Their product is sub-par when compared to the reliability of the cable-company-supplied equipment that I have used.


'All one of them. Do you want me to show you literally a giant warehouse full of malfunctioning 8300s? It's been decades since I worked for the CATV company, but based upon the failure rate and cost of repair for leased units back then, I suspect the local CATV company probably spends in excess of $100,000 a month repairing malfunctioning DVRs. I'm sorry if this offends you for some reason, but the fact is your personal experience is simply not a statistical sample, no matter how widespread the problem might be. The people at TiVo would have to be certifiably insane - or at least unutterably stupid - to initiate a potentially multi-million dollar campaign to fix what might not even be broken in any large sense based strictly upon your personal experience. Yet time and time again you insist that this is strictly your personal experience and in the same breath Tivo should fix the problem.



texaslabrat said:


> That is unacceptable to me given how much money I have had to pay for the privilege of owning the Tivo.


 You could have paid a million dollars for it, and it in no way demonstrates there is an issue with the product line. No amount of whining on your part, even if it were totally justified, provides evidence of a design flaw, or even a failed or partially failed production run.



texaslabrat said:


> There is a reason why I still have the SA 8000HD (which is a DVR and an STB, depsite your assertions) and not 2 Tivos.


If you had two TiVos, and they were both malfunctioning, then we would be better served to listen to what you have to say beyond the fact your one TiVo is having a problem. As it is, unless you have some additional data, you really have nothing else to offer. It's nothing personal, but the simple fact you have a bad TiVo is meaningless by itself.



texaslabrat said:


> My experience with the first Tivo made buying a second a non-starter.


It is utterly moronic to base one's estimation of a product line upon a single non-featured failure. We purchase muxes at a cost often exceeding $50,000 apiece, from the most reliable manufacturers on the planet, yet we often get a bad mux. In fact, we got a bad one just six weeks ago. The average defect rate for that device is less than 0.01% within the first year, but that didn't prevent us from getting a bad one right out of the box.



texaslabrat said:


> If Tivo comes out with a NEW product that FIXES all the issues that a GREAT MANY folks are having with the current products..


I forget, is "great many" the number before or after a gazillion? More to the point, exactly how do you suggest that you are going to make such a determination without buying another TiVo?



texaslabrat said:


> then MAYBE will I consider buying another Tivo someday.


Based on what?



texaslabrat said:


> As it is, if things remain as they are today, I won't.


Just how are things today? What are the odds of your getting anotehr bad TiVo if you went down to Best Buy tomorroaw and picked one up? One in ten? One in fifty? One in ten thousand? If you are suggesting TiVo must somehow produce a 100% faultless product line, then you're insane.



texaslabrat said:


> Therefore...Tivo *is* losing its value insofar that they are about to lose me as a customer overall, and they have already lost me as a repeat customer in the past year as I have skipped buying a second Tivo for my home.


Oh, good grief! I always thought I was an incredibly arrogant and self-centered person...


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

samo said:


> I think that medical term for it is Paranoia.


'Not in the least. I don't think that everyone is out to get me. Indeed, I doubt anyone is out to get me. I just realize that anyone might be more concerned about their own welfare than mine, and that even if they are not, there's a good chance they are a moron. In the case of the politician, the latter is all but guaranteed.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> I can think of at least one thing that does just work. Gravity, You don't have to think about it you don't have to maintain it, it just works 24/7/365. Gravity it's not just a good idea, it's the law.


I'm afraid Stephen Hawking and especially Edward Witten would disagree with you. 

Actually, gravity is no more fundamental than the strong force or the electro-weak force. Indeed, a classical description of gravity by General Relativity doesn't propose gravity to be a fundamental force, at all, but rather as merely an artifact of local space-time geometry. For a small enough section of space-time, gravity is indistinguishable from an acceleration due to any other force.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

samo said:


> I think that medical term for it is Paranoia.


Just because your paranoid, doesn't mean their not out to get him.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

lrhorer said:


> I'm afraid Stephen Hawking and especially Edward Witten would disagree with you.
> 
> Actually, gravity is no more fundamental than the strong force or the electro-weak force. Indeed, a classical description of gravity by General Relativity doesn't propose gravity to be a fundamental force, at all, but rather as merely an artifact of local space-time geometry. For a small enough section of space-time, gravity is indistinguishable from an acceleration due to any other force.


When I can drop a hammer and it falls up on a predictable schedule in the physical world we live in (earth) Gravity being the law is a reasonable expectation and until things start falling up, I'll be moving my barefeet.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

lrhorer said:


> Try this thought experiment. Suppose you had not only your one malfunctioning TiVo in your house, but also my four well functioning TiVos, so that one out of five of your units had a problem. Now what should TiVo do? Fix all five?


I'm not trying to defend or attack your position, just pointing out the QA implications, 5 is an awfully small sample size, but to get a 60% fail rate on ANY random sample? I'd have to go back and check but I think that when dealing with that small of a sample size in QA if you get 1 bad, you would resample a lot, and if you get 2 you fail the lot. I'm not in the procurement end of QA so I haven't had to deal with that in years. Anyone person getting one bad unit, means nothing. Getting 2 bad units COULD BE a statistical blip (but possibly looked at), but IF one person got 3 THAT would either be an extraordinary string of bad luck or a point concern and looked at a bit more closely.


----------



## johnsmith77js (Nov 16, 2009)

I dont TiVo is losing value


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Tivo may not be losing value but this thread sure is.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

JWThiers said:


> Anyone person getting one bad unit, means nothing. Getting 2 bad units COULD BE a statistical blip (but possibly looked at), but IF one person got 3 THAT would either be an extraordinary string of bad luck or a point concern and looked at a bit more closely.


Try some numbers out:
*IF* failures depended only on a bad unit, and there was 1 chance in 20 of getting a bad unit, then there is 1 chance in 8,000 of getting 3 bad units (and no good units). In other words, you would expect that to happen to 1-2 people every month (and many of them would come here!)

Failures don't depend only on a bad unit, of course. There are lots of folks out there with a bad environment - bad power, bad power connections (faulty ground), a bad signal from antenna (major problem for some folks with powered antenna), a bad signal from cable. These folks are going to have failures much more often.

And then you add TiVos going back because of user error, which includes bad cables, bad cabling, and bad TVs, and then TiVos improperly going back because of TiVo software errors (eg, analog gray screens), and there's going to be a whole lot more folks with 3 bad units.

Is one chance in 20 a sign of a bad product? Who knows - I'm comfortable buying many things with that failure rate, including TiVos. Just checking a Consumers Report, the best washer repair history is 1 in 10 need repair. That's over a longer period of time, but is a much simpler device that we don't think of as needing repairs often.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> That may be an overstatement. A lot of people want someone to blame, and I think a reasonable fraction may really be concerned about placing blame fairly.
> 
> Some of us just don't need it, either way.
> 
> ...


Please be careful about your quotes. This is the second post where you've attributed quotes to *texaslabrat* that were actually mine. (You're giving *texaslabrat* a bad name! )


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

CrispyCritter said:


> Failures don't depend only on a bad unit, of course. There are lots of folks out there with a bad environment - bad power, bad power connections (faulty ground), a bad signal from antenna (major problem for some folks with powered antenna), a bad signal from cable. These folks are going to have failures much more often.


There are self inflicted problems, like stuffing the DVR into a poorly ventilated entertainment center, or stacking components on top of one another. I think every manual I've read defines a minimum space requirement, or warns about providing proper ventilation.


----------



## texaslabrat (Oct 24, 2007)

lrhorer said:


> Oh, good grief! I always thought I was an incredibly arrogant and self-centered person...


You are. You fail to acknowledge the issues that Tivo has...that are well documented by hundreds of posts in this very forum. Maybe your Tivos are made of pixie dust and are perfect. Unfortunately, that run of devices seems to have been a very limited edition and the rest of us got ones that have issues. I personally wish my Tivo was perfect and ran as well as the cable-issued equipment that is also in my home. It doesn't..and I've paid far more for the Tivo than I have for the cable-issued equipment. That is unacceptable, and I won't be purchasing any more equipment from Tivo until they have rectified their issues.

I know I sound like a broken record, but again you seem to have that darned learning disability which prevents you from absorbing this information.

Also, please stop attributing quotes to me that someone else made. You've done it in 2 separate posts in this thread. Once I can forgive as an honest mistake..but twice just proves that my opinion about you is well justified.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

texaslabrat said:


> You fail to acknowledge the issues that Tivo has...*that are well documented by hundreds of posts in this very forum*.


You realize that this forum only represents a fraction of Tivo owners, right?
And only a fraction of the forum members have problems.
Most people only come here to post when they have a problem.

If we had people starting threads like "I just got a Tivo and everything works great", I'd bet those posts would overwhelm the forum and bury the problem threads.


----------



## texaslabrat (Oct 24, 2007)

steve614 said:


> You realize that this forum only represents a fraction of Tivo owners, right?
> And only a fraction of the forum members have problems.
> Most people only come here to post when they have a problem.
> 
> If we had people starting threads like "I just got a Tivo and everything works great", I'd bet those posts would overwhelm the forum.


I absolutely recognize that, but that assertion of the tivo forums cuts both ways (for every person who posts a problem there are many out there who don't and just scream and curse at their Tivo). The fact that this forum is, by definition, the home and base of Tivo fanbois...and there are STILL hundreds (if not thousands) of posts detailing similar problems (these days, mostly dealing with SDV and the Tuning Adapters)...I have to think that maybe, JUST MAYBE, there's an issue worth investigating and even fixing if possible. Just a crazy little idea, I know...

As more and more cable markets switch to SDV, such "problem posts" are just going to multiply. Turn a blind eye if you wish...but it doesn't change the reality of the situation.


----------



## Kablemodem (May 26, 2001)

Most consumer electronic devices lose value once you purchase them, unless they somehow become collectible. There are better ways to invest one's money to seek financial gain.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Kablemodem said:


> Most consumer electronic devices lose value once you purchase them, unless they somehow become collectible. There are better ways to invest one's money to seek financial gain.


The original point suggets a tivo is losing value to customers who subscribe to a cable system that sets the CCI flag. Those customers can no longer use MRV or TTG for many channels. Tivo has less value because a feature that they use is no longer available to them.

Very few consumer electronic devices have features disabled months after purchase.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

texaslabrat said:


> I absolutely recognize that, but that assertion of the tivo forums cuts both ways (for every person who posts a problem there are many out there who don't and just scream and curse at their Tivo).


I see this forum as mostly Tivo power users. People who use 3rd party devices and software of which Tivo has no control over.
I just don't think the vast majority of Tivo owners fall into this category.



> The fact that this forum is, by definition, the home and base of Tivo fanbois...and there are STILL hundreds (if not thousands) of posts detailing similar problems (these days, mostly dealing with SDV and the Tuning Adapters)...I have to think that maybe, JUST MAYBE, there's an issue worth investigating and even fixing if possible. Just a crazy little idea, I know...
> As more and more cable markets switch to SDV, such "problem posts" are just going to multiply. Turn a blind eye if you wish...but it doesn't change the reality of the situation.


I agree, but again we're dealing with 3rd party devices here.
Tivo can't anticipate any of the problems that might arise from using such a device.
They can only react after the fact and work towards a solution.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

lew said:


> The original point is a tivo is losing value to customers who subscribe to a cable system that sets the CCI flag. Those customers can no longer use MRV or TTG for many channels. Tivo has less value because a feature that they use is no longer available to them.
> 
> Very few consumer electronic devices have features disabled months after purchase.


Since it is the cable companies that are setting the CCI byte (justifiably or not) preventing use of the MRV and TTG functions, I would say it is the cable companies who are losing value. I actually have said that by my actions of canceling my television service from Brighthouse, and going OTA. MRV and TTG work fine for me now.

I just got done housesitting for my sister who has Brighthouse and uses their DVR, and found I wasn't missing anything that cable had to offer. It's nice to reaffirm the actions I took were correct for me and my situation. I could no longer justify paying for over 350 some channels when I watched/recorded maybe a dozen of them. The value of the content delivered by those dozen or so channels did not equal what I was paying to BHN.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Part of the quandary with TiVo and cable is that cable providers are limited and TiVo doesn't work with Sat service any longer. If you want to use the equipment you purchased and pay a subscription for you have to use cable. Fortunately for some, OTA channels are abundant enough in some areas to provide an alternative. Unfortunately those areas are small. 

My point has been that TiVo is experiencing an erosion in value due to restrictive cable companies and they need to do something about it. The way I see it TiVo has two options, 1) Find a way to play the game or 2) Get the rules changed. 

Either way, the solution had better include those people that have bought S3's and HD's, or TiVo will be alienating a fairly sizable segment of their market.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

texaslabrat said:


> The fact that this forum is, by definition, the home and base of Tivo fanbois...and there are STILL hundreds (if not thousands) of posts detailing similar problems (these days, mostly dealing with SDV and the Tuning Adapters)...I have to think that maybe, JUST MAYBE, there's an issue worth investigating and even fixing if possible. Just a crazy little idea, I know...


what makes you think TiVo is NOT investigating the issues and look for fixes that TiVo can do or else passing info to cable companies as warranted?

the simple facts here are - 
- the forum does make problems seem larger than they are as problems are what drives the majority of people to sign up for the forum and post.
- there is a minority of people who signed up simply because they like TiVo and other geek gadgets and most importantly, talking about said geek stuff.
- the minority is significant only in that they do a disproportionate amount of posting. I recently deliberately made myself post less often for instance.
- this geek loving minority falls into a few camps but mainly along lines of a. still likes Tivo b. fell out of like with TiVo c. desire to get their points across as they saw it.
- so you have a thread someone mught start with a problem - and then then geeks might post it into 300 or more post length and take it all over the place.
- a heavy poster also might have their specific issue they want to make prominent and start multiple threads and many posts on it

all in all this does indeed blow the true % of issues in the overall TiVo population up into a seemingly larger % while at the same time ensuring no one will ever get a handle on the true scope of issues in the overall TiVo population from this forum.

and in all of this TiVo inc. needs to stay mostly mum as they would be crazy to try and enter into any deeper dialog here in public view. So people assume their silence is turning a blind eye when in fact TiVo is likely the ultimate lurker here instead. 
This leads us back to people coming here with problems and mega posters that keep posting their issue to give it prominence. Both are ways TiVo can get the message and at least consider it. So you do not want to stop either - other than to Note - TiVo heard you the first time and if they can reproduce it with their test resources, then they can work on solutions from TiVo. If they can not then really how can they consider fixing it. Also TiVo, like any company, would take the online postings with a grain of salt - easy to post some stuff up and go on about it. The more considered people would be the ones who spend time with a CSR and get a case number on their issue and then even more so those that would take the time to write in or contact TiVo in some more permanent fashion


----------



## texaslabrat (Oct 24, 2007)

ZeoTiVo said:


> what makes you think TiVo is NOT investigating the issues and look for fixes that TiVo can do or else passing info to cable companies as warranted?


I'm quite sure that they probably are...however the results (or lack thereof) speak for themselves...


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

texaslabrat said:


> I'm quite sure that they probably are...however the results (or lack thereof) speak for themselves...


aside from a kludge fix of changing the channel - which does not work if the signal is just not there, etc.. then surely you do not think that a small company like TiVo trying to coordinate with multiple cable companies as to why the SDV adapter sometimes gives the wrong frequency mapping to the TiVo is a simple thing do you?
Factor in that tru2way will make Tuning adapters obsolete anyhow and expecting Tivo to put major resources on this problem is kinda wishful thinking.
Nothing personal, that is just the lay of the land on this problem


----------



## texaslabrat (Oct 24, 2007)

ZeoTiVo said:


> aside from a kludge fix of changing the channel - which does not work if the signal is just not there, etc.. then surely you do not think that a small company like TiVo trying to coordinate with multiple cable companies as to why the SDV adapter sometimes gives the wrong frequency mapping to the TiVo is a simple thing do you?
> Factor in that tru2way will make Tuning adapters obsolete anyhow and expecting Tivo to put major resources on this problem is kinda wishful thinking.
> Nothing personal, that is just the lay of the land on this problem


Excuses are for losers...I want results  If they can't fix it, they deserve to lose customers..end of story.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

Stormspace said:


> Part of the quandary with TiVo and cable is that cable providers are limited and TiVo doesn't work with Sat service any longer. If you want to use the equipment you purchased and pay a subscription for you have to use cable. Fortunately for some, OTA channels are abundant enough in some areas to provide an alternative. Unfortunately those areas are small.
> 
> My point has been that TiVo is experiencing an erosion in value due to restrictive cable companies and they need to do something about it. The way I see it TiVo has two options, 1) Find a way to play the game or 2) Get the rules changed.
> 
> Either way, the solution had better include those people that have bought S3's and HD's, or TiVo will be alienating a fairly sizable segment of their market.


And when they were making DirectTV with Tivo and the HD DTV box. in order to get the kind of usefulness that Stand Alones have, you would have to hack them to enable MRV and use third party tools for every other networfeature. So the grass is always greener.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

texaslabrat said:


> Excuses are for losers...I want results  If they can't fix it, they deserve to lose customers..end of story.


Selling your equipment?


----------



## texaslabrat (Oct 24, 2007)

JWThiers said:


> Selling your equipment?


Probably won't sell it, but I'll cancel the subscription if/when I move on to a different DVR solution that can reliably do SDV.


----------



## Kablemodem (May 26, 2001)

orangeboy said:


> Since it is the cable companies that are setting the CCI byte (justifiably or not) preventing use of the MRV and TTG functions, I would say it is the cable companies who are losing value.


Exactly. I will be switching from TWC to DirecTV as soon as the new TiVos are available. I will keep my lifetimed S3 active with OTA only. I will probably sell my other S3 and get two of the new DirecTiVos. TiVo is more important to me than the source of the programming.


----------



## 84lion (Jan 23, 2009)

Kablemodem said:


> Exactly. I will be switching from TWC to DirecTV as soon as the new TiVos are available. I will keep my lifetimed S3 active with OTA only. I will probably sell my other S3 and get two of the new DirecTiVos. TiVo is more important to me than the source of the programming.


Unfortunately I would imagine that the new DirecTV-compatible units will probably also see flags. For stuff that really needs to be archived, the Hauppauge HD DVR is one solution that I'm looking into.

I would add that "setting the byte" is counterproductive in that I would probably pay for premium services but not being able to do MRV or archiving to computer HDD is pretty much a deal-breaker - unless the Hauppauge unit described above works.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> I'm not trying to defend or attack your position, just pointing out the QA implications, 5 is an awfully small sample size, but to get a 60% fail rate on ANY random sample? I'd have to go back and check but I think that when dealing with that small of a sample size in QA if you get 1 bad, you would resample a lot, and if you get 2 you fail the lot.


Of course. Indeed, I would start looking at lot numbers and shipping dates. The point I was making, though, is the OP keeps trying to limit his exposure to critique by claiming "it's just my experience!" and then from that tries to imply there is some urgent need for TiVo to do "something." He's typically short on any specific suggestions of just what "something" might be, but even shorter on any evidence there is a broadly encountered single problem of how broad the experience actually is. In short, he insists because he is having a problem, TiVo needs undertake some major campaign to fix something.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Kablemodem said:


> Exactly. I will be switching from TWC to DirecTV as soon as the new TiVos are available.


Good for you, and I mean that with no sarcasm at all. If you have issues with a vendor, then dumping them is a very reasonable thing to do. When I say "issues", I mean it as broadly as possible. It doesn't have to be for anything significant or even anything within the control sphere of the vendor. You can drop them because you don't like the way they spell their name, if you like. It's a very different thing to demand they accede to some request of yours, and also a very different thing to cast aspersions on them for something which may not be reasonably within their control.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

dlfl said:


> Please be careful about your quotes. This is the second post where you've attributed quotes to *texaslabrat* that were actually mine. (You're giving *texaslabrat* a bad name! )


Oops! 'Sorry. I've corrected that one. What was the other?

Edit: Found it.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> Of course. Indeed, I would start looking at lot numbers and shipping dates. The point I was making, though, is the OP keeps trying to limit his exposure to critique by claiming "it's just my experience!" and then from that tries to imply there is some urgent need for TiVo to do "something." He's typically short on any specific suggestions of just what "something" might be, but even shorter on any evidence there is a broadly encountered single problem of how broad the experience actually is. In short, he insists because he is having a problem, TiVo needs undertake some major campaign to fix something.


With all due respect, I wish you would be more careful about attributing statements to the right person. "OP", per the "Official TC Acronyms Thread" refers to the person who initiated the thread (stormspace), while I'm sure you are referring to texaslabrat in your post quoted above.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

84lion said:


> Unfortunately I would imagine that the new DirecTV-compatible units will probably also see flags. For stuff that really needs to be archived, the Hauppauge HD DVR is one solution that I'm looking into.
> 
> I would add that "setting the byte" is counterproductive in that I would probably pay for premium services but not being able to do MRV or archiving to computer HDD is pretty much a deal-breaker - unless the Hauppauge unit described above works.


Probably worse than that. Unless DTV changes how they handled DirecTV with Tivo units, You will not be able to MRV ANYTHING without hacking your unit. I haven't looked into the state of that since I got a stand alone 2 years ago, but no network connectivity without hacking was one on my reasons for switching.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

texaslabrat said:


> You are. You fail to acknowledge the issues that Tivo has


I haven't failed to acknowledge anything. I haven't even bothered to argue with you concerning the very real possibility that the problem you are experiencing has nothing to do with the TiVo, but instead have stipulated for the moment the problem lies in your TiVo.



texaslabrat said:


> ...that are well documented by hundreds of posts in this very forum.


"Hundreds of posts" is not a measure of how widespread a problem may be. Your posting one hundred times does not constitute multiple reports of an issue. I make no claim to knowing how widespread the issue or issues might be, but based upon the relatively low volume or reporting individuals (not the volume of reports by the individuals), I suspect it may be very low. For all I know, however, I might have the only 3 functioning units on the planet, but I cannot make claims based upon that assumption, which is what you are doing.



texaslabrat said:


> Maybe your Tivos are made of pixie dust and are perfect. Unfortunately, that run of devices seems to have been a very limited edition and the rest of us got ones that have issues.


Did you really just say that? Just for the record, my TiVos were each purchased roughly 1 year apart. Two of them are S3 units and one a THD.



texaslabrat said:


> I personally wish my Tivo was perfect and ran as well as the cable-issued equipment that is also in my home. It doesn't..and I've paid far more for the Tivo than I have for the cable-issued equipment. That is unacceptable


No, it's irrelevant. How much you paid is not the issue.



texaslabrat said:


> and I won't be purchasing any more equipment from Tivo until they have rectified their issues.


Based upon what metric?



texaslabrat said:


> I know I sound like a broken record


Then start saying something worthwhile, rather than spewing out the same old irrelevant nonsense again and again.



texaslabrat said:


> but again you seem to have that darned learning disability which prevents you from absorbing this information.


My ability to learn or lack thereof is not relevant. All that is relevant is that you supply some support for your position.



texaslabrat said:


> Also, please stop attributing quotes to me that someone else made. You've done it in 2 separate posts in this thread. Once I can forgive as an honest mistake..but twice just proves that my opinion about you is well justified.


Oh, give me a break! It was 02:00 and I forgot to clear the clipboard when responding to subsequent messages by dfl after responding to one of yours. In any case, your opinion of me is not important. What is important is that you supply some evidence to back up your position, which you have not done.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

JWThiers said:


> Probably worse than that. Unless DTV changes how they handled DirecTV with Tivo units, You will not be able to MRV ANYTHING without hacking your unit. I haven't looked into the state of that since I got a stand alone 2 years ago, but no network connectivity without hacking was one on my reasons for switching.


Although MRV (actually TTG) is important to me, at this point I would settle for a DVR that was just reliable, i.e., didn't have the TA and CableCARD issues the OP refered to, and which have been discussed at length here and in other threads. Not to mention the pixelation I get on SDV channels, which could be called a "TA issue" also, perhaps.

Just now I was watching an HD non-SDV channel that is normally rock solid, no pixelation ever. During a commercial the video just froze. Rewind and fast forward ended up with the video blank (black) and the time cursor locked at the beginning of the 30 minute buffer. I looked at the DVR Diagnostics and everything there was the normal good numbers that occur when that channel is successfully tuned. I did the channel chinese fire drill and found the other tuner *would* successfully tune the channel. After switching back to the original tuner, the channel would now tune. Probably if I had tried channel up/down to force a re-tune, it would have recovered without the chinese channel fire drill. Yet another weird glitch, of a new type, added to what makes unreliable DVR performance.

This episode could either be TiVo's fault (not robust enough to signal irregularities) or Time Warners (unaccaptable signal glitch). There is also the (remote I think) possibility the channel actually broadcast a black signal with no audio for exactly the time interval to explain what I saw. However the latter case should not cause the time cursor to lock as it did.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

dlfl said:


> With all due respect


I'm not due any particular respect in this sense. Nor is anyone else. You have a right to speak your mind, and it is good that you have exercised that right.



dlfl said:


> I wish you would be more careful about attributing statements to the right person. "OP", per the "Official TC Acronyms Thread" refers to the person who initiated the thread (stormspace), while I'm sure you are referring to texaslabrat in your post quoted above.


In the previous messages, I accidentally mis-quoted some text, which indeed was a matter of attributing the text to the wrong person. In this case, however, I did not attribute the quote to the wrong person, but merely employed a non-standard useage of an acronym, which is a very different thing. I am very sensitive to the former failure on my part, accidental though it was. To this latter issue - not so much. That said, your criticism is nonetheless well received.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> ........ In this case, however, I did not attribute the quote to the wrong person, but merely employed a non-standard useage of an acronym, which is a very different thing. I am very sensitive to the former failure on my part, accidental though it was. To this latter issue - not so much. That said, your criticism is nonetheless well received.


I have to admit I used the "non-standard" version (i.e., "Other Person") myself until very recently.


----------



## texaslabrat (Oct 24, 2007)

lrhorer said:


> What is important is that you supply some evidence to back up your position, which you have not done.


"Evidence to back up my position"? WTF? I don't have a "position". This is not a debate. I listed my experiences and my expectations. I don't need to justify my own experiences or expectations to you or anybody else. End of story. As I said before...excuses are for losers, I want a working product. The Moxi looks interesting, as does the upcoming Ceton PC tuning card....whichever solution can provide rock-solid SDV (and other "basic") functionality on par with my cable STB's...wins. If Tivo announces a new product which addresses the abysmal SDV support they've shown thus far (and in the process doesn't break anything else), I might give them consideration for my future business. But it'll be a cold day in hell before I buy another Series-3 generation product from Tivo unless they pull a major rabbit out of their, erm, hat...and fix the SDV issues that so many of us are experiencing.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

texaslabrat said:


> Excuses are for losers...I want results  If they can't fix it, they deserve to lose customers..end of story.


those were not excuses but the business reality. Do not like how SDV works then get the cable company DVR already. Also when you use terms like "so many of us" it just dilutes anything you are trying to say since it is vague and unquantifiable.


----------



## Grumock (Dec 16, 2008)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Factor in that tru2way will make Tuning adapters obsolete anyhow


Not sure if you understand tru2way saying that. Tru2way is in the devise the card is plugged into not the card itself. All cable Cards have the ability to *enable *2way communication, as long as the devise they are plugged into has the *ability *to communicate 2way. Sorry to come off gruff, if i am, but it is a common misconception that it is the card that has to be tru2way. Unless the series 4 is tru2way compliant then TAs will still be needed.


----------



## texaslabrat (Oct 24, 2007)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Also when you use terms like "so many of us" it just dilutes anything you are trying to say since it is vague and unquantifiable.


Feel free to peruse the various threads in this forum regarding SDV and Tuning Adapter issues for clarification and quantization.



ZeoTivo said:


> Do not like how SDV works then get the cable company DVR already


That's the spirit! Capitulation for the win! We certainly wouldn't want them to actually FIX the problem, now would we?  My God, there's must be a massive KoolAid bowl around here somewhere.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Brainiac 5 said:


> The TiVo knows what cable company you have (or could) by the lineup. So in the worst case, they should be able to make it act one way on FIOS and another on Comcast or TWC.


As I said, it was a hypothetical, and I am not terribly interested in delving much further into it, but such may or may not be practical, depending upon what code needs to be modified. I doubt it is anything in the kernel, although I suppose it's even possible that could be the case. More problematically, however, the hypothetical issue could very well be related not to corporate-wide issues, but rather soecific equipment in specific cities, or worse specific deployments within certain parts of certain cities.



Brainiac 5 said:


> At least, that's what I'd do if I were them and such a truly irreconcilable difference in how the TiVo needed to work came up...


And when there's not two, but forty... or fifty... or a hundred? When half of TWC Chicago has gear that responds one way and half the other? This might not be the slipperiest of slopes, but where does it end?


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

lrhorer said:


> I'm not due any particular respect in this sense. Nor is anyone else. You have a right to speak your mind, and it is good that you have exercised that right.


Everyone is due a certain amount of respect. The amount depends on how they use or abuse that respect. Personally I try to treat people how I wish they would treat me. I can disagree with a position and still respect they person and point of view. Similarly, I can agree with a position (If I agree with the position it goes without say I respect the position) and because of how they treat others or myself not respect the person. Basically, you treat others with respect and you earn the respect in return, You respect others a lot and you earn a lot of respect in return, you disrespect others and you earn disrespect, you disrespect others a lot and you earn a lot of disrespect.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

texaslabrat said:


> ...whichever solution can provide rock-solid SDV (and other "basic") functionality on par with my cable STB's...


If you are setting the standard to be your cable's STB, why are you looking at alternatives?


----------



## texaslabrat (Oct 24, 2007)

orangeboy said:


> If you are setting the standard to be your cable's STB, why are you looking at alternatives?


I think "reliability" should be a no-brainer for any product in this genre. It's the feature set that should be the differentiator. Unfortunately, I seem to be alone in that conclusion LOL...lucky for Tivo its userbase has such low expectations.


----------



## Teeps (Aug 16, 2001)

texaslabrat said:


> Probably won't sell it, but I'll cancel the subscription if/when I move on to a different DVR solution that can reliably do SDV.


AT&T U-verse is one possible solution to give the finger to the cable/cos.

Unfortunately AT&T U-verse does not work with TiVo, which is why I have passed on the service.
However recording 4 programs at once is appealing...


----------



## texaslabrat (Oct 24, 2007)

Teeps said:


> AT&T U-verse is one possible solution to give the finger to the cable/cos.
> 
> Unfortunately AT&T U-verse does not work with TiVo, which is why I have passed on the service.
> However recording 4 programs at once is appealing...


Yeah, I've considered it (I was a very active member on the user site for a while so I know all the ins-and-outs of it)...but they overcompress their HD streams to the point of annoyance when watching fast-action programming (eg football). The anemic amount of bandwidth available to the system as a whole also is a drag (= slow broadband if you're running multiple HD streams). But the concept is nice if they'd do fiber-to-the-curb at least and provide sufficient bandwidth for all services without squeezing the HD content bitrate so much.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

texaslabrat said:


> Feel free to peruse the various threads in this forum regarding SDV and Tuning Adapter issues for clarification and quantization.
> 
> That's the spirit! Capitulation for the win! We certainly wouldn't want them to actually FIX the problem, now would we?  My God, there's must be a massive KoolAid bowl around here somewhere.


The number of threads looking for help in a help forum is NOT a indication of how widespread any particular issue may or may not be. People don't generally come to a help forum and say Everything is great with mine. If it will help I have not had any major issues with my TA. We do not have access to tivo customer support logs so we have no idea of how widespread any particular issue is. About all we can say on this forum is the most common problem as determined by the number of requests for help or complaints is the TA. If it only affects a small percentage of users, how critical is it? IF it is the most common issue regardless of how widespread it is, I'm sure they are looking at even if it is a continuous improvement project.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

dlfl said:


> Just now I was watching an HD non-SDV channel that is normally rock solid, no pixelation ever.


Ahem. 'None that you have seen before. Broadcast video streams are frequently far from perfect. Indeed, when developing HD capability for TyTool, Josh Dinerstein inspected a fair amount number of digital streams from various sources, including OTA and DTV. At one point, he lamented, "The OTA stuff is a steaming pile of crap. There is no other way to describe it. I thought DTV streams were full of oddities, but they have nothing whatsoever on what is being passed for "good" on the OTA streams."

That's the reality of the environment in which the Tivo lives. The transport Stream spec, however, was designed specifically realizing that transport media may experience many problems, so often there are tons of issues in the video we users never notice. Come over to my house some time, and I can show you a few.



dlfl said:


> During a commercial the video just froze. Rewind and fast forward ended up with the video blank (black) and the time cursor locked at the beginning of the 30 minute buffer.


That sounds rather like something in the Tivo itself, although it is only slightly less likely to have been caused by something heinous in the transport system.



dlfl said:


> I looked at the DVR Diagnostics and everything there was the normal good numbers that occur when that channel is successfully tuned. I did the channel chinese fire drill and found the other tuner *would* successfully tune the channel. After switching back to the original tuner, the channel would now tune. Probably if I had tried channel up/down to force a re-tune, it would have recovered without the chinese channel fire drill. Yet another weird glitch, of a new type, added to what makes unreliable DVR performance.


It represents unreliable *system* performance. A TiVo is only part of the system. Now in this case it does sound to me like maybe something in the TiVo went, "Burp", but we don't know that for certain. Such problems are not uncommon in the system, and do not necessarily have anything to do with the TiVo. I often observed similar issues with various content long before the TiVo even existed. There are a ton of places in the path that can have problems. The TiVo and the CATV system are often just the tail-end of a very long chain of very sophisticated and sometimes finicky equipment.



dlfl said:


> This episode could either be TiVo's fault (not robust enough to signal irregularities) or Time Warners (unaccaptable signal glitch).


Or one of the broadcaster's pieces of equipment, or one of the pieces of equipment of the half-dozen or more telecommunications companies who handle the signal, or something at the uplink site... The signal passes through literally hundreds of pieces of equipment, and any one of them can cause problems. It also may pass through the better part of a mile or more of coaxial cable and passive devices, all of which can have problems.



dlfl said:


> There is also the (remote I think) possibility the channel actually broadcast a black signal with no audio for exactly the time interval to explain what I saw. However the latter case should not cause the time cursor to lock as it did.


It would if the bitstream went flatline, or even if it got corrupted enough that no I-frames could be even partially decoded. If the decoder can't make any sense of the signal, it may freeze the frame, or output nothing at all. The same thing can happen, BTW, if the codec cannot lock on the video coming from a camera, or if a video tech happens to accidentally switch the video input to a dead line. Video black with no audio is still a valid signal, but flatline is not. You say this was a commercial? It could have been a botched commercial insert.


----------



## texaslabrat (Oct 24, 2007)

JWThiers said:


> The number of threads looking for help in a help forum is NOT a indication of how widespread any particular issue may or may not be. People don't generally come to a help forum and say Everything is great with mine. If it will help I have not had any major issues with my TA. We do not have access to tivo customer support logs so we have no idea of how widespread any particular issue is. About all we can say on this forum is the most common problem as determined by the number of requests for help or complaints is the TA. If it only affects a small percentage of users, how critical is it? IF it is the most common issue regardless of how widespread it is, I'm sure they are looking at even if it is a continuous improvement project.


Um, I wasn't making note of the number of threads, but rather of the number of individuals who are reporting issues and/or requesting help in those threads. As I said before...that "small sample" argument cuts both ways...for every one that posts there is a much larger number of folks who don't and suffer in silence or seek assistance from other avenues...

As for "how critical is it"...as the SDV penetration increases...I'd venture to guess it will become VERY critical. Now's the time to fix it before Tivo gets the reputation of the box that can't give you all the channels you pay for. I haven't seen any similar issues regarding Moxi (if you know of any, I'd appreciate a link), and it remains to be seen if the Ceton card will have issues. If one (or both) of those solution prove reliable...Tivo will quickly fall out of favor for those people who live in SDV markets going forward (except for those die-hards who will forgive Tivo for any fault just because they are Tivo)

I'm sure they are "looking at it" as well...but that doesn't make it fixed. This has been ongoing since the TA's were released....still no solution in sight (but thank god we got blockbuster support in the mean time!).


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

texaslabrat said:


> Feel free to peruse the various threads in this forum regarding SDV and Tuning Adapter issues for clarification and quantization.
> 
> That's the spirit! Capitulation for the win! We certainly wouldn't want them to actually FIX the problem, now would we?  My God, there's must be a massive KoolAid bowl around here somewhere.


I have been on this forum a long time and am well aware of the SDV issues. You can post smart ass comments all you want but it will only make you look foolish.

Moxi has no forum like this but just one long thread in AVS forum.

SDV is not used everywhere by a long shot and one of the business realities I posted for you was that TiVo is working on a tru2way box that will have the DOCIS modem internally and tru2way will let the TiVo natively talk to the head end for SDV with no more need for an external tuning adapter.

You need to understand that TiVo inc. does not revolve around just your specific needs and if the product does not meet your specific needs then you need to look elsewhere. That is not capitulation but being a smart consumer. Your choice


----------



## texaslabrat (Oct 24, 2007)

ZeoTiVo said:


> I have been on this forum a long time and am well aware of the SDV issues. You can post smart ass comments all you want but it will only make you look foolish.


More foolish than minimizing/rationalizing what is an obvious failing in one of the most primary functions that the Tivo can provide (access and display of live, linear content)? ...um k, boss...whatever floats yer boat.

(you zealot types really crack me up, btw)



> You need to understand that TiVo inc. does not revolve around just your specific needs and if the product does not meet your specific needs


I'm sorry. I assumed that I wasn't the only one who wanted my purchased device to work as advertised. Silly me.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

It's Rodney King time: Can''t we all just get along together ?


----------



## texaslabrat (Oct 24, 2007)

dlfl said:


> It's Rodney King time: Can''t we all just get along together ?


Heh..I tried. I posted a list of experiences and personal expectations (which I consider quite reasonable) and all the fanbois crawled out of the woodwork to "smite the infidel" LOL.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

If I had your problems and they could not be fixed, I'd sell my box and be done with it. Life is too short. You may be upset that TiVo is unable to fix your problem, and if you spent a fair sum of money then maybe so. Call them up an cancel your service and tell them why. If the problem is widespread enough then maybe they will do something about it. If there is no solution, if no solution is going to be offered to your problem, go with Moxi, the cable box, or Windows 7 with MC when the tuner cards are available. Let me us know how it goes, really, I would like to know - I could be convinced to change the way I do things if another option is easier and requires less of my invested time.

I am a user with less than one year exp, but I am quite satisfied. I did not go lifetime and have a refurbished box - so I can quit anytime without too much money invested, certainly not lost. I am sure I can quit anytime, I think 

There are other options, but TiVo works for me today, and hopefully tomorrow.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> Everyone is due a certain amount of respect.


What I meant WRT his post was he was raising a reasonable objection to something I had done. Respect really wasn't an issue, and while it would have been inappropriate of him to behave badly regardless of what I had done, his raising the issue would not have been considered an affront by anyone of worthwhile mettle. That's what I meant by "in this sense". Although his post was most pleasantly polite, he needn't have concerned himself that his post would have been considered disrespectful - most certainly not on my account.



JWThiers said:


> Personally I try to treat people how I wish they would treat me.


That's what I was taught, and I tried it for years. The problem with it is people often tell me they hate being treated the way I wish to be treated and I positively despise being treated the way many people say they want to be treated.

When I was being treated (no pun intended) for my paralysis, my doctor recommended several neurosurgeons to me. I asked who was the most experienced and who was the most conservative when it came to treatment options. The answer to both was the same man. "But", my doctor said, "Some people dislike his bedside manner". I found his bedside manner perfect. He was blunt and to the point. He didn't dither about or soft-sell either my condition or my prognosis. I wasn't asking him to kiss me or hold my hand. I was asking him to take a very sharp knife and plunge it deep into my throat in an attempt to prevent me from literally winding up like Christopher Reeve. I did not want him to be sympathetic or comforting. I wanted him to be stone cold sure of himself and unafraid to plunge that knife in when the time came. I did not want to be shielded from the truth. I wanted to know exactly what my chances were and precisely what could happen if something went wrong.



JWThiers said:


> I can disagree with a position and still respect they person and point of view.


Yes, but more importantly if you ask me, I can respect a person and respect his right to hold an opinion without respecting the opinion.



JWThiers said:


> Similarly, I can agree with a position (If I agree with the position it goes without say I respect the position) and because of how they treat others or myself not respect the person.


Yes, and I can respect a person's right to an opinion without respecting either the person or his opinion. It's called, "Freedom of Speech", and no matter how slimy and unworthy of respect a person and his position both may be, the Bill of Rights gets my respect in lieu of their own.


----------



## texaslabrat (Oct 24, 2007)

daveak said:


> If I had your problems and they could not be fixed, I'd sell my box and be done with it. Life is too short. You may be upset that TiVo is unable to fix your problem, and if you spent a fair sum of money then maybe so. Call them up an cancel your service and tell them why. If the problem is widespread enough then maybe they will do something about it. If there is no solution, if no solution is going to be offered to your problem, go with Moxi, the cable box, or Windows 7 with MC when the tuner cards are available. Let me us know how it goes, really, I would like to know - I could be convinced to change the way I do things if another option is easier and requires less of my invested time.
> 
> I am a user with less than one year exp, but I am quite satisfied. I did not go lifetime and have a refurbished box - so I can quit anytime without too much money invested, certainly not lost. I am sure I can quit anytime, I think
> 
> There are other options, but TiVo works for me today, and hopefully tomorrow.


It's not that I'm "upset"...rather disappointed. I'm more disappointed by the rationalization of some of the folks here....almost feels like Stockholm syndrome. Your viewpoint seems well grounded...you don't have issues so it's great for you. I'm gonna guess you don't have SDV in your market.

If/when I jump ship to another solution, I'll surely post my results. Moxi offers a 30-day no-questions-asked return (have to pay shipping back, but not a big deal) so I could potentially have a side-by-side comparison (using the same Tuning adapter and cable drop even to eliminate that as a variable). Maybe after Christmas I'll give it a shot. Not sure when the Ceton card will be released (Q1 2010 is a fairly large window), but if it's priced reasonably and has a similar money-back-guarantee I'll probably give it a whirl too. Otherwise I'll just sit tight and let others "beta test" for a few months before I lay out the cash for it.

And who knows...maybe Tivo will shock the hell out of me and actually fix the issue in the mean time. Stranger things have happened! I'd even take the "kludge" solution I posted in the other thread as "fixed"...I care about results, not the methods used to get them 

Cheers!


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

After carefully following this thread I've concluded the rest of you are just too fixated on your own problems and opinions!

Now *I*, on the other hand, have *really serious *problems and deserve more attention and sympathy, and more respect for my views !

Actually if you can cut through the acrimony there's a lot to learn in this thread. If you can .....


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

texaslabrat said:


> Heh..I tried. I posted a list of experiences and personal expectations (which I consider quite reasonable) and all the fanbois crawled out of the woodwork to "smite the infidel" LOL.


I admit, I see no reasonableness in your expectations. Your argument throughout has been "My local cable franchise has goofed up their deployment of TAs. I'm furious at TiVo for not fixing it." Nonsensical.

TAs were developed because of TiVo and jointly with TiVo.  They wouldn't exist otherwise. TiVo has not changed its end of the TA interface - the problems are coming from implementation changes on the cable company side. It takes time to get the cable companies to fix things - it's not as if it affects more than a very small percentage of their customers.


----------



## texaslabrat (Oct 24, 2007)

CrispyCritter said:


> I admit, I see no reasonableness in your expectations. Your argument throughout has been "My local cable franchise has goofed up their deployment of TAs. I'm furious at TiVo for not fixing it." Nonsensical.
> 
> TAs were developed because of TiVo and jointly with TiVo. They wouldn't exist otherwise. TiVo has not changed its end of the TA interface - the problems are coming from implementation changes on the cable company side. It takes time to get the cable companies to fix things - it's not as if it affects more than a very small percentage of their customers.


That would be a valid synopsis of the situation except that it is happening in virtually EVERY SDV market (with multiple head-end vendors/technology) as shown by the multitudes of SDV/Tuning Adapter threads here. Either EVERY TA is flawed, or Tivo has a bug. So yeah, I want Tivo to fix it. I don't see that as unreasonable...especially if it turns out that other solutions (Moxi/Ceton) don't have similar issues. There are ATi card solutions out there right now using TA's with WMC...I haven't seen any reports of the issues with THOSE either (though it's still a bit early, admittedly, for a critical mass of people to run into it and begin reporting). So...if Tivo winds up as the only device that has issues with TAs and SDV...are you still going to defend Tivo as an innocent party here? Won't matter to me, as you all will get your wish and I'll go buy the technology that actually *freakin* works  And I'll laugh when your market switches to SDV and you realize what a lot of us have been talking about 

I really wonder how many of the "defenders of the flame" here have SDV and a tuning adapter. I'm guessing approximately zero.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> About all we can say on this forum is the most common problem as determined by the number of requests for help or complaints is the TA.


Um, no, I'm pretty sure that's not true. Of course I could be mistaken, but it seems to me the most common complaint is a failed hard drive, or at least symptoms that suggest a failed hard drive. If we don't limit it to Series III issues, I think there might even be two or three other complaints which arise more often. I'm excluding feature based complaints, of course.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

dlfl said:


> After carefully following this thread I've concluded the rest of you are just too fixated on your own problems and opinions!


Now there's an incredibly selfless viewpoint. 



dlfl said:


> Actually if you can cut through the acrimony there's a lot to learn in this thread. If you can .....


It's not acrimony through which I am having trouble cutting.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

texaslabrat said:


> Um, I wasn't making note of the number of threads, but rather of the number of individuals who are reporting issues and/or requesting help in those threads. As I said before...that "small sample" argument cuts both ways...for every one that posts there is a much larger number of folks who don't and suffer in silence or seek assistance from other avenues...
> 
> As for "how critical is it"...as the SDV penetration increases...I'd venture to guess it will become VERY critical. Now's the time to fix it before Tivo gets the reputation of the box that can't give you all the channels you pay for. I haven't seen any similar issues regarding Moxi (if you know of any, I'd appreciate a link), and it remains to be seen if the Ceton card will have issues. If one (or both) of those solution prove reliable...Tivo will quickly fall out of favor for those people who live in SDV markets going forward (except for those die-hards who will forgive Tivo for any fault just because they are Tivo)
> 
> I'm sure they are "looking at it" as well...but that doesn't make it fixed. This has been ongoing since the TA's were released....still no solution in sight (but thank god we got blockbuster support in the mean time!).


Ok for the sake of discussion lets say 50 people have posted about SDV/TA problems here. I think that is if you think its more Fine tell us what it is and we will adjust as needed. 50 people out of how many people that have S3 class tivo's. Remember that this forum is a subset of users we fall into a couple of categories, a major one is people looking for help with an issue, and another is those that enjoy their tivo and want to help people with problems. now is that 50 people all the people that have TA issues probably not but it represents that the TA problems are probably the most common issue at this point. That I think is to be expected given that 

The TA isn't even made by tivo.
Its only been available for a little over 6 months.
SDV has been rolling out slowly and steadily for about the same time.
Could it be better I guess, I haven't had any major issues with a TA but others have so I guess its a problem. But all in all I would guess most users don't have problems. Why is yours failing? I have no idea could be a lot of things noisy cable, problem at the cable company, power issues at your home, bad lot of TA's went to your Cable Company, faulty implementation from tivo with certain model TA's (all I can say for sure mine is working fine).

As far as moxi goes I haven't looked that far at them because I would like the option of recording OTA if I wanted to not just from cable. Aside frim that it is an interesting competitor but doesn't meet my needs so I have had no reason to see what issues it may or may not be having.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

lrhorer said:


> Um, no, I'm pretty sure that's not true. Of course I could be mistaken, but it seems to me the most common complaint is a failed hard drive, or at least symptoms that suggest a failed hard drive. If we don't limit it to Series III issues, I think there might even be two or three other complaints which arise more often. I'm excluding feature based complaints, of course.


That is probably true but I was trying to respect the poster.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

texaslabrat said:


> Won't matter to me, as you all will get your wish and I'll go buy the technology that actually *freakin* works.


And if you do, consider satellite. No SDV to worry about. They come in, install your antenna and DVRs, and it just "freakin" works after they leave. And if something goes wrong - you just call them and they fix it. Just enjoy watching TV because it just "freakin" works. No excuses, no finger-pointing.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

lrhorer said:


> What I meant WRT his post was he was raising a reasonable objection to something I had done. Respect really wasn't an issue, and while it would have been inappropriate of him to behave badly regardless of what I had done, his raising the issue would not have been considered an affront by anyone of worthwhile mettle. That's what I meant by "in this sense". Although his post was most pleasantly polite, he needn't have concerned himself that his post would have been considered disrespectful - most certainly not on my account.
> 
> That's what I was taught, and I tried it for years. The problem with it is people often tell me they hate being treated the way I wish to be treated and I positively despise being treated the way many people say they want to be treated.
> 
> ...


That all falls in the realm of reason. And now that I know that you prefer a more up front no nonsense approach without reading too much into any particular comment I can now respect you by treating you the way that you want to be treated. I can even see a point where the only thing that I respect is the right for someone to hold an opinion (and that only because of free speech).

BTW, I kind of like Dr's like that too. Maybe a little sympathy if I really need it, but I want to know what is going on and what we are doing to do and what the possible outcomes are. Nothing as serious as paralysis with me (I almost lost an arm) I hope things worked out OK with the paralysis. Whatever the outcome it obviously hasn't affected your mind.


----------



## Kablemodem (May 26, 2001)

JWThiers said:


> Probably worse than that. Unless DTV changes how they handled DirecTV with Tivo units, You will not be able to MRV ANYTHING without hacking your unit. I haven't looked into the state of that since I got a stand alone 2 years ago, but no network connectivity without hacking was one on my reasons for switching.


I doubt that will be the case. I can see D* not wanting to add new features to existing software, but I don't see any reason they would disable features in new software. D* isn't Verizon Wireless.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

texaslabrat said:


> That would be a valid synopsis of the situation except that it is happening in virtually EVERY SDV market (with multiple head-end vendors/technology) as shown by the multitudes of SDV/Tuning Adapter threads here. Either EVERY TA is flawed, or Tivo has a bug. So yeah, I want Tivo to fix it. I don't see that as unreasonable...especially if it turns out that other solutions (Moxi/Ceton) don't have similar issues. There are ATi card solutions out there right now using TA's with WMC...I haven't seen any reports of the issues with THOSE either (though it's still a bit early, admittedly, for a critical mass of people to run into it and begin reporting). So...if Tivo winds up as the only device that has issues with TAs and SDV...are you still going to defend Tivo as an innocent party here? Won't matter to me, as you all will get your wish and I'll go buy the technology that actually *freakin* works  And I'll laugh when your market switches to SDV and you realize what a lot of us have been talking about
> 
> I really wonder how many of the "defenders of the flame" here have SDV and a tuning adapter. I'm guessing approximately zero.


I don't think you understand the process here. The cable companies implemented TAs only because of TiVo. The TiVo *is* the reference implementation of the end-user side of the TA protocol. If the cable company implementation cannot interoperate with a TiVo, then it is the cable company implementation that is at fault - the cable companies did not succeed at what they were trying to do. There are always many gray areas in any new standard - those get ironed out in practice by making things work with the major reference implementations. The other TA end-users are irrelevant for now; there aren't enough of them to matter. I imagine TiVo can't even change its basic implementation for the time being to make it work with a particular franchise - too much danger of causing problems elsewhere. (It can make changes to be more robust in the face of TA failures, but even that can cause problems down the road.)

The cable company TA implementations are at fault here, and I'm confident any major TA engineer will agree, though they may grumble about it!


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

> Probably worse than that. Unless DTV changes how they handled DirecTV with Tivo units, You will not be able to MRV ANYTHING without hacking your unit. I haven't looked into the state of that since I got a stand alone 2 years ago, but no network connectivity without hacking was one on my reasons for switching.


It pays to check the state of the art. DirecTV has streaming MRV that is DLNA compliant and MediaShare. No flags to worry about.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

texaslabrat said:


> That would be a valid synopsis of the situation except that it is happening in virtually EVERY SDV market (with multiple head-end vendors/technology) as shown by the multitudes of SDV/Tuning Adapter threads here.


Multitudes? There are 12,211 threads in the Sereis III forum alone, yet only 66 threads in all of TCF are concerning Tuning Adapters. Of those, only 9 have had a post in them within the last month. Some of them are only periphrally about the TA, like this one.

Many of the 66 cover issues for a specific city and were really only active when the TA was first rolled out in the respective city. Skimming one such thread (specifically this one) will bring to notice a certain forum member. The last post there was in February.



texaslabrat said:


> Either EVERY TA is flawed, or Tivo has a bug.


No, there's a third option: you are talking through your hat. I think anyone who can count can figure out which is the most serviceable option.



texaslabrat said:


> So...if Tivo winds up as the only device that has issues with TAs and SDV...are you still going to defend Tivo as an innocent party here?


No one is defending them. No one has to, because you have not provided any evidence they are "guilty" of anything.



texaslabrat said:


> And I'll laugh when your market switches to SDV and you realize what a lot of us have been talking about


My market (San Antonio) was one of the very first markets in the nation to roll out SDV, and was the second market (after Austin) to deploy the Tuning Adapter to the public. I picked up my 3 TAs at noon on the first day they were offered.



texaslabrat said:


> I really wonder how many of the "defenders of the flame" here have SDV and a tuning adapter. I'm guessing approximately zero.


You don't have to guess. You have been told at least two of us do. I invite anyone else watching who has at east one to chime in.


----------



## texaslabrat (Oct 24, 2007)

CrispyCritter said:


> I don't think you understand the process here. The cable companies implemented TAs only because of TiVo. The TiVo *is* the reference implementation of the end-user side of the TA protocol. If the cable company implementation cannot interoperate with a TiVo, then it is the cable company implementation that is at fault - the cable companies did not succeed at what they were trying to do. There are always many gray areas in any new standard - those get ironed out in practice by making things work with the major reference implementations. The other TA end-users are irrelevant for now; there aren't enough of them to matter. I imagine TiVo can't even change its basic implementation for the time being to make it work with a particular franchise - too much danger of causing problems elsewhere. (It can make changes to be more robust in the face of TA failures, but even that can cause problems down the road.)
> 
> The cable company TA implementations are at fault here, and I'm confident any major TA engineer will agree, though they may grumble about it!


Oh, I understand the process just fine..that's what's so infuriating.

But that's ok..it doesn't affect you, so it's not important. A common refrain in this thread..I get it now.


----------



## texaslabrat (Oct 24, 2007)

samo said:


> And if you do, consider satellite. No SDV to worry about. They come in, install your antenna and DVRs, and it just "freakin" works after they leave. And if something goes wrong - you just call them and they fix it. Just enjoy watching TV because it just "freakin" works. No excuses, no finger-pointing.


If Satellite actually did "just work"...it would be a consideration for sure. Unfortunately, I've seen what heavy thunderstorms (common in my neck of the woods) do to my friends' satellite setups (it doesn't seem to matter on which provider from what I can tell, they all kind of fall down around here when it storms)...so I'll pass. But do I appreciate the suggestion


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

Kablemodem said:


> I doubt that will be the case. I can see D* not wanting to add new features to existing software, but I don't see any reason they would disable features in new software. D* isn't Verizon Wireless.


Since I haven't seen the specs on the new boxes you may be right, but personal experience is that with the old DirecTivos, Some people still use them by the way, they have NEVER supported any kind of networking features. In fact up until the software update that happened just after I stopped using it, the basic hack that you had to do did 2 things.

Allowed you to make changes to the kernel without it being chaned back.
modified the kernel to enable the network control subroutines.
The routines were there, they were intentionally disabled for use on Dtivo's. IIRC the latest version took out the network routines altogether. I haven't been following closely But I would imagine that they either found a new more complicated hack or are using older versions of the firmware. What they do with the new boxes remains to be seen.


----------



## texaslabrat (Oct 24, 2007)

lrhorer said:


> Multitudes? There are 12,211 threads in the Sereis III forum alone, yet only 66 threads in all of TCF are concerning Tuning Adapters. Of those, only 9 have had a post in them within the last month. Some of them are only periphrally about the TA, like this one.
> 
> Many of the 66 cover issues for a specific city and were really only active when the TA was first rolled out in the respective city. Skimming one such thread (specifically this one) will bring to notice a certain forum member. The last post there was in February.
> 
> ...


/sigh...you are still trying to convince me that my experiences are imaginary? Dude, give it up LOL. You've proven yourself to be a jackass already, no need to push it to "beyond a reasonable doubt". I get it...you're a jerk who likes to argue with everyone. Seriously...message received. Buzz off already.

edit: It's just not worth it LOL. I think that says it all. If you want to argue for the sake of arguing, go find someone else to comply.

Like I said before..you zealot types crack me up.

In summary, Tivo quality control sucks monkey nuts and they should be embarrased that they have let these issues fester for so long.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

samo said:


> It pays to check the state of the art. DirecTV has streaming MRV that is DLNA compliant and MediaShare. No flags to worry about.


Is that their DVR or the DirecTV with Tivo? DirecTV has not had a Tivo unit in active production available on the market in something like 3 or 4 years. I was referring to the Tivo units, because this is a tivo forum.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

samo said:


> And if you do, consider satellite. No SDV to worry about. They come in, install your antenna and DVRs, and it just "freakin" works after they leave.


Until it rains, that is. 'Or until the wind blows the antenna off the house. 'Or until the LNB or the multi-switch dies. 'Or until a rat chews the cables under the house. 'Or until D* decides to make another change obsoleting yet another generation of receivers. 'Or until a bit of space debris perforates a satellite. DTV is a very viable option for a lot of users, but don't try to pretend it doesn't come with its own set of potential and even inevitable issues - like rain fade. You also quite blithely fail to mention sun outages, which occur every year during two periods of up to 12 days each, without fail.



samo said:


> And if something goes wrong - you just call them and they fix it. Just enjoy watching TV because it just "freakin" works. No excuses, no finger-pointing.


The number of posts complaining about DTV service on TCF are far greater than the number complaining about TA issues. Now, in fairness, the main reason for this is very likely that there are far more DTV subscribers than TA users, but the point is you are trying to gloss over reality here, too.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

texaslabrat said:


> orangeboy said:
> 
> 
> > texaslabrat said:
> ...


I guess I don't get your joke, nor your answer (if there is one in that response). Are you saying your cable's STB is unreliable? Let me ask the question a different way: If your cable's DVR is the best (and all other products should be measured by it), why are you looking for something different?


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

lrhorer said:


> Until it rains, that is. 'Or until the wind blows the antenna off the house. 'Or until the LNB or the multi-switch dies. 'Or until a rat chews the cables under the house. 'Or until D* decides to make another change obsoleting yet another generation of receivers. 'Or until a bit of space debris perforates a satellite. DTV is a very viable option for a lot of users, but don't try to pretend it doesn't come with its own set of potential and even inevitable issues - like rain fade. You also quite blithely fail to mention sun outages, which occur every year during two periods of up to 12 days each, without fail.


In the 13+ years that I had satellite (A B.U.D. for 2 and DTV for the rest) I don't think I noticed sun outages every year Icould be wrong but thats my recollection. Rain fade on the other hand we experience that a lot in central FL. PITA.



lrhorer said:


> The number of posts complaining about DTV service on TCF are far greater than the number complaining about TA issues. Now, in fairness, the main reason for this is very likely that there are far more DTV subscribers than TA users, but the point is you are trying to gloss over reality here, too.


And if you look at the underground forum, the granddaddy of all threads is how to hack them to get the basic network function we expect on a stand alone tivo.


----------



## texaslabrat (Oct 24, 2007)

orangeboy said:


> I guess I don't get your joke, nor your answer (if there is one in that response). Are you saying your cable's STB is unreliable? Let me ask the question a different way: If your cable's DVR is the best (and all other products should be measured by it), why are you looking for something different?


No, I'm saying that the STB and DVR from the cable company are VERY reliable...and that reliability should be a given for devices of this nature. There should never have to be a choice of picking the one that is reliable...all devices for this purpose should just be assumed to be reliable. The fact that Tivo has proven far less reliable in the simple task of changing channels (pretty standard fare for this category of devices, wouldn't you say?) when compared to the cable-company supplied equipment is an embarrassment (or should be, if Tivo had any self-respecting coders/engineers on the payroll). It would be like buying a brand new car that only started 9 out of 10 mornings..and the product help forums told you that to expect it to start every time is just dumb and you should have just bought a bicycle if you want something reliable. Some things are just expected to work when you buy stuff...especially when the otherwise sub-standard crap issued by the cable company manages to do it.

And I never said the cable company box was best all around, only that it had proven FAR more reliable than Tivo. And in my household, that is an undisputable fact. But product differentiation should not be about who has a reliable box...THEY ALL SHOULD BE RELIABLE....product choice should be about feature sets..which the cable box is lacking...and of course price. I'm hoping now (especially now that I've seen the "community" of drones that Tivo has assembled...good god I'm regretting ever signing up to this board at this point) that the Moxi box (or Ceton card, or whatever actually freakin' works) will provide BOTH the EXPECTED level of reliabilty that should (should being the operative word here) be a "given" PLUS the fancy-schmancy features that allow me to get my geek jollies.

clear enough?


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> That all falls in the realm of reason. And now that I know that you prefer a more up front no nonsense approach


There was a time when I had some tolerance for nonsense. That time has long passed.



JWThiers said:


> BTW, I kind of like Dr's like that too. Maybe a little sympathy if I really need it


Sympathy I can always get from my friends and family. All I really want from a doctor is healing.



JWThiers said:


> Nothing as serious as paralysis with me (I almost lost an arm)


That sounds plenty serious.



JWThiers said:


> I hope things worked out OK with the paralysis.


'Better than they might have, and much better than before. I'm not headed in Christopher Reeve's direction any longer. 'Not nearly as well as I would have wished, though. Still, I'm better off than a lot of people, so I'm not complaining much.



JWThiers said:


> Whatever the outcome it obviously hasn't affected your mind.


No, I lost that years ago.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> In the 13+ years that I had satellite (A B.U.D. for 2 and DTV for the rest) I don't think I noticed sun outages every year Icould be wrong but thats my recollection.


For most of the United states, they happen right around noon, so traditionally a lot of people, other than those addicted to game shows and soap operas, may not notice them very much. Depending somewhat on latitude, they are also fairly brief.



JWThiers said:


> Rain fade on the other hand we experience that a lot in central FL. PITA.


Here, too. I purchased and set up an S1 DTiVo for my sister 'back in 2001. Whenever she gets a thunderstorm coming up from Mexico, she loses her feed.



JWThiers said:


> And if you look at the underground forum, the granddaddy of all threads is how to hack them to get the basic network function we expect on a stand alone tivo.


That, too.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

texaslabrat said:


> Oh, I understand the process just fine..that's what's so infuriating.


No. you've amply demonstrated you don't. Your entire earlier response to me was directly contradicting what you now claim to understand.

Direct question: are the cable TA implementations at fault for the problems here?


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

texaslabrat said:


> No, I'm saying that the STB and DVR from the cable company are VERY reliable...and that reliability should be a given for devices of this nature. There should never have to be a choice of picking the one that is reliable...all devices for this purpose should just be assumed to be reliable. The fact that Tivo has proven far less reliable in the simple task of changing channels (pretty standard fare for this category of devices, wouldn't you say?) when compared to the cable-company supplied equipment is an embarrassment (or should be, if Tivo had any self-respecting coders/engineers on the payroll). It would be like buying a brand new car that only started 9 out of 10 mornings..and the product help forums told you that to expect it to start every time is just dumb and you should have just bought a bicycle if you want something reliable. Some things are just expected to work when you buy stuff...especially when the otherwise sub-standard crap issued by the cable company manages to do it.
> 
> And I never said the cable company box was best all around, only that it had proven FAR more reliable than Tivo. And in my household, that is an undisputable fact. But product differentiation should not be about who has a reliable box...THEY ALL SHOULD BE RELIABLE....product choice should be about feature sets..which the cable box is lacking...and of course price. I'm hoping now (especially now that I've seen the "community" of drones that Tivo has assembled...good god I'm regretting ever signing up to this board at this point) that the Moxi box (or Ceton card, or whatever actually freakin' works) will provide BOTH the EXPECTED level of reliabilty that should (should being the operative word here) be a "given" PLUS the fancy-schmancy features that allow me to get my geek jollies.
> 
> clear enough?


As with anything Your Mileage May Vary, I can say that My tivos has been at least as reliable as my fathers Cable company DVR (more so He has had his replaced 3 times in the period of time I have had my 2 tivos), His dvr reboots more frequently than my tivo. As far as the TA goes when I first got mine for about the first week it was a little flaky, since then I have had the TA stop working average about once a month, but I think it has to do with power brown outs because it hasn't happened in a while, but we haven't had any storms either (I need a couple of UPS and I think that will fix it). So IMO Tivo has a better UI and is more reliable than the Cable company and can record OTA which the Moxi can't.

As far as the drones comment goes, I think you are off base. Many here are willing to admit, even disparage tivo, WHEN IT IS THEIR FAULT AND WARRANTED, but just because it is an undisputed fact* in your home* that tivo isn't reliable, doesn't make it that way for everyone.


----------



## texaslabrat (Oct 24, 2007)

CrispyCritter said:


> No. you've amply demonstrated you don't. Your entire earlier response to me was directly contradicting what you now claim to understand.
> 
> Direct question: are the cable TA implementations at fault for the problems here?


Direct answer: no. Tivo's inability to handle whatever issue is happening is at fault here (which could be a multitude of things...or even a combination of otherwise non-critical things that together cause a failure mode to occur). Tivo does not attempt to re-tune to a channel when the SDV operation fails although it has all the information needed to ascertain that such a situation has happened. That is squarely in Tivo's court to address. Moxi goes out of their way to explain that their device will attempt several times to tune to a SDV channel if a problem is detected (and thus prevent the "catastrophic" failure of a missed recording or having to manually intervene with the remote, as the case may be). So, if they can do it.....what's Tivo's problem? They've had a year to implement a fix.


----------



## texaslabrat (Oct 24, 2007)

JWThiers said:


> As far as the drones comment goes, I think you are off base. Many here are willing to admit, even disparage tivo, WHEN IT IS THEIR FAULT AND WARRANTED, but just because it is an undisputed fact* in your home* that tivo isn't reliable, doesn't make it that way for everyone.


And as I keep pointing out, it's not just me that's having the problems.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

lrhorer said:


> Here, too. I purchased and set up an S1 DTiVo for my sister 'back in 2001. Whenever she gets a thunderstorm coming up from Mexico, she loses her feed.


How long does it tend to last for her? Around here it was generally and 15 -20 minutes and usually happened somewhere between 5 - 7 pm. So it usually wasn't an issue with anything except news.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

texaslabrat said:


> No, I'm saying that the STB and DVR from the cable company are VERY reliable...and that reliability should be a given for devices of this nature. There should never have to be a choice of picking the one that is reliable...all devices for this purpose should just be assumed to be reliable. The fact that Tivo has proven far less reliable in the simple task of changing channels (pretty standard fare for this category of devices, wouldn't you say?) when compared to the cable-company supplied equipment is an embarrassment (or should be, if Tivo had any self-respecting coders/engineers on the payroll). It would be like buying a brand new car that only started 9 out of 10 mornings..and the product help forums told you that to expect it to start every time is just dumb and you should have just bought a bicycle if you want something reliable. Some things are just expected to work when you buy stuff...especially when the otherwise sub-standard crap issued by the cable company manages to do it.
> 
> And I never said the cable company box was best all around, only that it had proven FAR more reliable than Tivo. And in my household, that is an undisputable fact. But product differentiation should not be about who has a reliable box...THEY ALL SHOULD BE RELIABLE....product choice should be about feature sets..which the cable box is lacking...and of course price. I'm hoping now (especially now that I've seen the "community" of drones that Tivo has assembled...good god I'm regretting ever signing up to this board at this point) that the Moxi box (or Ceton card, or whatever actually freakin' works) will provide BOTH the EXPECTED level of reliabilty that should (should being the operative word here) be a "given" PLUS the fancy-schmancy features that allow me to get my geek jollies.
> 
> clear enough?


Actually, it would have been clearer had you replied "I'm looking for more features than my cable co's STB can provide". Everything else stated I could care less about.


----------



## texaslabrat (Oct 24, 2007)

orangeboy said:


> Actually, it would have been clearer had you replied "I'm looking for more features than my cable co's STB can provide". Everything else stated I could care less about.


Heh fair enough...I just wanted to be painfully thorough so as to not leave you with any misunderstandings this time


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

texaslabrat said:


> And as I keep pointing out, it's not just me that's having the problems.


And as many keep pointing out its not everyone either. Sorry you are having issues, we can tell you how to reset the ta and tivo and that usually fixes the issues short term. But honestly if you are having TA issues the issue is with the TA not Tivo. And you got the TA from your cable company not tivo and you are blaming tivo? That's like blaming Ford because your Goodyear tires lost the tread a week after getting new tires.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

texaslabrat said:


> Direct answer: no. Tivo's inability to handle whatever issue is happening is at fault here (which could be a multitude of things...or even a combination of otherwise non-critical things that together cause a failure mode to occur). Tivo does not attempt to re-tune to a channel when the SDV operation fails although it has all the information needed to ascertain that such a situation has happened. That is squarely in Tivo's court to address. Moxi goes out of their way to explain that their device will attempt several times to tune to a SDV channel if a problem is detected (and thus prevent the "catastrophic" failure of a missed recording or having to manually intervene with the remote, as the case may be). So, if they can do it.....what's Tivo's problem? They've had a year to implement a fix.


In that case, you don't understand the process. The TA from the cable company is buggy. It's the cable companies that have to fix it, and they realize that (why do you think there are so many firmware releases?) If you actually read the complaints here, Moxi will have TA problems in the same franchises that the TiVo does.


----------



## texaslabrat (Oct 24, 2007)

JWThiers said:


> And as many keep pointing out its not everyone either. Sorry you are having issues, we can tell you how to reset the ta and tivo and that usually fixes the issues short term. But honestly if you are having TA issues the issue is with the TA not Tivo. And you got the TA from your cable company not tivo and you are blaming tivo? That's like blaming Ford because your Goodyear tires lost the tread a week after getting new tires.


Well here's the thing...Tivo has it in their power to handle the exception and press on. They have chosen not to (through either incompetence, apathy, or whatever). So yes, I blame Tivo for not coding around the issue even if the issue itself is not of their making (and there's no hard data one way or the other in that respect).

Similar to the episodes where the TA causes the Tivo to reboot. Ultimately, it is instability in the Tivo stack that has failed..thus it is their issue. It is a Tivo driver which controls the TA via USB....Tivo's court.

Seriously, how many apologies and excuses can a group make for something that is so obviously Tivo's issue to solve? But I guess since they have most people locked in via the "box doesn't work without a subscription" or "we've already got all our money ahead of time through the lifetime subscription" that Tivo hasn't NEEDED to be responsive to such "minor" issues like this. Now that Moxi and windows media center can play in the same game (SDV), Tivo had best get with the program if they know what's good for them financially. Perhaps THAT's why they are concentrating so much on the Comcast partnership..they are tired of having to fix problems for retail products and would rather pass the buck as just being a technology partner (Comcast gets lit on fire for those problems, not Tivo). Funny how that works.

But, let me say "thanks" to you and the rest of the community for opening my eyes to the situation. If this community is any indication of the general response I can expect from Tivo, then I *am* better off moving on to greener pastures. I'll let all of the KoolAid drinking, knee-pad wearing Tivo fanbois do their Ba-Boop dance or whatever it is you guys do and I'll excuse myself from the forum.

Cheers


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

texaslabrat said:


> Well here's the thing...Tivo has it in their power to handle the exception and press on. They have chosen not to (through either incompetence, apathy, or whatever). So yes, I blame Tivo for not coding around the issue even if the issue itself is not of their making (and there's no hard data one way or the other in that respect).


I think that's an unreasonable expectation. A cable company doesn't adhere to the standard, and errors occur. With so many different cable companies deploying SDV, it would be near impossible for Tivo to predict and account for how those cable companies diverge from the standard. If every cable company deployed their own version of SDV, it defeats the purpose of a "standard".


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

JWThiers said:


> Is that their DVR or the DirecTV with Tivo? DirecTV has not had a Tivo unit in active production available on the market in something like 3 or 4 years. I was referring to the Tivo units, because this is a tivo forum.


Sorry, I assumed you are talking about present DirecTV DVRs. DirecTiVo's are thing of the past (and the future if you believe PR).


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

texaslabrat said:


> Well here's the thing...Tivo has it in their power to handle the exception and press on. They have chosen not to (through either incompetence, apathy, or whatever). So yes, I blame Tivo for not coding around the issue even if the issue itself is not of their making (and there's no hard data one way or the other in that respect).
> 
> Similar to the episodes where the TA causes the Tivo to reboot. Ultimately, it is instability in the Tivo stack that has failed..thus it is their issue. It is a Tivo driver which controls the TA via USB....Tivo's court.
> 
> ...


First of all, how long have tuning adapters been available?
Probably not long enough for Tivo to have accurate information as to what's causing the problems.
Combine that with the possibility of different cable co's using different methods of deploying SDV, Tivo really can't do much until TA's are deployed in all markets.
Has Tivo released a major software update since the deployment of TA's? 
I could be wrong, but I don't think they have. The last time I remember reading of a major software update, tuning adapter threads were non-existent.
We can only hope that Tivo is working on a solution, but they'll be hard pressed to come up with one until the TA's are widely distributed.
In the mean time, we will have to deal with the work arounds, and that is what most of the people on this forum are doing.
We understand and accept the fact that Tivo can't just flip a switch and make things work for everybody.

So, having said that, good luck in your venture to find a better solution, and don't let the door hit you on the way out.
We will still be here when you come back.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

texaslabrat said:


> ...
> But, let me say "thanks" to you and the rest of the community for opening my eyes to the situation. If this community is any indication of the general response I can expect from Tivo, then I *am* better off moving on to greener pastures. I'll let all of the KoolAid drinking, knee-pad wearing Tivo fanbois do their Ba-Boop dance or whatever it is you guys do and I'll excuse myself from the forum.
> 
> Cheers


Even IF you had a valid point (and that is debatable) they get lost because you run around name calling and being a general PITA. Don't let the door hit on the @ss on the way out.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Ah well.... Once again Rodney King's plea is ignored! 

All these words arguing when the *facts to support assigning blame are not available.*


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> How long does it tend to last for her? Around here it was generally and 15 -20 minutes and usually happened somewhere between 5 - 7 pm. So it usually wasn't an issue with anything except news.


Sun outages, or rain fade? Of course being on the East coast and having the bird west of you wolld tend to push the outage time out considerably, but I'm surprised it would be that late. For a house sitting directly beneath the satellite, a sun outage begins about six minutes before noon sideral time and ends about 6 minutes after noon.

If you mean thunderstorms, well they can occur any old time. If the front stalls a couple of miles south of her house, she can lose service for a while.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

orangeboy said:


> I think that's an unreasonable expectation. A cable company doesn't adhere to the standard, and errors occur. With so many different cable companies deploying SDV, it would be near impossible for Tivo to predict and account for how those cable companies diverge from the standard. If every cable company deployed their own version of SDV, it defeats the purpose of a "standard".


Well, hold on. There is no standard for SDV. That's part of the problem. There are two main sets of protocols for SDV, both of which are proprietary. If your CATV system empolys a Cisco-compatible headend, then you are given a Cisco TA. If it employs a Motorola headend, then you will be given a Motorola TA. The protocols between the TA and the UDCP (TiVo in this case) are standardized.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

JWThiers said:


> And as many keep pointing out its not everyone either. Sorry you are having issues, we can tell you how to reset the ta and tivo and that usually fixes the issues short term. But honestly if you are having TA issues the issue is with the TA not Tivo. And you got the TA from your cable company not tivo and you are blaming tivo? That's like blaming Ford because your Goodyear tires lost the tread a week after getting new tires.


I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Although the blame for needing a TA to begin with is the cable companies fault. TiVo has had enough time to program a workaround that functions. At present NPL blanking associated with the TA is awful. It's inexcusable and we haven't even been told TiVo is working on it, just that they are aware of the issue.

It's frustrating.


----------



## orgbd (Dec 26, 2002)

Stormspace said:


> I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Although the blame for needing a TA to begin with is the cable companies fault. TiVo has had enough time to program a workaround that functions. At present NPL blanking associated with the TA is awful. It's inexcusable and we haven't even been told TiVo is working on it, just that they are aware of the issue.
> 
> It's frustrating.


Lets not forget that TiVo is still playing nice with many of the cable providers in an attempt to be the standard for DVR software. Yes, they have sued over patient infringement but in the long run they know that ultimately their business model must be to partner with these companies. There is plenty of blame to go around but in the end we are the only ones that have paid the price.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

Stormspace said:


> I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Although the blame for needing a TA to begin with is the cable companies fault. TiVo has had enough time to program a workaround that functions. At present NPL blanking associated with the TA is awful. It's inexcusable and we haven't even been told TiVo is working on it, just that they are aware of the issue.
> 
> It's frustrating.


I assume your not disagreeing with my statement that its not a problem with *everyone*, because I have had very few issues at all and the ones I did have were resolved long ago and have had my system be as stable as it always had been ever since. Always be wary of statements that use absolute terms like never, always, none, all etc. They are almost never true.

Just who is at fault for the issues some are having. Lets see Cable companies design the TA in cooperation with tivo. Cable companies build the Tuning adapter, have it approved thru Cable labs for certification, distribute and install them and yet somehow tivo is mostly at fault. I don't think tivo is without blame and ultimately they will be the ones to have to do the fixes, and they are the ones getting the black eye, but my point is the cable companies have at least some share of blame, they helped design it, they built it, they certified it, and they installed it. but somehow are completely blameless. I just don't buy it.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

JWThiers said:


> I assume your not disagreeing with my statement that its not a problem with *everyone*, because I have had very few issues at all and the ones I did have were resolved long ago and have had my system be as stable as it always had been ever since. Always be wary of statements that use absolute terms like never, always, none, all etc. They are almost never true.
> 
> Just who is at fault for the issues some are having. Lets see Cable companies design the TA in cooperation with tivo. Cable companies build the Tuning adapter, have it approved thru Cable labs for certification, distribute and install them and yet somehow tivo is mostly at fault. I don't think tivo is without blame and ultimately they will be the ones to have to do the fixes, and they are the ones getting the black eye, but my point is the cable companies have at least some share of blame, they helped design it, they built it, they certified it, and they installed it. but somehow are completely blameless. I just don't buy it.


Of course, not everyone. That would be silly. But with all things in business there comes a point where failure to act on something you know is a problem becomes your fault, either because you didn't follow up enough, discover a work around, or communicate your issues to those affected. So even though the original fault might reside with someone else, the apparent inaction of TiVo makes the fault theirs.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

I don't get all the emphasis here on whose fault it is. 

Although *interesting* to discuss, the *practical effect *of knowing how to assign blame is -- very small.

Let's assume (just for the sake of argument) the fault is entirely the cable company's. TA's are something being forced on them to satisfy a tiny percentage (about 0.5%) of their digital subscriber base. They have no economic or other incentive for this and the FCC's actions to enforce the applicable rules are puny -- bordering on a joke. If you want to petition the FCC to do more, fine, but again the problem will be the same as it already is: lack of political clout because we are such a small minority of the digital subscriber base.

Now let's assume it's entirely TiVo's fault. *Maybe* a lot of complaining (directly to them -- *not* just in this forum) will have some impact on them. But here is what I bet the situation is:
1. TiVo is well aware of TA-related problems and is making *some* efforts to address them. 
2. TiVo has limited technical resources.
3. TiVo has to address its business plan for the future with these resources, also. (e.g., DirecTivo and cooperative DVR ventures with cable cos.)
4. TiVo will distribute its technical resources in the way they believe will optimize their future success. They have to balance the damage done by the current TA-related problems (reputation and Series 3 sales) vs. having a future with new products. This is a tough business decision, I'm sure.
5. The most likely TiVo strategy will *not* be one where TiVo puts *all *its technical resources on fixing current problems -- unfortunate for us.

Based on my assumptions above, complaining a lot to TiVo is going to have little impact.

Complaining and discussing here is good for a number of reasons, but don't have unrealistic expectations of pressuring either TiVo or the Cable cos. to do much more than they are because "it's their fault".


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

JWThiers said:


> I don't think tivo is without blame and ultimately they will be the ones to have to do the fixes, and they are the ones getting the black eye, but my point is the cable companies have at least some share of blame, they helped design it, they built it, they certified it, and they installed it. but somehow are completely blameless. I just don't buy it.





Stormspace said:


> But with all things in business there comes a point where failure to act on something you know is a problem becomes your fault, either because you didn't follow up enough, discover a work around, or communicate your issues to those affected. So even though the original fault might reside with someone else, the apparent inaction of TiVo makes the fault theirs.


Sounds like we mostly agree. we are just approaching fro opposite sides of the fence. I think Tivo just isn't communicating that they are working on the issue and will be fixed in due time. I think that they (TA's) work at all is amazing, given the relative speed that they decided make a TA, design it build it certify it and deploy it, in what a little over a year? IIRC it was announced at a CES (2008?) and was deployed in BHN central FL Jan/Feb this year.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

JWThiers said:


> Sounds like we mostly agree. we are just approaching fro opposite sides of the fence. I think Tivo just isn't communicating that they are working on the issue and will be fixed in due time. I think that they (TA's) work at all is amazing, given the relative speed that they decided make a TA, design it build it certify it and deploy it, in what a little over a year? IIRC it was announced at a CES (2008?) and was deployed in BHN central FL Jan/Feb this year.


My concern is that TiVo's answer to these issues will be new hardware, thus leaving Series 3 and HD users out in the cold.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

Stormspace said:


> My concern is that TiVo's answer to these issues will be new hardware, thus leaving Series 3 and HD users out in the cold.


That would definitely suck, but I wouldn't really worry unless we get to this time next year and no progress has been made. I'd be irritated if I was affected, but I think a fix is on the way. Like I pointed out TA came to market VERY quickly there are bound to be glitches. I would guess that the spring update fixes a bunch of TA issues. For what its worth my TA's that had been rock solid for months started acting up this past week. I restarted everything and no issues since (knock on wood).


----------

