# FCC admits CableCARD a failure, vows to try something else



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

From Ars Technica:

The FCC has deemed its CableCARD mandate a "Limited success" (i.e. failure). The FCC isn't too happy about Tru2Way either as it prevents "convergent innovation". The FCC is looking for input on "on how to encourage innovation" which is basically another way of saying what they should try next.

Not sure what this means long term, but I don't expect anything to change any time soon.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

Whatever the new standard is FCC better be darn sure to include Satellite, IPTV and FIOS in the mandate as well to level the playing field and give consumers better options for switching between providers yet using 3rd party hardware & software.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

So we will probably see the fruits of this around 2020 I suspect.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

That sounds about right.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 8, 2008)

I am convinced that the cable card has served as a large enough barrier to consumer acceptance that it has the net result of recent TiVo subscriber fall-off. Perception is that it is a painful process to get TiVo working with cable cards and get HD.

Individual consumer devices should have PKI certificates (and TiVo could be a trusted root certification authority) recognized by cable and other providers. Those providers should have their own certificates, allowing two way authentication. Once you have that, add in communications upstream and you should be able to do a simple interactive setup that will verify to the provider that you are a legitimate customer and end-to-end encryption (that the providers apparently need so desperately) can follow. 

For existing devices that were never allowed to communicate upstream there would have to be a work-around such as a next gen tru2way type box that has its own PKI certificate and provide that functionality as an add-in device. Individually, these may be specific to the physical layer 1 implementation of the provider, but the overall scheme is generic and standard.

Not sure how this would work with satellite -- because it may be inherently one way. But don't they usually use some kind of side band type of communications that could be used for this? In fact existing devices such as TiVos with Ethernet and/or telco should be able to use them as a side-band and negate the next gen tru2way devices suggested above. The side band should be able to be used for authentication and encryption.negotiation.


----------



## paulnelson20 (Oct 18, 2007)

I must have gotten very lucky. When I got my TiVo HD, called to have a CableCard installed from Charter(Central MN) they had no issues with that. Guy came and said he's never installed one in a TiVo, I had no experience either. Followed the directions on the TiVo website and was up and running in less than half an hour, and haven't had a single issue since installation.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

moyekj said:


> Whatever the new standard is FCC better be darn sure to include Satellite, IPTV and FIOS in the mandate as well to level the playing field and give consumers better options for switching between providers yet using 3rd party hardware & software.


I hope you're not holding your breath, waiting for that to happen. The entrenched business interests certainly don't want it. They each want to operate in their own separate "walled garden". Who will the FCC listen to: AT&T, Comcast, Dish, DirecTV, Verizon, etc., or to you?


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> I hope you're not holding your breath, waiting for that to happen. The entrenched business interests certainly don't want it. They each want to operate in their own separate "walled garden". Who will the FCC listen to: AT&T, Comcast, Dish, DirecTV, Verizon, etc., or to you?


 Certainly not holding my breath. My point was more that currently non-cable providers are exempt from separable security (i.e. CableCard) requirements which is plain wrong. In fact I'm surprised cable outfits haven't pounded that drum more to wiggle out of compliance.


----------



## gastrof (Oct 31, 2003)

Whatever they do, the cable companies should leave the basic level channels unscrambled like they've been doing for years with analog.

My QAM equipment is able to get just about everything I should right now without any problems. Story is it may not last much longer, as in "they may begin scrambling everything".


----------



## SpiritualPoet (Jan 14, 2007)

I think it's totally absurd that cable companies (Charter in particular comes to my mind) require a "trip charge" and a "professional installer" to install cable cards but when one shows up, he's never done it before, and has to resort to "gasp" instructions from TiVo's Website -- something any ordinary customer can do to configure the cable card. Of course, the customer would need to call his/her cable operator for part of the finalization of the cards. Big deal.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

SpiritualPoet said:


> I think it's totally absurd that cable companies (Charter in particular comes to my mind) require a "trip charge" and a "professional installer" to install cable cards but when one shows up, he's never done it before, and has to resort to "gasp" instructions from TiVo's Website -- something any ordinary customer can do to configure the cable card. Of course, the customer would need to call his/her cable operator for part of the finalization of the cards. Big deal.


 I think it's intentional barriers put up to further discourage customers from using CableCards. Usually the visits include some kind of exorbitant installation fee as well. It was $50 for CableCard install here and they wanted to charge $50 for each card. After the incompetent installation (I ended up doing everything including talking to headend people on the phone) and a lot of complaints on my part they waived all installation fees.


----------



## djwilso (Dec 23, 2006)

SpiritualPoet said:


> I think it's totally absurd that cable companies (Charter in particular comes to my mind) require a "trip charge" and a "professional installer" to install cable cards but when one shows up, he's never done it before, and has to resort to "gasp" instructions from TiVo's Website -- something any ordinary customer can do to configure the cable card. Of course, the customer would need to call his/her cable operator for part of the finalization of the cards. Big deal.


In my own perfect world, I should be able to go to my cable company's website and activate and authorize any service, tier, whatever, all by myself, without any telephone calling.

So I want HBO? Click. Done.
So I want to remove a "tier"? Click. Done.
So I just got a CableCARD? Type in the host ID into an entry field, click button, cable system sends "ping" and authorizes it. Done.
So I added a Tuning Adapter? You get the picture.

It should be so much easier than it is without having to call and talk to someone on the phone and have them type in the number as you slowly read it to them.

Why can't this be done?


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Took them long enough. If the cable companies had been more enthusiastic and not done all that foot dragging it might have been different.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

djwilso said:


> In my own perfect world, I should be able to go to my cable company's website and activate and authorize any service, tier, whatever, all by myself, without any telephone calling.
> 
> So I want HBO? Click. Done.
> So I want to remove a "tier"? Click. Done.
> ...


Essentially the cable companies have few people that actually know anything about the technology as the first line of support, so they have to put up roadblocks so the few people they do have don't get overwhelmed with calls.

This first line support also does everything they can to dissuade you from using a third party device. Some have been known to lie about offering a TiVo, or tell you it's the same thing. They will mention features that the cable DVR has and promote them without giving you equal specs about TiVo. They are not a neutral party and will do everything they can to get you to use the cable DVR. Whether they are instructed to do so I don't know, but the net result is that most people will get the cable DVR and think they have a TiVo, or hear about the headache TiVo is to set up. I've heard Best Buy employees warn people about them, and rightly so. But the headaches involved in the install are 100% on the cable companies.

Cable companies management is also not interested in supporting cable card either, or it would be simpler. Cable providers have cable cards because they are required to, not because they want them. I've recently seen a few cable devices with cable card installed and they look to me to be preconfigured with the cable card semi-permanently installed.

It's a huge cluster and cable companies have been fighting adoption of CC since it was first introduced.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> Cable companies management is also not interested in supporting cable card either, or it would be simpler. Cable providers have cable cards because they are required to, not because they want them. I've recently seen a few cable devices with cable card installed and they look to me to be preconfigured with the cable card semi-permanently installed.


I'm sure cable companies would be more interested in supporting CableCARDs if devices that used them were more prevalent. Of course more devices would use CableCARDs if they were better supported by cable companies. And right there you have what is called a death spiral since the number of 3rd party manufacturers that support CableCARD has dropped like a rock since CableCARDs were first introduced.

Tru2Way has the capability to bring CableCARDs back to life as it would allow automatic setup of CableCARDs on Tru2Way devices. Tru2Way isn't good for manufacturers though because it ties them to the cable companies since only the cable companies can write the software that interfaces with the cable system. I don't see why the Cable Companies can't have some kind of API that device manufacturers can use to interface with the cable stream. That's how Netflix on devices works and look how fast that got deployed to a variety of different devices.


----------



## Steve_Martin (Jul 18, 2004)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> I hope you're not holding your breath, waiting for that to happen. The entrenched business interests certainly don't want it. They each want to operate in their own separate "*wallet* garden". Who will the FCC listen to: AT&T, Comcast, Dish, DirecTV, Verizon, etc., or to you?


There, now it makes more sense.


----------



## Philmatic (Sep 17, 2003)

moyekj said:


> Whatever the new standard is FCC better be darn sure to include Satellite, IPTV and FIOS in the mandate as well to level the playing field and give consumers better options for switching between providers yet using 3rd party hardware & software.


That would be a dream come true...


----------



## MojoRilla (Dec 30, 2006)

I went to a Comcast store near me (which is totally inconveniently located in a bad part of town, by the way) hoping to get a cable card that I could just install myself. They admitted that if I wanted a Comcast DVR, they would just give it to me, but for the cable card, it required a truck roll.

The FCC should be investigating their asses.

Totally ********.


----------



## Riblet2000 (Feb 8, 2005)

True story:

Called Comcast to inquire about CableCARDs for my spanking new TiVo HD. Was told that the Naples, FL office "keeps a lot of them in stock because lots of people have TiVos" and that I "could go and pick them up any time.

Got to office yesterday. Waited the required 45 minutes to talk to the bored, rude, marginally awake Comcast customer-facing employees working there.

Got yelled at for asking for them. Was told that they never had them, would never have them, and whomever told me that was wrong (this was the national cable TV support number, not some local cesspool).

Once the guy settled down he scheduled a truck roll to have them installed tomorrow (Sat) at my convenience. We'll see how that goes.

Problem is, CableLabs is a closed shop and the NCTA would rather cut off their proverbial left nut than let any open network standard take hold. Cable companies make far too much money renting crappy converter boxes to their sheeple customers.

Oh, they didn't have any Comcast DVRs available either (nor any cable modems). The only reason this company is still in business is because they've bought the regulators.

It's absurd.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

moyekj said:


> Whatever the new standard is FCC better be darn sure to include Satellite, IPTV and FIOS in the mandate as well to level the playing field and give consumers better options for switching between providers yet using 3rd party hardware & software.
> 
> 
> Phantom Gremlin said:
> ...


Although this issue isn't mentioned, I found the latest Digg Dialogg interview with Julius Genachowski interesting. (I posed this question myself, and they didn't use it  Maybe I didn't elaborate enough) If enough people *****, maybe they'll listen.



djwilso said:


> In my own perfect world, I should be able to go to my cable company's website and activate and authorize any service, tier, whatever, all by myself, without any telephone calling.
> 
> So I want HBO? Click. Done.
> So I want to remove a "tier"? Click. Done.
> ...


It can. But since it is not in their best interests, they don't do it.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

Philmatic said:


> That would be a dream come true...


For whom? For cable users who got screwed by cable card and now want everybody else be screwed? I, for one ,do not want FCC to have any part in my satellite service. It has been working for years without any problems and I couldn't care less who makes my DVRs as long as they work without a glitch.
I will soon have a choice of having TiVo with DirecTv and very likely after dust settles with lawsuit with Dish. I will have to evaluate if TiVo will indeed come up with better units than what I already have, but there is no way I would want existing satellite DVRs to go away because of some new standard.


----------



## tivogurl (Dec 16, 2004)

SpiritualPoet said:


> I think it's totally absurd that cable companies (Charter in particular comes to my mind) require a "trip charge" and a "professional installer" to install cable cards but when one shows up, he's never done it before, and has to resort to "gasp" instructions from TiVo's Website -- something any ordinary customer can do to configure the cable card.


I did my own cablecard install. Comcast still charged me $10 for the privilege.


----------



## Stevoinga (Dec 14, 2005)

paulnelson20 said:


> I must have gotten very lucky. When I got my TiVo HD, called to have a CableCard installed from Charter(Central MN) they had no issues with that. Guy came and said he's never installed one in a TiVo, I had no experience either. Followed the directions on the TiVo website and was up and running in less than half an hour, and haven't had a single issue since installation.


Same for me....except that I use Comcast.
My guy had never seen a Tivo HD but actually *took notes*!
Had no issues at all since installation day


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

The FCC needs to understand that the problem isn't cable card. The problem is the cable companies are still motivated to discourage their use. 

So fix the immediate problem by motivating cable companies to make cable card work smoothly. A hefty fine per customer per day per non-working channel would get their attention in a hurry and make sure that cable cards and tuning adapters are available and working.

Require cable companies to actually promote the availability of cable cards and require that at least one card is included in the cost of digital cable. Require that they provide cable cards with a minimal charge for installation to prevent them from using high priced service calls to discourage adoption.

As many of us know, cable card works fine for what it does when it's installed and working properly. So the next step is two way services. Give the cable companies a short, firm deadline to have a standard for enabling two-way services with the existing cable card solution. This could even be Tru2Way without the requirement for cable labs middleware.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

MojoRilla said:


> I went to a Comcast store near me (which is totally inconveniently located in a bad part of town, by the way) hoping to get a cable card that I could just install myself. They admitted that if I wanted a Comcast DVR, they would just give it to me, but for the cable card, it required a truck roll.
> 
> The FCC should be investigating their asses.
> 
> Totally ********.


Interesting, no? Consider that the premise was that they had to make the the cableco's own equipment use the same CableCARDs and encryption technology as what they made available other makers. You'd think if that were true they would or wouldn't need a truck roll for both Tivos and Comcrappy DVRs, right? Have we ever heard that a tech took 3 hours to get the Cableco DVR authorized? (Admittedly, they're such garbage it may take 2 or 3 from the truck to find one that works.)

If the FCC wants to know where it went wrong, they can just look at Cablelabs making every effort possible to make the CableCARDs not work. The FCC should have fined each member a few $million for contempt.

For my take, I get so sick of defective by design DRM I'm always just one step away from refusing to use the product or service at all. As I've always said, they need to be less concerned that I want to steal the product and be more concerned that I want use it at all.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Is there a link to what the FCC _*actually*_ said? Both the OP and the linked article are editorials...


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

Adam1115 said:


> Is there a link to what the FCC _*actually*_ said? Both the OP and the linked article are editorials...


The FCC appears to see the explosion in IP content delivery as proof that consumers want choices that aren't being offered in the MSO space right now.



> The Commission's CableCARD rules have resulted in limited success in developing a retail
> market for navigation devices. Certification for plug-and-play devices is costly and complex.14 The
> tru2way license requires device manufacturers to separate cable navigation from all other functions that
> the device performs. On the other hand, devices like TiVo, Moxi, Microsoft's Xbox 360, AppleTV,
> ...


http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2519A1.pdf

Funny, if Tru2Way is at odds with their intentions for consumer navigation devices then why did they allow CableLabs to create the restrictions in the first place?


----------



## Topmounter (Apr 11, 2007)

paulnelson20 said:


> I must have gotten very lucky. When I got my TiVo HD, called to have a CableCard installed from Charter(Central MN) they had no issues with that. Guy came and said he's never installed one in a TiVo, I had no experience either. Followed the directions on the TiVo website and was up and running in less than half an hour, and haven't had a single issue since installation.


Same experience here with Comcast Denver. For me, the CableCard is an unqualified success.

However I can understand why it is confusing to the average consumer, especially when confronted with paying $200+ at Best Buy for a DVR and then still having to schedule a tech to come out and install a CableCard, then if they happen to decide to switch to Dish or DirecTV or Fios or ATT-U, then they won't let you use "your" DVR and you end up either buying another DVR or renting one anyway. When they could have just called the Cable Company and had them install their DVR for a nominal fee per month rather than a hefty up-front cash outlay and if they decided to switch to another provider, they just return the DVR to the CableCo and move on.

It was a ridiculous proposition to try and promote "consumer choice" by mandating CableCable adoption for CableTV only... I mean I bought a TivoHD that supports CableCard and my only "choice" now is to remain with Comcast (which doesn't bother me personally since Comcast is still my best option where I live).


----------



## willv28 (Nov 18, 2009)

SpiritualPoet said:


> I think it's totally absurd that cable companies (Charter in particular comes to my mind) require a "trip charge" and a "professional installer" to install cable cards but when one shows up, he's never done it before, and has to resort to "gasp" instructions from TiVo's Website -- something any ordinary customer can do to configure the cable card. Of course, the customer would need to call his/her cable operator for part of the finalization of the cards. Big deal.


That's the exact experience I had when mine was installed. Regular truck roll fee. The person had installed one before, but it was a long time and it was only his second. He called someone to walk him through.

The other part of the story was that when I called Charter (toll-free number) to get a cable card. They said I should be able to pick one up from the local offices and it would be attached to my account when I called in. Then when I showed up, they didn't want to hear it and it was required that they install it.


----------



## Riblet2000 (Feb 8, 2005)

In case anyone cares, Comcast blew off the appointment without so much as a phone call. Now I'm rescheduled for Tuesday. Got my $20 bill credit but that's chicken feed for a company the size of Comcast.

We need to break these up.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Topmounter said:


> Same experience here with Comcast Denver. For me, the CableCard is an unqualified success.


You have to realize the FCC isn't interested in individual or even group success stories. You could argue that anyone with a TiVo Series 3 that uses CableCARDs is a "success", but that's not what the FCC defines as success.

It's the fact that CableCARDs have been out a few years and there are only 14 third party consumer devices that can use them and that only 374,000 CableCARDs have been issued to consumers (mostly in TiVo units) in that time period that makes the CableCARD mandate a failure in the FCC's eyes.

The FCC uses the mobile phone industry as an example of success. If you think about it the mobile phone industry and the cable box industry aren't that different. (GSM) mobile phones use a SIM card to access the cellular network. Insert an activated SIM card into any compatible phone and that phone can be used. Nothing special needs to be done other than having the SIM card activated. The phone manufacturer is free to design the phone however it wants. Cable boxes use CableCARDs, which should be comparible to SIM cards in mobile phone. Yet an activated CableCARD can't be easily swapped between devices and it doesn't allow 2-way communication unless the device runs Cable company written software.

I don't see why can't CableCARDs work as simply as SIM cards? Both mobile phone and cable companies want subscribers so it would be their best interest to make it easier for devices to work on their networks. You would think that like the cell phone companies, cable companies would be willing to subsidize 3rd party devices in exchange for contracts, yet they don't. One difference I see between the two is that cable companies are either monopolies or former monopolies so there was little reason to be consumer friendly. Cell phone companies had competition from the get go so they needed to be more consumer friendly to get customers. There's also the 300 lb gorilla in the room which is the MPAA which can dictate terms to the cable companies such as mandating ridiculous pairing requirements into the cableCARD standard that makes CCs more difficult to install.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

Riblet2000 said:


> In case anyone cares, Comcast blew off the appointment without so much as a phone call. Now I'm rescheduled for Tuesday. Got my $20 bill credit but that's chicken feed for a company the size of Comcast.
> 
> We need to break these up.


Breaking cable companies up isn't the solution because large cable companies aren't the problem. The problem is local cable company monopolies. Those exist because of franchise rules and build-out costs.

Focus on broadband competition and net neutrality and this problem will solve itself faster than you can force the cable companies to solve it on the MVPD side.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

nrc said:


> Breaking cable companies up isn't the solution because large cable companies aren't the problem. The problem is local cable company monopolies. Those exist because of franchise rules and build-out costs.
> 
> Focus on broadband competition and net neutrality and this problem will solve itself faster than you can force the cable companies to solve it on the MVPD side.


Did you have to use the "M" word?


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

I think what the market needs more than anything else is disruption.

They made cablecards available, they established the standards, but the market needs leaders to stand up and make some noise. People won't follow a standard. They're only going to follow products.

iPods. iPhones. The Wii...

The CableCard numbers obviously speak for themselves. 374K is pretty bad. As much as we enjoy Tivo, Tivo is not making a significant clamor in the marketplace. The end result is that people are fine with their operator's provided boxes, for all of the reasons you could possibly insert here.

The bottom line is that nobody is screaming from the mountain tops with any success that they have the product that changes the game.

To change the status quo some entity is going to have to be willing to take risks to shake things up and make noise for themselves.

Since Tivo aspires to be the google of all media, it would be nice if they could truly do all the above with the TiVo eVo (or whatever they name the S4), but I'm not holding my breath.

If not Tivo, then it might take the clout of an Apple, Sony or Microsoft to make it happen.


----------



## rv65 (Aug 30, 2008)

DCAS is another option but only for new devices and not legacy cable card ones like Tivo.


----------



## PaJo (Dec 17, 2001)

It's not the cable cards that are really bad, it's the lack of cooperation from the suppliers of the cable service. The FCC needs to set up some type a hotline to report problems with service providers that are not cooperating, it should be an on-line where a copy of the complaint goes to the supplier so they know the FCC is aware of the problem, and have a 24 hour period for the supplier to respond. If the FCC gets too many complaints they should investigate and prosecute any willful misconduct.

It was very frustrating getting the cable card to work with our local Comcast. The cable card installer did not know what he was doing and afterwards the HD Tivo sat there waiting for the authorization. He decided to leave and told me to call if it doesn't fix itself. Although the card was paired , Comcast office never sent the hit to tell the cable card what services I should receive. Several hours later and several phone calls I finally got someone at Comcast to send the authorization hit and within a few minutes all was well. As the channels were coming in, the cable card installer, having finally responded to my voice message came back and he said, "yeah that is usual for Tivo. They sometimes take days to set itself up". 

It was easier to blame the Tivo and cable card than admit he did not finish job correctly.I think that after the card is paired they need to send the authorization, to let the Tivo know what services are available - similar to Satellite TV access cards and Dtivo. The big difference with satellite providers is the people would not argue with me, when I had to install a new hard drive and lost the locals etc. they would just send the hit and within seconds all would be well - the Comcast people just argued that everything must be done by the installer, they can't do anything until the truck rolls again. 

We recently got the opportunity to switch to Verizon FIOS which some claim to be better quality than Comcast cable. However, the local Verizon representative told a coworker they must use only Verizon supplied equipment and dvr and I have no desire to fight with Verizon over these things so I will stay with Comcast for now. Fios may be better, but I just don't want to go through the frustration - I understand why more people don't buy a Tivo, it's just too frustrating dealing with some of the local cable companies. 


joe


----------



## tivogurl (Dec 16, 2004)

Cablecards would work like SIM cards, if CableLabs hadn't perverted the FCC's intent in creating the CableCard standard. It's pretty obvious the FCC doesn't care, most likely due to regulatory capture, otherwise they'd do something about it. Even Tru2Way is a botched abortion of a standard, one that exists only to satisfy the letter, but not the intent, of interoperability standards. Every cableco is going to have a subtly different implementation of Tru2Way, one that, lo and behold, only works reliably with their own equipment.


----------



## Scyber (Apr 25, 2002)

I think CC use would be way up had the TV manufacturers stuck to the technology. After introducing it to a few higher end sets in 2006, it all but dissappeared from sets by the end of 2007. The manufacturers claimed it was lack of demand, which is understandable. From my perspective, the 2 main reasons for using cablecards are cost and the lack of an STB. So its not surprising there was a lack of demand in high-end sets, after all cost usually isn't a huge concern when buying a high-end set. Also, lack of an STB isn't a huge issue w/ high-end sets b/c they will usually be installed in entertainment centers will a place for STBs. I really think the lack of an STB is much more valuable for the smaller (32" and under) sets that are installed/wall mounted in places like kitchens/bedrooms/bathrooms.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

PaJo said:


> It's not the cable cards that are really bad, it's the lack of cooperation from the suppliers of the cable service. The FCC needs to set up some type a hotline to report problems with service providers that are not cooperating, it should be an on-line where a copy of the complaint goes to the supplier so they know the FCC is aware of the problem, and have a 24 hour period for the supplier to respond. If the FCC gets too many complaints they should investigate and prosecute any willful misconduct...


I used FCC Complaint Form 2000F when Brighthouse Networks implemented SDV without communicating their intent to do so.


----------



## Riblet2000 (Feb 8, 2005)

nrc said:


> Breaking cable companies up isn't the solution because large cable companies aren't the problem.


Bull. Large cable companies are exactly the problem. Outfits like Comcast fund CableLabs and CableLabs does exactly what the money tells them to do. Then, Comcast does everything possible to make sure that initiatives like CableCARD, which bypasses their cash cow rental business, fail. Furthermore, if you have a TiVo you are probably not watching their pay per view crap nor are you captive to their commercial-laden program guide and portals. There is a very strong financial incentive for them to kill this and any other open-network authentication system in the womb.

My current experience with Comcast in south Florida confirms my suspicions. $10 says they blow off the rescheduled Tuesday appointment, and are hoping I'll get frustrated enough to just pay them for their crappy DVR.

The solution is to separate the program suppliers from the delivery system. As long as cable can make money denying third party solutions we'll never see anything viable get traction in the market.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Riblet2000 said:


> Bull. Large cable companies are exactly the problem. Outfits like Comcast fund CableLabs and CableLabs does exactly what the money tells them to do.


Breaking up large cable companies won't help because of the way the cable systems are laid out. Cable companies very rarely compete with each other. If TW, Cox and Comcast actually competed against each other things would be a lot better, but the fact is that they don't compete. Cable companies have a virtual monopoly in the most areas they serve. FIOS coverted areas are the exception, but FIOS isn't widely deployed (they're also cutting back deployment) plus Verizon isn't a member of CableLabs.

CableLabs is made up of all the cable companies, not just Comcast. So if you broke up the cable companies, nothing would change at CableLabs besides it having more members.


----------



## tivogurl (Dec 16, 2004)

morac said:


> FIOS coverted areas are the exception, but FIOS isn't widely deployed (they're also cutting back deployment) plus Verizon isn't a member of CableLabs.


It wouldn't matter even if Verizon were a member of CableLabs, because Verizon will not deploy FIOS in any market they don't already have a presence in and which is controlled by a rival cable company. Franchise reform in Florida, for example, allows them to expand anywhere in the state without needing to get licenses in every city, yet they remain only in Tampa. The millions of potential subscribers in Orlando and Fort Lauderdale/Miami are not as important as the fact that Orlando is AT&T country and FtL/Miami is Comcast territory.


----------



## dbenrosen (Sep 20, 2003)

Although my experience with Fios equipment working is MUCH better than I had with Cablevision (no SDV for example and the CableCards worked perfectly the first time), their CSRs have the same idea when it comes to supplying CableCards. The only way to get one is a truck roll, which EVERY CSR and supervisor you talk to says will cost $79. When I balk at the cost, they offer to mail me one of their DVRs for free and give me 3 months of free service for it. Most people wouldn't fight enough or research enough to know they should waive the install fee and would instead just opt for the Fios DVR.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

tivogurl said:


> It wouldn't matter even if Verizon were a member of CableLabs, because Verizon will not deploy FIOS in any market they don't already have a presence in and which is controlled by a rival cable company.


That's not true. Verizon will and does deploy FIOS in towns covered by cable companies. For example FIOS is available in Philadelphia which is Comcast's HQ. My parent's also have a choice of FIOS or Comcast where they live in NJ. The thing about Verizon is that they will only deploy in sufficiently affluent and/or populated areas where they believe they can recoup their costs. Small towns, like where I live are passed over. I also have info from a reliable source that after next year Verizon will basically be (temporarily) "done" deploying FIOS, so if you don't see Verizon trucks outside today tearing up your street or wiring the poles you won't be getting FIOS any time soon.


----------



## Scyber (Apr 25, 2002)

morac said:


> That's not true. Verizon will and does deploy FIOS in towns covered by cable companies. For example FIOS is available in Philadelphia which is Comcast's HQ. My parent's also have a choice of FIOS or Comcast where they live in NJ. The thing about Verizon is that they will only deploy in sufficiently affluent and/or populated areas where they believe they can recoup their costs. Small towns, like where I live are passed over. I also have info from a reliable source that after next year Verizon will basically be (temporarily) "done" deploying FIOS, so if you don't see Verizon trucks outside today tearing up your street or wiring the poles you won't be getting FIOS any time soon.


Reread his post. He said Verizon won't expand into areas they don't already have a presence AND has an existing cable company. VZ has been providing telephone service in Philly and Jersey for years, so they they already had a presence.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

So what happens next - cable companies decide to disable the links to CableCards, thus turning pretty much every HD TiVo that depends on cable into an expensive doorstop, "but don't worry - we here at your friendly neighborhood cable company can replace it with our own HD-DVRs, complete with remote-control lag where you push a number of buttons and then, about 30 seconds later, it responds to them all at once, for only an extra $15/month or so"?

("And, as an incentive for choosing us, we will throw in eight free months of NFL Red Zone HD. True, the eight months are January to August, when there is nothing on that channel...")

-- Don


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

That Don Guy said:


> So what happens next - cable companies decide to disable the links to CableCards, thus turning pretty much every HD TiVo that depends on cable into an expensive doorstop, "but don't worry - we here at your friendly neighborhood cable company can replace it with our own HD-DVRs, complete with remote-control lag where you push a number of buttons and then, about 30 seconds later, it responds to them all at once, for only an extra $15/month or so"?
> 
> ("And, as an incentive for choosing us, we will throw in eight free months of NFL Red Zone HD. True, the eight months are January to August, when there is nothing on that channel...")
> 
> -- Don


If you can even get them! Our local cableco has a shortage of cable boxes, people are waiting weeks for them!


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

nothing has killed cable cards and tru2way still seems to be a major player. At best what can feasibly be done is the article mentioned loosening of tru2way standards so that available content could be included in the normal navigation of the device versus the cable companies getting to horde it all in their java sandbox.

The hassle is just that - how do you give the cable companies some room to display their PPV/VOD on a 3rd party device without requiring the device to hold some hardware it does not otherwise need to have.
Conversely - how do you make it fair for a 3rd party device to display the money making stuff of the cable company without any control by the cable company?

What about content owners? How do they get to control what an Xbox 360 or TiVo would put up over top of content that is playing? How do the content owners feel comfortable in licensing broadcast of their content if 3rd parties can do whatever they want while displaying it?

without some disruptive technology all I see coming out of this is tru2way loosens up some and the (perhaps) welcome coming of down-loadable security controls versus waiting for a cable company tech to figure out how to make the cable card work.

None of these players seems to get it is an infrastructure technology problem and that the content is really not neutral if you want free market capitalism to keep content flowing. The pipeline has to neutral and what company that has invested big bucks in the pipe is going to just let it go?

PS - they could simply drop the waivers for DBS and tell them they have to use cable cards - that would get some onnovative suggestions coming forth 

PPS - the FCC should write a big check to TiVo and anyone else hurt by cable card crap


----------



## StuffOfInterest (Jul 18, 2007)

CableCard was a big mistake from the beginning. There is no reason why a physical card should be required. Every device made to connect to the cable system should include an ID chip with something equivalent to an Ethernet MAC address. When you buy a new TiVo, TV, or PC Tuner card all you should need to do is give the cable company that ID number in order for them to activate the device.

If you want to get really fancy, embed half of a two part key in the device. Put the other half in a global registry that the hardware manufacturers submit to and the cable companies subscribe to. All the cable company has to do is download the registry half of the key and they are ready to setup a secure channel to the hardware device.

It didn't have to be so difficult. The cable companies, as well as other video service providers, made it difficult because they didn't want the solution to be successful. Hopefully the FCC will learn from that past mistake and come up with a better solution moving forward.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Oh lookie here... another "let's bash the cable company" thread.  

I'm glad to see that at least some folks see the reality -- that the non-cable service providers are even less subscriber-friendly in this regard and that the satellite service providers are totally non-subscriber-friendly in this regard -- essentially that the cable companies are the service providers providing the most significant accommodation to subscribers in this regard. 

Remember the first rule of business: follow the money. If you want to make something happen, then you have to change the world so that that specific thing happening is the most profitable approach for suppliers. If you have two savings accounts to save your money in, and they are the same in every other way, but one pays 5&#37; and the other pays 10%, which one are you going to save your money in? It is lunacy to expect anyone, under those circumstances, to save their money in the 5% savings account. Lunacy. 

There are loads of great ideas out there for making our lives as subscribers easier, but no will to do what is necessary to make service providers want to provide service those ways. It's the same as health care: Gosh, we're paying too much... let's do what is necessary to pay less! But it isn't happening -- why? Think about it... if society cannot address the affordability issue with regard to life and death, why would anyone expect society to address affordability with regard to something so much less important, such as entertainment programming. (I say that deliberately, because we are, already, addressing the affordability issue with regard to news and information -- imagine that.)


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

StuffOfInterest said:


> CableCard was a big mistake from the beginning. There is no reason why a physical card should be required. Every device made to connect to the cable system should include an ID chip with something equivalent to an Ethernet MAC address. When you buy a new TiVo, TV, or PC Tuner card all you should need to do is give the cable company that ID number in order for them to activate the device.
> 
> If you want to get really fancy, embed half of a two part key in the device. Put the other half in a global registry that the hardware manufacturers submit to and the cable companies subscribe to. All the cable company has to do is download the registry half of the key and they are ready to setup a secure channel to the hardware device.
> 
> It didn't half to be so difficult. The cable companies made it difficult because they didn't want the solution to be successful. Hopefully the FCC will learn from that past mistake and come up with a better solution moving forward.


My guess is that the card was to ensure that if ever security was compromised that updating the security simply meant swapping the card. That's why a card was needed.

Isn't that how DirecTV did it with their access cards?


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> Oh lookie here... another "let's bash the cable company" thread.
> 
> I'm glad to see that at least some folks see the reality -- that the non-cable service providers are even less subscriber-friendly in this regard and that the satellite service providers are totally non-subscriber-friendly in this regard -- essentially that the cable companies are the service providers providing the most significant accommodation to subscribers in this regard.
> 
> ...


In the end most of us just want to own our own equipment and/or use the equipment of choice we have, and not that doled out by the cable company.

I was reading in another forum where one guy got a HD DVR from our cable company, recorded 2 basketball games on it and it was almost 30% full already. He can't get another box from the company because they're all the same and can't upgrade the hard drive because it's their box. All of this for $15/month!

I don't want to be condemned to cable box hell. I want to enjoy a box of my choosing with software I choose, which will allow me as much or as little storage as I want. That is what CableCARD brought to us, and in that regard it was not a failure.

However, based on the horror stories here, either accidentally or on purpose, implementing CableCARDs was anything but routine. It should simply be a matter of calling the cable company, giving them the ID of the card, pop it in and let it activate. Yet many had problems upon problems, not to mention some cable companies that charged fee after fee for the cards.

My cable company initially charged me $125 for each card. If I hadn't installed it when we first installed cable, it would have been an additional $25 trip charge. That's highway robbery. Eventually they began leasing out the cards for $2.95/month each which was more reasonable.


----------



## comgenius1 (Feb 16, 2004)

StuffOfInterest said:


> CableCard was a big mistake from the beginning. There is no reason why a physical card should be required. Every device made to connect to the cable system should include an ID chip with something equivalent to an Ethernet MAC address. When you buy a new TiVo, TV, or PC Tuner card all you should need to do is give the cable company that ID number in order for them to activate the device.
> 
> If you want to get really fancy, embed half of a two part key in the device. Put the other half in a global registry that the hardware manufacturers submit to and the cable companies subscribe to. All the cable company has to do is download the registry half of the key and they are ready to setup a secure channel to the hardware device.


Exactly! I agree that it should be done the same way cable modems are done. You can go buy those off the shelf and set them up, no problem. The cable company still retains the ability to control the bandwidth available for the modem via software in the modem, and all i have to do is provide them with the MAC addy to get it up and running. They could even expand it out to where it prompts for an account number and password when it first gets connected to the cable line so you dont have to call in, just like cable modems are done.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

StuffOfInterest said:


> CableCard was a big mistake from the beginning. There is no reason why a physical card should be required.


Absolutely - in fact, that's how the cable companies want to do it now. If I remember correctly, they in fact wanted to switch to downloadable security before CableCARDs came out, but were told by the FCC that it was too late to start over (as the deadline was not far away at that point).



> It didn't have to be so difficult. The cable companies, as well as other video service providers, made it difficult because they didn't want the solution to be successful. Hopefully the FCC will learn from that past mistake and come up with a better solution moving forward.


I don't know if they purposefully tried to make CableCARDs fail, but it does appear that they did a half-hearted job at best of designing the system, which is probably to be expected given that it was something they were forced into doing. My impression is that they always hoped they'd be able to reverse the decision before having to deploy anything, so they didn't want to put too much effort into it. Only when it got close to the deadline did they realize "hey, we're actually going to have to deploy and support these things," at which point they started thinking about more sensible solutions like downloadable security.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Raj said:


> In the end most of us just want to own our own equipment and/or use the equipment of choice we have, and not that doled out by the cable company.


Of course we all want what we want -- no question about that. The issue is how well does each person deal with the real experiencing of not having available to them precisely what they want the way they want it? Do we carry forward assuming that we're entitled to what we want, regardless? Or do we acknowledge and recognize that we're entitled to no more than we're explicitly promised -- that business is a two-way street and traffic only moves in accordance with what both sides of agreed to, not in accordance to what just one side wants.



Raj said:


> I was reading in another forum where one guy got a HD DVR from our cable company, recorded 2 basketball games on it and it was almost 30% full already. He can't get another box from the company because they're all the same and can't upgrade the hard drive because it's their box. All of this for $15/month!


And that experience actually underscores how much more you are getting with TiVo, but I think way too many people erroneously distort their reasonable expectation for much more into an unreasonable expectation that they deserve everything they want, how they want it, without any regard.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

For satellite (at least for DVB), the standard exists for removable security, or part software security, in the form of a CAM card, or a smart-CAM, where the CAM is part of system firmware, or its own firmware, using a smartcard (or not, sometimes). It is very doable.

For Cablecard: I agree it is largely not really a technology problem, but a cable company problem, either with the lack of front end support, or an corporate antagonism toward it. 

IMHO, The short term solution is to require cable providers deploy their leased boxes in the same state as retail customer owned Cablecard devices, and longer term, make their boxes compatible with any provider, and available for sale.

As for IPTV, being it is inherently 2-way, it should be as easy as a MAC or other address being given to the provider to enable its use on their network.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

bicker said:


> Oh lookie here... another "let's bash the cable company" thread.


Technically it's a lets bash the FCC and cable industry thread. 



bicker said:


> There are loads of great ideas out there for making our lives as subscribers easier, but no will to do what is necessary to make service providers want to provide service those ways.


CableLABS got it right with cable modems, so we know they are capable of making something work if so inclined.

This isn't simply about making things easy for consumers and hard for the cable companies. It's about making things simple for everyone and profitable for the cable companies. I'm not sure why the cable industry fought so hard against separate security. You'd think they'd want the average Joe to be able to go to hook up their XBox, TiVo, etc to cable and be able to purchase VOD and PPV. It would be a pure profit win for the cable companies once the infrastructure was set up, since they wouldn't even need to purchase and provide hardware to customers. If they really wanted to they could subsidize purchases with 2 year contracts like the cell phone industry does. I doubt that would happen though since there's no where near the amount of competition in the cable industry as there is in the cell phone industry.

Maybe the cable companies might have eventually come up with something a lot better than cableCARDs if the FCC hadn't forced their hands, but the FCC did give them a long time to figure something out. It's not the FCC's fault that the cable companies dragged their heels for so many years. If the FCC hadn't intervened, we'd still be waiting for the TiVo Series 3 to come out. Still I fault the FCC for not recognizing the flaws in the cableCARD standard.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

classicsat said:


> For satellite (at least for DVB), the standard exists for removable security, or part software security, in the form of a CAM card, or a smart-CAM, where the CAM is part of system firmware, or its own firmware, using a smartcard (or not, sometimes). It is very doable.


If I remember correctly, satellite cards were easily hackable. So much so that you could go out and buy pre-activated cards and get all channels for free. My guess is that the cable company didn't want the same thing to happen to them.

That said, if they had come up with some kind of universal 2-way communications standard from the get go (similar to DOCSIS), none of this would have been an issue.


----------



## tivogurl (Dec 16, 2004)

morac said:


> You'd think they'd want the average Joe to be able to go to hook up their XBox, TiVo, etc to cable and be able to purchase VOD and PPV.


My suspicion is that requiring a truck roll and associated fee for every trivial thing is far too profitable. Comcast charges install fees even for DIY installs.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

morac said:


> That said, if they had come up with some kind of universal 2-way communications standard from the get go (similar to DOCSIS), none of this would have been an issue.


tru2way uses DOCSIS to communicate back to the head end. CE makers are not excited they need to include a DOCSIS modem among other things to make tru2way work and pushed back - thus the one way standard of just the cable card to decrypt stuff.
SDV made that a mess and the Tuning adapter to fix that is basically just a DOCSIS modem with the ability to also hold a channel map


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

It is mostly because satellite used rather simple removable smart-card security that they got hacked, and as long as they were hackable, cable's (relatively) embedded security was left alone, and as ones security got sophisticated, the TV pirates went on to the other guy. I should add my satellite provider (Shaw Direct, FKA Star Choice) uses the same embedded security Motorola cable boxes use, with no smart card or otherwise removable security components. 

Cablecards simply put the CAS (conditional access system) in a 
removable module.

TVRO (as your DBS service is) has no inherent back-channel, they use phone, and recently, broadband internet.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

The NY Times has a slightly different take on this in that they think it's mainly aimed at Comcast's takeover of NBC.



ZeoTiVo said:


> tru2way uses DOCSIS to communicate back to the head end. CE makers are not excited they need to include a DOCSIS modem among other things to make tru2way work and pushed back - thus the one way standard of just the cable card to decrypt stuff.
> SDV made that a mess and the Tuning adapter to fix that is basically just a DOCSIS modem with the ability to also hold a channel map


I don't see why CE makers would care about including a DOCSIS modem since it would add at most $40 to the cost of the device. Also Tru2Way didn't exist back when cableCARDs became the standard so that's not the reason for the current one way standard. The cable companies basically told the CE to support all three "standards" that various cable companies were using across the country. None of them were true standards and implementing three transmission standards is just plain silly so that's why the CEs balked.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

morac said:


> The NY Times has a slightly different take on this in that they think it's mainly aimed at Comcast's takeover of NBC.


 yes, it is part of many things the FCC is doing to foster Net neutrality and encourage broadband adoption. I give them kudos for being somewhat forward looking in that.


> I don't see why CE makers would care about including a DOCSIS modem since it would add at most $40 to the cost of the device. Also Tru2Way didn't exist back when cableCARDs became the standard so that's not the reason for the current one way standard. The cable companies basically told the CE to support all three "standards" that various cable companies were using across the country. None of them were true standards and implementing three transmission standards is just plain silly so that's why the CEs balked.


only 40$? That seems like a lot of extra cost for typical CE products. You misinterpreted me some though - I was not trying to say tru2way specifically is what CE companies balked at, but indeed at the standard for 2 way proposed by cable companies that meant they would need to include hardware like DOCSIS modem and allow for a Java runtime for code from cable companies - having 1 standard makes it more doable but still TV makers are not exactly jumping all over the idea of adding that to their sets.

Instead we see more of the idea of internet provided extras on the TV sets in the notion of just bypassing the whole legacy approach of cable companies.

I still hope the FCC turns its attention to DBS as well in all this. How cool would it be to have a TiVo DVR that could work with either type and I could decide myself what broadcaster to use without having to get all new hardware - that would be a free market to my eyes.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

tivogurl said:


> My suspicion is that requiring a truck roll and associated fee for every trivial thing is far too profitable. Comcast charges install fees even for DIY installs.


There's no way, at least locally, that a truck roll is profitable for Comcast. They charge $17 for a cablecard visit (sometimes, more often it's free). I'm sure they charge the fees primarily to cut down on those customers who connect and disconnect on a monthly basis.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

morac said:


> CableLABS got it right with cable modems, so we know they are capable of making something work if so inclined.


Note that any "solution" along those lines would likely require us all to replace all our tuner-carrying devices. No one is going to stand up, especially now, and put their neck out to explain that reality to the general public. The die is already cast for this generation. Effectively, by trying to address this issue in 1996, instead of waiting until (pretty-much) now, we as a society have precluded anything that many in this thread would consider a "solution".



morac said:


> I'm not sure why the cable industry fought so hard against separate security.


Then you haven't been reading any of the CableCARD threads.



morac said:


> Maybe the cable companies might have eventually come up with something a lot better than cableCARDs if the FCC hadn't forced their hands, but the FCC did give them a long time to figure something out.


Bingo.



morac said:


> It's not the FCC's fault that the cable companies dragged their heels for so many years.


Yes it is, for the reason you just mentioned.



morac said:


> If the FCC hadn't intervened, we'd still be waiting for the TiVo Series 3 to come out.


Apparently, some folks feel that we still are, refusing to engage the HD TiVos because of the issues caused by the FCC putting forward a poor standard and pushing its implementation before the technology issues were worked out *and the marketplace* was ready to pay for it.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

CrispyCritter said:


> There's no way, at least locally, that a truck roll is profitable for Comcast. They charge $17 for a cablecard visit (sometimes, more often it's free). I'm sure they charge the fees primarily to cut down on those customers who connect and disconnect on a monthly basis.


Good point. I would guess that when they send out a subcontractor, they're paying at least $50 if not more, for even the most trivial visit.


----------



## MScottC (Sep 11, 2004)

Why is a truck roll even required for a CableCard install or repair? I've had 3 or 4 times in my 3.5 years of TiVo S3 ownership where I've needed my CableCards reset for one reason or another. All those times they insisted on rolling a truck, and all those times I refused. Those refusals would take a good part of an hour if not longer, waiting to get to a supervisor of some sort. There is NO physical work involved short of popping a card out and back in or rebooting the TiVo. Anybody can do that. And any decent CSR should be able to read a script off their screen to get to the right numbers on the TiVo to read to the CSR. There is no reason whatsoever to waste a tech's time or my time (typically making me take a whole day off from work). Getting back to my personal experience, as long as I've insisted on finding someone to work with me over the phone, I've always completed the process in minutes with the right person with the right attitude.
One can't help but assume this is totally the cable companies creating an environment with the sole purpose of dissuading customers from using non-rental boxes. Government (The FCC in this case) should be standing up for individuals, and they aren't. Government stands up for those with the biggest lobbies, and in this case, it's the cable companies.
It may not be about making money off the truck roll... It's about getting you to pay their rental fees for their lame ass boxes.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> Of course we all want what we want -- no question about that. The issue is how well does each person deal with the real experiencing of not having available to them precisely what they want the way they want it? Do we carry forward assuming that we're entitled to what we want, regardless? Or do we acknowledge and recognize that we're entitled to no more than we're explicitly promised -- that business is a two-way street and traffic only moves in accordance with what both sides of agreed to, not in accordance to what just one side wants.


There is no agreement when one side is a monopoly and it's their side or the highway. This is why the FCC and local franchising authority ensure that the consumer has avenues for alternatives available, like CableCARD.

Also, what we are promised and what is delivered is a different matter entirely. I was lucky that the cards were popped in and worked first shot but others were not so lucky. Some companies didn't even make a good attempt for their stuff to work properly in some cases, and giving people the run around. That's not right. The cablecard install should just be a simple matter of hook up the box, pop in the card and activate.



> And that experience actually underscores how much more you are getting with TiVo, but I think way too many people erroneously distort their reasonable expectation for much more into an unreasonable expectation that they deserve everything they want, how they want it, without any regard.


I think it's reasonable for a cable company to be a "dumb pipe" provider if we ask them to, which is all that many of us are asking. In fact cable companies were just a dumb pipe for many years. But many are resisting that for whatever reason. That is anticompetitive and doesn't give consumers choice.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

CrispyCritter said:


> There's no way, at least locally, that a truck roll is profitable for Comcast. They charge $17 for a cablecard visit (sometimes, more often it's free). I'm sure they charge the fees primarily to cut down on those customers who connect and disconnect on a monthly basis.


SECTV charges $25 per truck roll here. I agree it's not needed for a simple CableCARD install.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MScottC said:


> Why is a truck roll even required for a CableCard install or repair?


Sometimes I think the issue is that they don't want to give direct access to the engineers whom need to enter the pairing information into the system. I think also there is a recognition that CableCARD-equipped devices require more consistent signal quality, and so to preclude problems later on they want a field check to check the quality of the lines up-front.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Raj said:


> There is no agreement when one side is a monopoly and it's their side or the highway. This is why the FCC and local franchising authority ensure that the consumer has avenues for alternatives available, like CableCARD.


What is interesting is how so many people repeatedly make the error of claiming that cable companies are monopolies, when they're the only one of the *competitors* in the competitive marketplace that the requirement for separable security is imposed upon. The waiver of this requirement with regard to competitors who provide the service via satellite is especially egregious.



Raj said:


> Also, what we are promised and what is delivered is a different matter entirely.


Or that's just the way you choose to view it, because you choose to view things solely from a consumerist viewpoint. There is no question that there are times when mistakes are made and there are gaps between what is actually promised and what is delivered, but it is very clear to me that *far* more often the reality is that the gap underlying any specific complaint is between what was promised and what the complain-er _decided to expect, *instead*_.



Raj said:


> I think it's reasonable for a cable company to be a "dumb pipe" provider if we ask them to, which is all that many of us are asking.


It is absolutely unreasonable to tell a company into which thousands of people have invested their hard-earned money based on the prospect of the company's ability to serve its chartered objective to make profit that because you feel like it you're going to decimate their ability to satisfy that objective.

No, Raj: What you expect is unreasonable.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> I still hope the FCC turns its attention to DBS as well in all this. How cool would it be to have a TiVo DVR that could work with either type and I could decide myself what broadcaster to use without having to get all new hardware - that would be a free market to my eyes.


Not cool at all. You'd be paying a lot for hardware and licensing fees in the box that you wouldn't use, no matter which provider you chose. They could make multiple versions of the box I guess, but then you'd be locked into that provider.

Also, that would require that CableLabs add DBS providers to their little club. That's never happening. And there's no way DBS will let CableLabs dictate the security protocol without any input.

Finally, there's no public standard for the transmissions themselves. You'd have to work with the DBS provider to ask questions and get all the kinks out anyway. You'd need to be aware of advancements they are planning to make so that you can design your product to support them on their initial release. The third-parties don't want to be in catch-up mode all the time -- no one would buy their boxes.

There's nothing to stop Tivo now from making a box that has built-in tuning adapters for all the cable providers, CableCards, and a D* access card. I'm not holding my breath for that.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

morac said:


> I don't see why CE makers would care about including a DOCSIS modem since it would add at most $40 to the cost of the device. Also Tru2Way didn't exist back when cableCARDs became the standard so that's not the reason for the current one way standard. The cable companies basically told the CE to support all three "standards" that various cable companies were using across the country. None of them were true standards and implementing three transmission standards is just plain silly so that's why the CEs balked.


You don't know why CE companies would object to adding more than 10% to the cost of their $300 TVs? And that assumes it actually works flawlessly. Are the tuning adapters working flawlessly for every single person? Heck, HDMI doesn't even work flawlessly yet, and they've had that for years now.

Plus, a TV lasts 10 years. The service providers are constantly changing protocols. Nothing like adding 10% of the cost for hardware that will be useless in 3 years anyway.

The TV concept is obsolete. It has morphed into an HD monitor, and the service provider gives you a box to connect between the wall jack and the HD monitor. The box is leased so that it can be upgraded/replaced at any time with all the newest features at no additional cost to the customer.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> What is interesting is how so many people repeatedly make the error of claiming that cable companies are monopolies, when they're the only one of the *competitors* in the competitive marketplace that the requirement for separable security is imposed upon. The waiver of this requirement with regard to competitors who provide the service via satellite is especially egregious.


I see your point and I am sure others do as well.

*PLEASE< PLEASE< PLEASE do not turn this into another 10 page thread on the definition of monopoly.* Hopefully those that use the word monopoly to describe the cable company could be more specific in their wording 
- eg 
- with my 3rd party device I am severly limited in my options and at the mercy of the cable company to get their part of the system working correctly with my device.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

BobCamp1 said:


> Not cool at all. You'd be paying a lot for hardware and licensing fees in the box that you wouldn't use, no matter which provider you chose. They could make multiple versions of the box I guess, but then you'd be locked into that provider.


I was not talking about the current state of things for this box  but rather that security and two way conversation would get a new tech solution that would add reasonable requirements on CE companies and reasonable requirements on broadcasters and include all broadcasters of whatever type. In other words it is this that I hope the FCC is shooting for


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

An industry can meet one or more of the standards necessary to considered a monopoly under economic principles without meeting the requirements for some government regulations.

There is a high barrier (cost) to entry, relatively few companies and very little economic (price) competition to obtain customers. Some people might argue "monoply" profits gave Comcast the money to purchase NBC.

Some of us think the reason why satellite is exempt from the separable security requirement imposed on cable systems is a reult of politics (successful lobbying) and not based on economic reasons.

Relatively few TV sets have cable card slots. The public seems happy getting a STB from their provider. 

FCC sort of admitted CCs are a failure when they allowed cable systems to deploy SDV before a tuning adapter for DVRs was ready and with (AFAIK) no known way to accommodate TV sets with cc slots. FCC approved using basic STBs (without cable cards) to decrypt basic cable channels.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

lew said:


> Relatively few TV sets have cable card slots. The public seems happy getting a STB from their provider.


Relatively few people have cars. The public seems happy using horse drawn buggies.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> ...Perception is that it is a painful process to get TiVo working with cable cards and get HD.....


*"Perception...."?!?!??*...you mean REALITY. Each tech I've had in my home to "install" the CableCARDS said they ALL have problems because they don't know much about them (read: haven't been properly trained).

And my installation fees were waived, too, after having problems getting them properly authorized on both my TiVos...


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Relatively few people have cars. The public seems happy using horse drawn buggies.


I don't see your point.:down: I just did a search on Sony's site. Every set that supports cablecards is discontinued. There is little (if any) PQ advantage of a cc powered TV vs using a STB. The only issue is a convenience issue of not needing a STB. Few (do any?) currenlty mg TV sets support CC. The public has decided a cc slot isn't a worthwhile feature when shopping for a TV set.


----------



## Scyber (Apr 25, 2002)

lew said:


> I don't see your point.:down: I just did a search on Sony's site. Every set that supports cablecards is discontinued. There is little (if any) PQ advantage of a cc powered TV vs using a STB. The only issue is a convenience issue of not needing a STB. Few (do any?) currenlty mg TV sets support CC. The public has decided a cc slot isn't a worthwhile feature when shopping for a TV set.


While I understand that line of thinking (that the consumer decided on cc adoption), I think it has 2 fundamental flaws:

1) Most cc enabled sets had been discontinued by 2008. IIRC, HDTV adoption doubled in 2008 alone. Which means that over 50% of the HDTV buying public never even had a vote in the matter.

2) As you said, the primary advantage of CC over an STB is convenience (price can also be a factor, but its usually not too significant). However, a majority of CC enabled sets were higher-end/larger TVs. For higher end/larger TVs the convenience of not STB is usually diminished since they are likely to be installed in locations with entertainment centers or media cabinets. The convenience of no STB is increased for the secondary & tertiary sets that are installed/wall mounted in bedrooms/kitchens/bathrooms. These types of CC enabled tvs simply didn't exist.

I understand that testing new features on high-end products & early adoptors is common, I just think that the benefits of CC are greater on lower end devices and to the larger general public.

With that said, I think another reason might be overlooked here: the length of time needed for CableLabs approval of cc enabled devices. Many TV mfgs are releasing new TVs every 6-12 months. Supposedly the cablelabs approval process is pretty slow, this would put any TV mfg at a disadvantage if they are trying to release TVs every 6-12 months.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Scyber said:


> The convenience of no STB is increased for the secondary & tertiary sets that are installed/wall mounted in bedrooms/kitchens/bathrooms. These types of CC enabled tvs simply didn't exist.
> ........
> With that said, I think another reason might be overlooked here: the length of time needed for CableLabs approval of cc enabled devices. Many TV mfgs are releasing new TVs every 6-12 months. Supposedly the cablelabs approval process is pretty slow, this would put any TV mfg at a disadvantage if they are trying to release TVs every 6-12 months.


The problem is the marketplace for such sets is extremely price sensitive. The price increase necessary for cable card support would hurt the market for those sets. Some of those customers use those sets for OTA, clear QAM (broadcast), to play DVDs or just for video games.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> I see your point and I am sure others do as well.


All except one, perhaps. 



ZeoTiVo said:


> - eg
> - with my 3rd party device I am severly limited in my options and at the mercy of the cable company to get their part of the system working correctly with my device.


I hope folks take your suggestion.



lew said:


> An industry can meet one or more of the standards necessary to considered a monopoly under economic principles without meeting the requirements for some government regulations.


Which accredited standards body or bodies has issued the standards you refer to? Or are you basically just saying that people can make up whatever standards they wish for the word, and then use the word, which carries with it such intense emotionally-laden implications in our society's lexicon, to try to make their complaints sound like more than they really are? Sorry, no sale. Please take Zeo's advice. There is no defense for essentially trying to mislead casual readers by trying to assert anything related to "monopoly" in this thread.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Scyber said:


> With that said, I think another reason might be overlooked here: the length of time needed for CableLabs approval of cc enabled devices. Many TV mfgs are releasing new TVs every 6-12 months. Supposedly the cablelabs approval process is pretty slow, this would put any TV mfg at a disadvantage if they are trying to release TVs every 6-12 months.


That's simply not the case any longer. Indeed, after first certification, I believe enhanced devices can be self-certified.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

The idea behind CableCards is great. What it was supposed to be: Get the CableCard from the cable co; buy from a huge list of CableCard ready devices that would be readily available from electronics stores; plug the two together, and boom, you're done. You'd never have to rent a box from a cable company ever again.

Unfortunately, that's not the reality, not by a long shot. Forcing a truck roll to plug the card into a device and activate it was problem one. Problem two was the slow rollout of multistream cards. Problem three was the complete disinterest cable companies had in training their own staff in supporting CableCards; for quite a long time, you would encounter customer service reps who had no idea what a CableCard was, how to schedule an install, or how to troubleshoot problems with them. Problem four, restricting two-way content like on-demand to the cable co devices.

Problem five, and probably the biggest problem IMHO, is SDV, which completely destroys the purpose behind CableCard. As a result of SDV, we've reverted to having to get a box from a cable company. Granted, you still can use a third party device, but it still forces you to have a set-top box from the cable company, and for many people if they have to have something from the cable company, they may as well just use the actual cable co DVR.


----------



## Scyber (Apr 25, 2002)

lew said:


> The problem is the marketplace for such sets is extremely price sensitive. The price increase necessary for cable card support would hurt the market for those sets. Some of those customers use those sets for OTA, clear QAM (broadcast), to play DVDs or just for video games.


Good point. Although an argument could be made that those same customers would be more interested in the price advantage that cable cards offer over traditional STBs. Save $X/month over 2 years could be more than the price difference. Of course that would require those customers to think both ahead and logically, so thats not likely.


----------



## Scyber (Apr 25, 2002)

bicker said:


> That's simply not the case any longer. Indeed, after first certification, I believe enhanced devices can be self-certified.


True, I remember reading about that. However, most TV mfg had already given up on cablecards by the time this change was made (in '08, I think). So perhaps it was too little too late for cc.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

It isn't even too late, yet.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Would it make sense for a TV set mfg to include cablecard support (in a new model) without also including support for a SDV dongle? Would that increase costs to the point where the set isn't price competitive?


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> What is interesting is how so many people repeatedly make the error of claiming that cable companies are monopolies, when they're the only one of the *competitors* in the competitive marketplace that the requirement for separable security is imposed upon. The waiver of this requirement with regard to competitors who provide the service via satellite is especially egregious.


What competitors?

In 2006 my ONLY option was cable. Dish was out of the question as my view of the sky was blocked.

Out where I live now we only have one cable company. Again, how is that a competitive market? Yes, now I can get dish or directv but not everyone can.

I absolutely agree that satellite providers should be forced to open up their equipment choices to other manufacturers. But I disagree that the current status quo somehow gives cable the right to lock their service to their equipment, especially since the FCC rules say that a customer can own his cable equipment and use it with the network.

This would also not have been an issue if the cable company equipment wasn't so crippled to begin with. A 60GB drive in a HD DVR and the eSATA port disabled? You have got to be kidding!



> Or that's just the way you choose to view it, because you choose to view things solely from a consumerist viewpoint. There is no question that there are times when mistakes are made and there are gaps between what is actually promised and what is delivered, but it is very clear to me that *far* more often the reality is that the gap underlying any specific complaint is between what was promised and what the complain-er _decided to expect, *instead*_.


The consumer has to have been cut some slack because the cable companies are monopolies. As such, they need to provide a service that is mutually beneficial to us and them. If they don't want to, then open up the market.



> It is absolutely unreasonable to tell a company into which thousands of people have invested their hard-earned money based on the prospect of the company's ability to serve its chartered objective to make profit that because you feel like it you're going to decimate their ability to satisfy that objective.


Then open up the market and let competitors in. The cable monopoly in NJ fought Verizon long and hard, often with misinformation like the whole "verizon cable tax" commercials. They fought the statewide franchise tooth and nail because they knew that consumer choice would mean that consumers see a better alternative and might just switch to it.

If they let competitors in, we don't have a problem. But as long as you're a monopoly, consumers need a concession so that they aren't tied completely down to a monopolistic, uniform product, with a company that can charge whatever it wants when consumers have no alternative.



> No, Raj: What you expect is unreasonable.


What I expect is beyond reasonable. The FCC agrees, too.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

lew said:


> Would it make sense for a TV set mfg to include cablecard support (in a new model) without also including support for a SDV dongle? Would that increase costs to the point where the set isn't price competitive?


simply put people did not get to see the real promise in action.
the idea was you could put the cable card in the device yourself and see all the nifty PPV/VOD from the cable company along with all the channels. The cable company would see you had another digital outlet going and charge accordingly. The ideal there was the consumer would hit a website and put the host info in and get the outlet activated.
the reality though was as Loadstar points out and thus consumers had no idea what benefit the cable card idea would bring and CE makers saw that the mangled version of this was not worth including and dropped it.

Consumers never got to see the value that could be there and yes, were not interested enough to keep up with what could be and why it was not so. Consumers did not reject anything as they really have no idea it even exists for the most part


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> It isn't even too late, yet.


yep. The new wind blew into DC and we have a very different FCC now. They have a large hurdle though in that the cable/Verizon infrastructure is really the only thing that will support whet they want - which is content delivered via net neutrality thus freeing up innovation in what is delivered. I can not stress how huge that hurdle is since it points to a paradox - you need a strong company maintaining that pipe but you need to make that company open its investment to everyone neutrally.

so the reality will be monkeying around with tru2way some - maybe allow a version that can simply talk back to the headend without including the java interface or display of PPV/VOD.

IPTV is the only disruptive tech the FCC can go to but that needs the cbale company pipe to work. 3 years is likely not enough time and then the winds start blowing again


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

StuffOfInterest said:


> CableCard was a big mistake from the beginning. There is no reason why a physical card should be required. Every device made to connect to the cable system should include an ID chip with something equivalent to an Ethernet MAC address. When you buy a new TiVo, TV, or PC Tuner card all you should need to do is give the cable company that ID number in order for them to activate the device.


Yes, but that requires a 2-way solution, and when the development for separable security was under way (indeed, until just about a year ago), the Consumer Equipment Manufacturers were absolutely adamant about not being required to deliver a 2-way host in order to support separable security. The drive to develop separable security was underway in the early 1980s, before Ethernet was widely deployed.



StuffOfInterest said:


> If you want to get really fancy, embed half of a two part key in the device. Put the other half in a global registry that the hardware manufacturers submit to and the cable companies subscribe to. All the cable company has to do is download the registry half of the key and they are ready to setup a secure channel to the hardware device.


Yes, but once again the CATV equipment manufacturers and CATV providers were adamant they wanted to be able to deliver their own proprietary equipment on their side of the fence. No one (at the time, at least) wanted to support anything other than a removable hardware solution.



StuffOfInterest said:


> It didn't have to be so difficult. The cable companies, as well as other video service providers, made it difficult because they didn't want the solution to be successful.


No they wanted it, they just wanted to have full control of it. What's more at the time the mindset (even of the CATV companies) was that "regular video" = 1-way and "interactive / value added" = 2-way. Almost no one realized that ordinary video services would need to be delivered over 2-way protocols.

Note also that most of the issues from the consumer's perspective concerning CableCard installation are produced incidentally by the fact the units are UDCPs. If they were 2-way, then there would be feedback available concerning the CableCard status. As it is, the CSR can only put in what they hope is accurate information, enterted in the proper manner, and then pray everything is working. With a 2-way system, the CSR (or automated web based system) can be allowed to talk to the host and make sure the security info is correct. If they can't talk to the host, it's not a CableCard issue.

Hindsight is always 20/20, and things that "didn't have to be so difficult" often could have easily been far more difficult, and indeed in the moment there are often nearly insurmoutable issues which in retrospect seem insignificant. In this case, few people, if any, believed there would be a need to deliver hundreds of regularly scheduled HD programs via a 2-way protocol.


----------



## schwinn (Sep 18, 2004)

Raj said:


> What competitors?
> 
> In 2006 my ONLY option was cable. Dish was out of the question as my view of the sky was blocked.


My situation exactly. Add to that the fact that Comcrap can't even get a basic analog signal to me properly (I have all sorts of picture issues that they have been "working on" for the past year... with no progress whatsoever.)

Frankly, IMO, the cable companies had their chance to make it themselves, and they created and crippled the Cablecard system. The next iteration should be created outside the cable company's hands, and handed down to them as a required system. They can f-ing deal with whatever the engineers make. Granted, the engineers can make it difficult on the cablecos, but I don't have a problem with them working-with the industry... I just don't think they should have much more input on HOW it's done. Engineers are good that way - give them a list of requirements, and they'll make it happen. Done.



> Out where I live now we only have one cable company. Again, how is that a competitive market? Yes, now I can get dish or directv but not everyone can.


And that's point #2... open up the line-sharing again. As studies have shown, any country with line-sharing laws has faster (broadband) or better service than those that don't... all while costing less. As a capitalist country, we should always "let the market decide"... hence, open up the lines and let the market decide.

If sat-companies are considered "TV" providers, then they, too, should be held under the same rules. Ok, maybe not line-sharing, as the costs for new sats is far more than running wires... but for the new "cable card" device... why not? If the device works to decrypt, then that's that. We don't need 10 different ways to encrypt/decrypt video content.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Raj said:


> What competitors?


The competitors pointed out to the FCC by the US Court of Appeals in its recent spanking of the FCC for committing the same oversight you're making.



Raj said:


> Dish was out of the question as my view of the sky was blocked.


"Monopoly" has nothing to do with you, individually. It is a word that describes a provider *in a market*.



Raj said:


> ... FCC rules say that a customer can own his cable equipment and use it with the network.


And I'm doing just that.



Raj said:


> The consumer has to have been cut some slack because the cable companies are monopolies.


They aren't. They simply aren't. And again, the US Court of Appeals recently spanked the FCC for committing the same oversight you're making.



Raj said:


> Then open up the market and let competitors in.


I'm all for letting whoever can show adequate capitalization being able to build a plant and offer service to every home in America if they wish. Great idea Raj. Let it happen, commensurate with the extent to which consumers provide a sufficient profit motive for competitors to enter the market.



Raj said:


> What I expect is beyond reasonable. The FCC agrees, too.


The US Court of Appeals recently spanked the FCC for committing the same oversight you're making. They presumably now recognize that their perspective on this was unreasonable.

Do you?

Or do you plan to hold out until you get a personal visit from the US Court of Appeals.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

morac said:


> CableLABS got it right with cable modems, so we know they are capable of making something work if so inclined.


Well, they got it right enough. As one of the contributing engineers to the effort to develop CATV network access devices, I can assure you they did not get it right the first time, however. Or the second or third time, either. DOCSIS modems are very different from the first several attempts at delivering digital communications services over broadband CATV.



morac said:


> This isn't simply about making things easy for consumers and hard for the cable companies. It's about making things simple for everyone and profitable for the cable companies.


Actually, it isn't. The FCC should not be worrying about what is or is not profitable for anyone. The main reason we are in this mess is because the FCC listens to complaints from special interests, including the CE manufacturers, the CATV manufacturers, the CATV companies, and yes subscribers. Their mandate should be to foster and insure proper technological solutions. If the companies involved can't make money from it, then tough. If the people don't like it, tough. It is not the government's job to make money for business nor to make nice with consumers. The end result of trying to cowtow to everyone is what we have: a mouse designed by committee.



morac said:


> I'm not sure why the cable industry fought so hard against separate security.


They didn't. Many CATV companies led the crusade for separable security. They only wanted THEIR version, though. Actually, let me revise that. They were all for separable security in CE devices. They did not want to have to have separable security in their own devices.



morac said:


> You'd think they'd want the average Joe to be able to go to hook up their XBox, TiVo, etc to cable and be able to purchase VOD and PPV.


It's a very conservative industry, and they are positively terrified of anyone being able to access the equipment in their core or being able to steal service.



morac said:


> It would be a pure profit win for the cable companies once the infrastructure was set up, since they wouldn't even need to purchase and provide hardware to customers.


Wel, I think so, but it was a very long time before they would allow anyone to even pick up and install their own STB and then later Cable Modem. Heck, many franchises still won't allow subs to pick up ands install their own CableCards, despite the fact there is nothing of substance required at the customer premise, and the fact the truck roll costs them a rather large amount of money.



morac said:


> Maybe the cable companies might have eventually come up with something a lot better than cableCARDs if the FCC hadn't forced their hands, but the FCC did give them a long time to figure something out.


Almost 20 years, in fact. In fairness, once again, a big stumbling block was the CE manufacturers and their demands. The CATV companies' demands and those of the CE manufacturers were almost mutually exclusive in many areas.



morac said:


> It's not the FCC's fault that the cable companies dragged their heels for so many years. If the FCC hadn't intervened, we'd still be waiting for the TiVo Series 3 to come out. Still I fault the FCC for not recognizing the flaws in the cableCARD standard.


I fault the FCC for allowing the CATV industry to develop the standard, and then subsequently for forcing them to develop a UDCP standard without bothering to force them to develop a standard for 2-way hosts, and then for allowing them to develop unacceptable standards (OCAP) for middleware to be run on separable security systems.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> As one of the contributing *engineers*...
> 
> The main reason we are in this mess is bvecasue the FCC listens to complainsts from special interests, including the CE manufacturers, the CATV manufacturers, the CATV companies, and yes subscribers. Their mandate should be to foster and insure proper technological solutions.


In other words, you feel they should listen to the *engineering* special interest. 



lrhorer said:


> If the companies involved can't make money from it, then tough.


If they can't make enough money, then they'll take their capital and their resources, and make *other *products instead, and no one will have anything in this space.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

bicker said:


> In other words, you feel they should listen to the *engineering* special interest.
> 
> If they can't make enough money, then they'll take their capital and their resources, and make *other *products instead, and no one will have anything in this space.


Isn't that what they did? They took a standard (Cable Card) and went with a new product that wasn't compatible (SDV). Sure, those people with smart devices are able to use TA's to overcome the incompatibility, but for those that didn't buy smart devices (ie CC TV's) they are out in the cold.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> Note that any "solution" along those lines would likely require us all to replace all our tuner-carrying devices.


Yeah. Look how much hullaballoo has surrounded the transition to HD.



bicker said:


> No one is going to stand up, especially now, and put their neck out to explain that reality to the general public.


More like the general public is a mixture of unable to understand the explanation and disinclined to care.



bicker said:


> The die is already cast for this generation. Effectively, by trying to address this issue in 1996


More like 1986, actually.



bicker said:


> instead of waiting until (pretty-much) now, we as a society have precluded anything that many in this thread would consider a "solution".


Actually, even at this juncture, there are still a number of viable solutions which could be implemented more or less with existing hardware. Every time someone sugests such a solution, however, it is shot down by a bunch of bone-headed and often competely nonsequitur objections.



bicker said:


> and pushing its implementation before the technology issues were worked out *and the marketplace* was ready to pay for it.


That's completely specious. There's nothing whatsoever wrong with a dormant standard. HD is an excellent example. The marketplace was not even close to being ready to pay for HD when it was developed. Only now, well over a decade later, is the marketplace ready. The best standards arre ones way aheard of their time, and if there is a way to make money from a technology, then eventually someone will do so. If not, it lays dormant or dies. Boo Hoo.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> Isn't that what they did? They took a standard (Cable Card) and went with a new product that wasn't compatible (SDV). Sure, those people with smart devices are able to use TA's to overcome the incompatibility, but for those that didn't buy smart devices (ie CC TV's) they are out in the cold.


No, SDV is not only 100% compatible with CableCards, it relies 100% on CableCards. Neither CableCards nor SDV are the fundamental issue. The issue is the existence of UDCPs and the lack of a viable 2-way standard.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

lrhorer said:


> Yes, but that requires a 2-way solution, and when the development for separable security was under way (indeed, until just about a year ago), the Consumer Equipment Manufacturers were absolutely adamant about not being required to deliver a 2-way host in order to support separable security.


I've always understood the situation to be almost the exact opposite. The CEA always wanted a two-way solution that used the two-way capability of cable card. The NCTA wanted no two way capability which wasn't controlled by their own middleware (OCAP).

See here for example:


> Any assertion that the CE industry CHOSE to implement one-way devices is blatant revisionism. Despite the fact that CableCARDs were two-way capable and standards had been written to use them that way, the cable industry refused to allow the CE industry to make use of the upstream capability for simple interactive services like VOD. Digital Cable Ready (CableCARD) TVs are one-way because of license terms and not lack of foresight by the CE industry.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

lrhorer said:


> No, SDV is not only 100% compatible with CableCards, it relies 100% on CableCards.


Not true at all. Time Warner Cable in this area is heavily using SDV, to the point that 50% or more of digital cable channels are SDV, despite a LOT of installed cable company-owned set-top boxes that are not CableCard-based.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> Not true at all. Time Warner Cable in this area is heavily using SDV, to the point that 50% or more of digital cable channels are SDV, despite a LOT of installed cable company-owned set-top boxes that are not CableCard-based.


It's mostly true. SDV won't work without some kind of hardware decryption. Legacy cable boxes can be used to do the decryption, but any newly manufactured cable boxes are mandated to use cableCARDs for decryption so SDV does rely on cableCARDs for any new devices.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> If they can't make enough money, then they'll take their capital and their resources, and make *other *products instead, and no one will have anything in this space.


That's right. Like I said, Boo Hoo. Any business which cannot make it on its own has no reason to be in business, at all. If no business of any sort can make it, then there doesn't need to be a business, at all. This, regardless of what space we might be speaking. If no one can make a profit making and selling buggy whips, then there is no reason to have any buggy whip manufacturers. If a company cannot make it without government subsidy or protection in an otherwise profitable market, then good riddance.

Oh, and BTW, if they go bankrupt, then they won't have any money to take anywhere.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

nrc said:


> I've always understood the situation to be almost the exact opposite. The CEA always wanted a two-way solution that used the two-way capability of cable card.


Uh-uh. They did not want the extra cost of a modulator stuck onto their receivers, especially low end ones. UDCP was mandated by the FCC at their behest. As fas as the 2-way capability of the CableCard, every deployment employs that. The CableCard itself has nothing to do with 2-way communications between the host and the headend. It's true the CATV companies refuse to allow the 3rd party units to participate in 2-way communications, but until very recently none of the 3rd party folks wanted to. With the exception of SDV, for the most part they still don't.



nrc said:


> The NCTA wanted no two way capability which wasn't controlled by their own middleware (OCAP).


Yes and no. OCAP is a recent development, as is the Open Cable standard. The original standards included only the CableCard 1.0 and UDCP standards. Because the FCC never did (and still has not) mandate a 2-way standard, none were ever developed. Instead each manufacturer created their own proprietary protocols, which is why even today there are two main ones out there: Cisco and Motorola, with no standard at all.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> In other words, you feel they should listen to the *engineering* special interest.


Not even that. They need to hire engineers to come up with independent solutions and then send them on their way.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> Not true at all. Time Warner Cable in this area is heavily using SDV, to the point that 50% or more of digital cable channels are SDV, despite a LOT of installed cable company-owned set-top boxes that are not CableCard-based.


There are a few legacy boxes that are not actually CC based, it's true, but none manufactured in the last 2+ years are not.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

MScottC said:


> It may not be about making money off the truck roll... It's about getting you to pay their rental fees for their lame ass boxes.


People keep saying this, and it is just total nonsense. Few CATV companies make anything at all on DVR leasing. After adding the cost of the unit ($450 in quantities for SA HD8300C DVRs, for example), shipping, software installation, maintenance, and installation, most CATV companies lose a small amount of money over the expected life of the DVR. Just because you pay them every month, does not mean they make a profit, regardless of how much you might dislike paying them. (The boxes certainly are lame assed, though.)


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> Sometimes I think the issue is that they don't want to give direct access to the engineers whom need to enter the pairing information into the system.


Engineers don't do that. One does not pay someone six figures to do data entry. The CSRs who do the data entry are usually near minimum wage people off the street.



bicker said:


> I think also there is a recognition that CableCARD-equipped devices require more consistent signal quality, and so to preclude problems later on they want a field check to check the quality of the lines up-front.


That's totally false. The CableCards are decryption devices, nothing else. They do not interact in any way with the RF signal, and non-encrypted data simply passes through them unchanged. Nothing more or less is required of the RF signal with the CableCard installed than without.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

morac said:


> It's mostly true. SDV won't work without some kind of hardware decryption.


Well, yeah, it will, actually. In fact, some CATV companies reportedly do not encrypt their SDV streams. Encryption / decryption is not required, but a dynamic channel map is. CableCards provide both.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> That's right. Like I said, Boo Hoo. Any business which cannot make it on its own has no reason to be in business, at all. If no business of any sort can make it, then there doesn't need to be a business, at all. This, regardless of what space we might be speaking. If no one can make a profit making and selling buggy whips, then there is no reason to have any buggy whip manufacturers.


And, as we all know, TiVo qualifies under that criteria.



lrhorer said:


> If a company cannot make it without government subsidy or protection in an otherwise profitable market, then good riddance.


I suppose. :shrug: I do enjoy my TiVo though.

The core point is that expecting companies to provide products and/or services that yield lesser profits than those companies can earn by doing something else, providing something else, or redirecting their energies in some other direction, is unreasonable.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> Engineers don't do that. One does not pay someone six figures to do data entry. The CSRs who do the data entry are usually near minimum wage people off the street.


I'd check that, before making that assumption, if I were you. I don't doubt that CSRs could mentally handle the task if it was part of their job and operations were set up to work that way -- I *do *doubt that that is the way service providers have actually set up their operations. "Engineers" might be giving these techs more credit than is due, but they're not CSRs.



lrhorer said:


> That's totally false. The CableCards are decryption devices, nothing else. They do not interact in any way with the RF signal, and non-encrypted data simply passes through them unchanged. Nothing more or less is required of the RF signal with the CableCard installed than without.


Except you're ignoring the reality: Many CableCARDs were installed into TiVos which were notoriously sensitive to bad signal. Do you really need me to refer you back to the hundreds of messages where people complained of problems that in the end turned out to be attributable to TiVo's overly-sensitive design? TiVo's lack of robustness in their design had its effect, and that's undeniable.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

lrhorer said:


> People keep saying this, and it is just total nonsense. Few CATV companies make anything at all on DVR leasing. After adding the cost of the unit ($450 in quantities for SA HD8300C DVRs, for example), shipping, software installation, maintenance, and installation, most CATV companies lose a small amount of money over the expected life of the DVR. Just because you pay them every month, does not mean they make a profit, regardless of how much you might dislike paying them. (The boxes certainly are lame assed, though.)


Cable companies certainly want to push their own equipment. I believe everyone here knows that, and while it might not be because the rental of the box is profitable, services available through the box certainly are profitable. cable companies are making money off the box, just not from rental fees.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Years ago the FCC required the inclusion of UHF tuners in TV sets. A few years ago the FCC required all sets include digital tuners.

I think the only way cable cards (or the next version) will take off would be a similar requirement. I can't see a requirement being imposed unless the cost is nominal.

"High" end consumers use DVRs and have little (or no) need for a TV set with cc. Customers of low priced TV sets are looking for a low price. Some of those customers get their signals OTA, some are only using the set for DVDs or games and others just for unencrypted QAM stations.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Stormspace said:


> Cable companies certainly want to push their own equipment. I believe everyone here knows that, and while it might not be because the rental of the box is profitable, services available through the box certainly are profitable. cable companies are making money off the box, just not from rental fees.


and lets not forget that cable companies have a conservative mindset and really do not like having 3rd party devices sending communications to the headend and getting stuff back.

Heck, as noted, they will lose money on a truckroll just to get their person seeing that 3rd party device.

Their fear is fighting hackers on Xboxes getting PPV without the 'pay' part.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lew said:


> I think the only way cable cards (or the next version) will take off would be a similar requirement. I can't see a requirement being imposed unless the cost is nominal.


The imposition, itself, generally results in volumes that could make the cost nominal. Reflexively, without the imposition, the cost may never achieve nominal.

However, the barrier, here, is that the imposition would have to be industry-wide -- it is ridiculous to impose even a "nominal" cost on televisions, to support cable, if they won't support satellite. The government needs to say, "All security must comply with X -- no excuses -- make it happen."


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> I'd check that, before making that assumption, if I were you.


It's not an assumption (for TWC, anyway). I've worked with them multiple times, and I aqm familiar with the software and procedures.



bicker said:


> I don't doubt that CSRs could mentally handle the task if it was part of their job and operations were set up to work that way -- I *do *doubt that that is the way service providers have actually set up their operations.


There's nothing to it, mentally. They enter two strings of numbers, save the work, and request a hit.



bicker said:


> "Engineers" might be giving these techs more credit than is due, but they're not CSRs.


Yes, they are. 'Same people who take your order for Showtime. 'Same software to handle the provisioning.



bicker said:


> Except you're ignoring the reality: Many CableCARDs were installed into TiVos which were notoriously sensitive to bad signal.


Notoriety and reality are not the same thing. I have seen no reliable reports confirming any such thing. The units employ standard, off the shelf receivers just like those in any other equipment out there, including the leased DVRs from Motorola, Pace, Cisco, Zenith, etc. Finally, although my tests were far from exhaustive, I did some simple testing of the receivers in both the THD and the S3, and I was a bit surprised by their dynamic range. Being digital receivers, I expected them to have an impressive dynamic range, but the range was greater than my limited bench had the capability to test.



bicker said:


> Do you really need me to refer you back to the hundreds of messages where people complained of problems that in the end turned out to be attributable to TiVo's overly-sensitive design?


No, I need you to point me to even a single message from anyone who even knows what a spectrum analyzer is, let alone attached one to the system in question. I need you to point me to even a single post where the signal levels were documented in any fashion whatsoever (one or two readings from the receiver bias or the S/N estimate on the Tivo does not count), or where flatness, Carrier / Noise, and distortion were measured. Without meaning to offend anyone in particular, the so called troubleshooting procedures employed in every case were ineffective in the extreme, and the conclusions drawn were inappropriate. There is one and only one acceptable method for diagnosing an engineering issue, and that is to take thorough measurements. In all of those situations, virtually no measurements were taken at all, and fewer were documented in the posts. There was nothing even remotely thorough about any of it.



bicker said:


> TiVo's lack of robustness in their design had its effect, and that's undeniable.


No, what's undeniable is that people routinely jump to unwarranted conclusions and have ridiculously poor understanding of the electronics involved, how they work, what their failure modes are, and how to diagnose a problem. Find me three people among all those authors who have even the vaguest notion of what common mode rejection is, or what the relationships between noise and distortion are in a broadband transport system, and I'll eat my hat, yet without an understanding of these and a number of other key concepts, any attempt to diagnose a systematic issue is nothing but urinating in the wind, and the conclusions drawn are virtually worthless.


----------



## slude (Feb 9, 2008)

Scyber said:


> The convenience of no STB is increased for the secondary & tertiary sets that are installed/wall mounted in bedrooms/kitchens/bathrooms. These types of CC enabled tvs simply didn't exist.


Actually they did Sony 26" KDL-XBR1 exist, but at price points many would/did consider excessive for a secondary/tertiary set. Pricing was exacerbated because many manufacturers considered only the extra cost of CC support justifiable only within their top-tier product line so such sets took a double-whammy of pricing: once for the cost of CC support and again for the cost of all the top-tier product line's extra features.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> Cable companies certainly want to push their own equipment. I believe everyone here knows that, and while it might not be because the rental of the box is profitable, services available through the box certainly are profitable. cable companies are making money off the box, just not from rental fees.


Abso-freakin-lutely. The point is, people in these conferences whine about having to pay the rental and claim that their objection is primarily all the money the CATV company is making from rentals. The CATV company makes a ton of money from IPPV and pay VOD events, but subscribing to such events is purely voluntary on the part of the subscriber, and while I am no more thrilled at shelling out cash to the CATV company than anyone else, I realize they are not gouging anyone on DVR rentals. There are a number of other reasons the CATV company prefers to only support their own equipment, as well, but making money from the leasing itself simply is not one of them, since they don't make any money on leasing devices, per se.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> And, as we all know, TiVo qualifies under that criteria.


So does every other business. No one forced anyone to go into a particular business, and no one guaranteed anyone any investment would make money. If someone cannot afford to risk their money, then they should not invest it. They should stuff it in their mattress or bury it in the back yard.



bicker said:


> I suppose. :shrug: I do enjoy my TiVo though.


Sure. So do I. That does not give me the right to force the rest of the nation to pay for my enjoyment.



bicker said:


> The core point is that expecting companies to provide products and/or services that yield lesser profits than those companies can earn by doing something else, providing something else, or redirecting their energies in some other direction, is unreasonable.


No, the core point is that a company's expecting their venture to be guaranteed a profit (or shielded from loss) is unreasonable.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

This set, along with every other Sony set with a cc slot, has been discontinued.

It makes no sense for a TV set mfg to include a cable card slot unless they're also going to include support for a SDV dongle. Not going to happen.



slude said:


> Actually they did Sony 26" KDL-XBR1 exist, but at price points many would/did consider excessive for a secondary/tertiary set. Pricing was exacerbated because many manufacturers considered only the extra cost of CC support justifiable only within their top-tier product line so such sets took a double-whammy of pricing: once for the cost of CC support and again for the cost of all the top-tier product line's extra features.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> It's not an assumption (for TWC, anyway). I've worked with them multiple times, and I aqm familiar with the software and procedures.


Okay for TWC I don't know.



lrhorer said:


> There's nothing to it, mentally. They enter two strings of numbers, save the work, and request a hit.


Yup, I know, but again, that's not the way Comcast had things set up when they installed my CableCARDs.



lrhorer said:


> Yes, they are. 'Same people who take your order for Showtime. 'Same software to handle the provisioning.


Again, for TWC I don't know. All I can comment on is Comcast -- I cannot even comment about FiOS because I couldn't tell whether it was a CSR or a tech -- actually, with FiOS, it looked like that step was skipped entirely.



lrhorer said:


> Notoriety and reality are not the same thing. I have seen no reliable reports confirming any such thing.


Yes, no confirmation. I know the reality from first hand, though, so I'll take my own word for it. You don't have to.  What I do know is that we had a lot of problems, and then we had a software update, and suddenly we didn't as many problems. :shrug:



lrhorer said:


> No, what's undeniable is that people routinely jump to unwarranted conclusions and have ridiculously poor understanding of the electronics involved, how they work, what their failure modes are, and how to diagnose a problem.


*Granted.* And I'll be quoting you on that, a lot, in the weeks and months to come.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> So does every other business.


Indeed.



lrhorer said:


> That does not give me the right to force the rest of the nation to pay for my enjoyment.


ITA.



lrhorer said:


> > The core point is that expecting companies to provide products and/or services that yield lesser profits than those companies can earn by doing something else, providing something else, or redirecting their energies in some other direction, is unreasonable.
> 
> 
> No, the core point is that a company's expecting their venture to be guaranteed a profit (or shielded from loss) is unreasonable.


I assure you that what you said there is *not* the core point *I *was making. Rather, the core point *I* was making was what I wrote. The two points are not mutually-exclusive. As a matter of fact, they go hand-in-hand.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> The imposition, itself, generally results in volumes that could make the cost nominal. Reflexively, without the imposition, the cost may never achieve nominal.


That's right. To put it in a little different way, if the cost across the board for a desirable product set is raised, then there is no selection pressure against any particular item in the market. If, OTOH, some small subset of items have an additional cost added to their base line, then there will be a selection pressure away from those items. Unless the added value (as perceived by consumers) more than offsets the additional cost of the items, then sales of the items are going to suffer. How badly depends on just how much extra the cost is and how desirable the additional features are. By contrast, if the features in question are required to be added to every item in the market, then sales overall may be impacted to one extent or another, but no particular brand / model will suffer more than any other.



bicker said:


> However, the barrier, here, is that the imposition would have to be industry-wide -- it is ridiculous to impose even a "nominal" cost on televisions, to support cable, if they won't support satellite. The government needs to say, "All security must comply with X -- no excuses -- make it happen."


That's just about right. The problem is, satellite isn't 2-way, while cable is.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

However, the imposition could factor that in, and all the "return path" to be provided via a separate connection. Isn't that how some advanced DBS services work today?


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

*Your post makes no sense.*

Tivo units had a problem with the "hot" signal some customers got from FiOS. You want to dismiss the long thread on TCF as the ravings of customers who don't know any better?

FiOS acknowledged the issue. Installers used attenuators to correct the situation.

Tivo acknowledged the issue when it issued a software release to address this exact issue. Customers who formerly needed attenuators were able to remove them after they received the new software.

The fact that few (if any) of us used test equipment to confirm the problem is meaningless. This is a problem that was confirmed by Verizon and tivo.



lrhorer said:


> Notoriety and reality are not the same thing. I have seen no reliable reports confirming any such thing. The units employ standard, off the shelf receivers just like those in any other equipment out there, including the leased DVRs from Motorola, Pace, Cisco, Zenith, etc. Finally, although my tests were far from exhaustive, I did some simple testing of the receivers in both the THD and the S3, and I was a bit surprised by their dynamic range. Being digital receivers, I expected them to have an impressive dynamic range, but the range was greater than my limited bench had the capability to test.
> 
> No, I need you to point me to even a single message from anyone who even knows what a spectrum analyzer is, let alone attached one to the system in question. I need you to point me to even a single post where the signal levels were documented in any fashion whatsoever (one or two readings from the receiver bias or the S/N estimate on the Tivo does not count), or where flatness, Carrier / Noise, and distortion were measured. Without meaning to offend anyone in particular, the so called troubleshooting procedures employed in every case were ineffective in the extreme, and the conclusions drawn were inappropriate. There is one and only one acceptable method for diagnosing an engineering issue, and that is to take thorough measurements. In all of those situations, virtually no measurements were taken at all, and fewer were documented in the posts. There was nothing even remotely thorough about any of it.
> 
> No, what's undeniable is that people routinely jump to unwarranted conclusions and have ridiculously poor understanding of the electronics involved, how they work, what their failure modes are, and how to diagnose a problem. Find me three people among all those authors who have even the vaguest notion of what common mode rejection is, or what the relationships between noise and distortion are in a broadband transport system, and I'll eat my hat, yet without an understanding of these and a number of other key concepts, any attempt to diagnose a systematic issue is nothing but urinating in the wind, and the conclusions drawn are virtually worthless.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> Okay for TWC I don't know.
> 
> Yup, I know, but again, that's not the way Comcast had things set up when they installed my CableCARDs.


TWC generally has direct lines to the CSRs not given to the public. They want the public to pass through the ARU. The personnel, however, are the same. Of course, the techs also have direct access to tier II and tier III support, as well as the engineers.



bicker said:


> Again, for TWC I don't know. All I can comment on is Comcast -- I cannot even comment about FiOS because I couldn't tell whether it was a CSR or a tech -- actually, with FiOS, it looked like that step was skipped entirely.


'Probably. Pairing of the host and CableCard is not an absolute engineering requirement. Depending on the software, it can be sufficient to merely record the CableCard ID against the client's account. It's less secure, but it's entirely possible.



bicker said:


> What I do know is that we had a lot of problems, and then we had a software update, and suddenly we didn't as many problems. :shrug:


Which suggests extremely strongly there was never any issue with signal quality. In general, software cannot make up for signal level issues or a systematic problem with a receiver.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

lrhorer said:


> Which suggests extremely strongly there was never any issue with signal quality. In general, software cannot make up for signal level issues or a systematic problem with a receiver.


There was a long thread on this issue. Verizon was aware of the issue. Tivo fixed the problem with software.

You're saying the posters in the thread were all wrong. Verizon was wrong. Tivo was wrong.

I don't know how to use your test instruments but I still think you're wrong.

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=7362339#post7362339


> We just started rolling 11.0d to a random set of HD DVRs in the field last night. The main intent of this SW is to reduce pixelation for FiOS customers. Results have been extremely favorable. The changes made may even improve video quality with other providers as well.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

lew said:


> There was a long thread on this issue. Verizon was aware of the issue. Tivo fixed the problem with software.
> 
> You're saying the posters in the thread were all wrong. Verizon was wrong. Tivo was wrong.
> 
> ...


I think you're talking at cross purposes a bit here. Bicker's personal experiences were not with Verizon but with cable. He had problems with his S3 and the signal. But I think he's over-generalizing based on his own experiences there - there were not an unexpected number of complaints of that sort for cable signals given that the cable systems were rolling out new digital signals constantly and getting it wrong often. It was very different from the unchanging analog signals that Bicker was used to on his S2.

The Verizon issue is entirely separate. That wasn't particularly over-sensitivity as much as the shape and range of the Verizon signal is different from that of a cable signal, and TiVo was targeted at the cable systems initially. It took a long time after the S3 introduction before Verizon agreed to officially support cablecards - they didn't legally have to. TiVo had warnings about Verizon, and even said they didn't support Verizon at all in the beginning. So the Verizon issue wasn't a bug as much as an unanticipated use of the S3 that it wasn't designed for.

As far as I know, TiVo was the first by a fair bit at having this type of equipment that worked on both Verizon and cable system signals. Both Verizon and the cable systems had tuned their equipment to work with their shape of signal, but nobody was running both. (In the same fashion, SA and Motorola head ends have quite different signal strengths and shapes (one tended to be at the upper end of the standard and one at the lower end), and individual franchises had to tune their equipment appropriately. But TiVo had to deal with both.)


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

lrhorer said:


> That's just about right. The problem is, satellite isn't 2-way, while cable is.


Correct. Cable will insist on a 2-way security solution. Satellite will insist on a one-way solution. If the standards group chooses one-way AGAIN, that too will be a failure for cable. If the standards group chooses two-way, then DBS owners that do not have broadband Internet access suddenly cannot get any signal, and DBS becomes completely dependent on someone else (most likely their competitors) to perform the most basic functions with their service. Either that, or DBS will have to completely redesign and relaunch their systems. That could kill off the very competition the FCC is trying to encourage!

DBS has always had removable security. It's just different than cable's. Different needs, different solutions. Even if the security were the same across all providers, can you imagine a TV mfr. putting in electronics for cable, IPTV, and satellite reception all in one unit? I can't. That's adding way too much cost and unreliability to their product. Conversely, can you see people buying an expensive TV that only works with satellite? I can't.

A household typically has one or two main entertainment centers. These will have DVRs anyway. There's no need for an all-in-one solution. The other rooms have cheap TVs. No one wants to PAY for an all-in-one solution for these TVs. There's no market here.

People in general like leasing unreliable (DVRs) and disposable (set top box) items, since upgrades and replacements are free and it allows them to easily change providers. The providers likes leasing, because they can now easily give everyone an upgrade which will support the latest features. This in turn causes customers to spend more money on PPV, VOD, games, applets, etc. They also get tax breaks, too.

Even if the FCC paves the way to separable security with gold, I don't think anyone would use it.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Their fear is fighting hackers on Xboxes getting PPV without the 'pay' part.


I don't buy that. If the cable companies aren't afraid of 1-way devices hacking the cable stream, then being afraid of 2-way devices makes no sense.

On a 2-way communication system, it's extremely easy to track PPV orders since that's the way they were designed. In order to view a PPV or On Demand order, the system needs to know what box (i.e. account) placed the order. If someone managed to hack it so that orders could be placed "for free" that person would be caught the moment the order was placed and his/her account would be charged.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

lew said:


> There was a long thread on this issue.


Yes, I know. It was filled with speculation and clearly unrelated issues.



lew said:


> Verizon was aware of the issue. Tivo fixed the problem with software.


Which all but guarantees it was not a hardware issue, and even more strongly tends to eliminate high levels or overly sensitive receivers as the issue.



lew said:


> You're saying the posters in the thread were all wrong.


Concering any estimations of the root cause, you bet. Even concerning the uniformity of symptoms there was a decided lack of rigor. Concerning the failure modes of the TiVo or other devices, there was very little of value.



lew said:


> Verizon was wrong.


I don't recall any post, official or otherwise, by Verizon's engineering staff in the thread. I do recall one message from some resource in Verizon which had some halfway decent trial and error methods for trying to elmininate some possible issues. I don't recall any statement from Verizon Engineering regarding any pinpointed root cause for the issues. I suspect there was more than one issue, in fact.



lew said:


> Tivo was wrong.


Once again, I don't recall seeing any RCA from TiVo in that thread or anywhere else. I do recall seeing a post from TiVo saying the most recent upgrade had code in it which might alleviate the symptoms being experienced by some FIOS subscribers. I also recall seeing some posts in the thread saying it had worked qand others saying they were still having problems.



lew said:


> I don't know how to use your test instruments but I still think you're wrong.


Not meaning to be offensive, but based on how many years designing, testing, and troubleshooting RF equipment on your part? If you don't even know how to use the necessary test equipment, how can you claim to understand how the field equipment works or what might be causing issues with it?


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

lew said:


> *Your post makes no sense.*


To you, perhaps.



lew said:


> Tivo units had a problem with the "hot" signal some customers got from FiOS.


Nope. Signal strength was not the issue, I can almost guarantee that. The reported symptoms never supported this inference.



lew said:


> You want to dismiss the long thread on TCF as the ravings of customers who don't know any better?


I did not use the emotionally charged term "ravings", but in short, yes, the authors there mostly had very little or no training in physics or in engineering of RF systems.



lew said:


> FiOS acknowledged the issue. Installers used attenuators to correct the situation.


FIOS reported that some success had been met by installing attenuators. While this in and of itself weakly suggests high signal levels could be at the root of the issue, the other symptoms heavily discounted the likelihood. Just one very strong example (among a myriad of examples) is the fact many authors posted reports that the range of attenuation where the symptoms disappeared was very narrow. The TiVo has an extremely wide dynamic range - surprisingly so when I tested them. I could not get the TiVos to experience visible issues with levels above +6 dBmV across the board and they performed admirably all the way down to -16dBmV. Had high levels been the issue, then attenuating the signal to the point where no more issues were experienced and then adding another 10 or even 20 dB of attenuation would still have produced excellent results. This was not the case, at least not according to reports from the authors in the thread.



lew said:


> Tivo acknowledged the issue when it issued a software release to address this exact issue. Customers who formerly needed attenuators were able to remove them after they received the new software.


Which all but screams that high levels and / or high sensitivity had nothing to do with the root cause of the issue. If it did, the users would still be having trouble, since neither the sensitivity of the receivers nor the levels have changed.



lew said:


> The fact that few (if any) of us used test equipment to confirm the problem is meaningless. This is a problem that was confirmed by Verizon and tivo.


No, it wasn't. The problem almost surely had nothing to do with the causes proposed in the thread.

If you are taking my previous post to say I am suggesting there were not one or more problems, then please re-read my post, because I never said anything remotely of the sort. That there were one or more problems was quite evident. That the problems were at least mostly limited to FIOS systems also was quite evident (and consequently problems reported by users on systems other than FIOS were likely unrelated). That the Motorola DVRs used by FIOS did not seem to suffer the same problem was also evident. That the suggested reasons for the issues were even remotely close to the actual root causes was not evident, and in fact the evidence suggested quite the opposite.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

morac said:


> I don't buy that. If the cable companies aren't afraid of 1-way devices hacking the cable stream, then being afraid of 2-way devices makes no sense.


You are assuming they are only concerned with the user being able to watch encrypted content free of charge at their single residence. They are not. They are also greatly concerned with people being able to access their billing systems and equipment at the headend, possibly stealing service wholesale, interrupting services for other subscribers, or possibly even opening them up to accusations of poor security concerning customer information.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

CrispyCritter said:


> Both Verizon and the cable systems had tuned their equipment to work with their shape of signal, but nobody was running both.


Uh-uh. QAM is QAM. The modulation schemes are identical, and controlled by very rigid standards.



CrispyCritter said:


> (In the same fashion, SA and Motorola head ends have quite different signal strengths and shapes (one tended to be at the upper end of the standard and one at the lower end)


Uh-uh, again. First of all, signal levels at the headend have nothing to do, per se, with signal levels at the customer premise. Signal levels at the headend are determined by the number and type of modulators. Signal levels at the customer premise ar determined by the engineer who designs the plant, the geographic location of the customer's house, and the number of outlets in the house combined with their locations in the house. Typically, most CATV engineers design the plant so it can deliver optimal signals to 4 receivers and a broadband modem to any house not more than 40 meters from the subscriber tap, assuming the house drops do not exceed 30 meters, or something close to that.



CrispyCritter said:


> and individual franchises had to tune their equipment appropriately.


Yet again, uh-uh. The differences in CATV systems have to do with the protocols employed by their delivery systems, not physical aspects of the signals.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> However, the imposition could factor that in, and all the "return path" to be provided via a separate connection. Isn't that how some advanced DBS services work today?


Yes, it is, and for pay-per-view and similar venues it works pretty well. For moment by moment on-demand services, not so much, unless the user also has a reliable broadband connection. Many people do not wish to pay for a broadband connection, and many satellite subscribers do not even have access to a broadband connection. My siblings are an example: My sister lives 20 miles from the nearest landline broadband provider. My oldest brother lives just a couple of hundred meters away, although he does not have any TV service at all other than (limited) OTA. The younger of my two brothers lives about 10 miles from the nearest landline provider, but he has satellite broadband.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> ITA.


OK, I'll bite. For what, exactly, does ITA stand?


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

lew said:


> This set, along with every other Sony set with a cc slot, has been discontinued.
> 
> It makes no sense for a TV set mfg to include a cable card slot unless they're also going to include support for a SDV dongle. Not going to happen.


Reportedly there are some tru2way sets onthe market. I don't recall the make.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

moyekj said:


> Whatever the new standard is FCC better be darn sure to include Satellite, IPTV and FIOS in the mandate as well to level the playing field and give consumers better options for switching between providers yet using 3rd party hardware & software.





Phantom Gremlin said:


> I hope you're not holding your breath, waiting for that to happen. The entrenched business interests certainly don't want it. They each want to operate in their own separate "walled garden". Who will the FCC listen to: AT&T, Comcast, Dish, DirecTV, Verizon, etc., or to you?


actually at one point when the FCC was debating giving cablelabs the right to create the POD or if a 3rd party should do it- Directv made the argument that it should be a 3rd party and it should be a standard that ALL pay tv companies could implement.

Directv at the time had a concern that every tv would have this cable only POD slot and so just like almost all analog tv's in stores were 'cable ready' for a time they were afraid that cable would get an unfair advantage.

Little did directv know that cable was TOO stupid to exploit such an advantage were the consumers subsidized a cablebox built into every tv at no cost to cable....


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

samo said:


> For whom? For cable users who got screwed by cable card and now want everybody else be screwed? I, for one ,do not want FCC to have any part in my satellite service. It has been working for years without any problems and I couldn't care less who makes my DVRs as long as they work without a glitch.
> I will soon have a choice of having TiVo with DirecTv and very likely after dust settles with lawsuit with Dish. I will have to evaluate if TiVo will indeed come up with better units than what I already have, but there is no way I would want existing satellite DVRs to go away because of some new standard.


I think the *DREAM* is that some new open standard that BENEFITS all consumers be implemented. Obviously if they do another cablecard mess for everyone that is a nightmare.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

morac said:


> That's not true. Verizon will and does deploy FIOS in towns covered by cable companies. For example FIOS is available in Philadelphia which is Comcast's HQ. My parent's also have a choice of FIOS or Comcast where they live in NJ. The thing about Verizon is that they will only deploy in sufficiently affluent and/or populated areas where they believe they can recoup their costs. Small towns, like where I live are passed over. I also have info from a reliable source that after next year Verizon will basically be (temporarily) "done" deploying FIOS, so if you don't see Verizon trucks outside today tearing up your street or wiring the poles you won't be getting FIOS any time soon.


actually they only deploy in towns they have a current footprint here in NJ.

they have a statewide license.

They clearly cherry pick (who wouldn't?) the more affluent towns. I live in hunterdon county- trust me it's affluent - the towns here without verizon (centurtylink- was embarq- was sprint- was united telecom- was cleatus phone service...) DONT get fios- even though we are right next door to less dense verizon served areas. It's off behavior and i dont get it. It costs them just as much to run wire through an entire town no matter if there is already verizon copper or not. I dont get why they draw a line where the verizon copper ends. If anything they could steal the other phone company's customers. So why wouldnt they?


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> DONT get fios- even though we are right next door to less dense verizon served areas. It's off behavior and i dont get it. It costs them just as much to run wire through an entire town no matter if there is already verizon copper or not.


Not wire, fiber, and no, it doesn't. If the subscriber density is not high enough, no landline service is profitable. The breakeven point is higher with fiber than with coax or copper.



MichaelK said:


> I dont get why they draw a line where the verizon copper ends. If anything they could steal the other phone company's customers. So why wouldnt they?


By federal law, they can't. There can only be one ILEC in any given service area. There can be more than one CLEC, but Verizon is an ILEC, and as such is forbidden from servicing AT&T areas, and vice-versa.


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> Reportedly there are some tru2way sets onthe market. I don't recall the make.


Panasonic, Sony, Samsung and LG have all signed agreements to produce these, but as of today only Panasonic has delivered. They are available in Chicago, Denver, and Atlanta with Comcast service, and are supposed to start in Boston next week.

Panasonic had a tough time getting Cablelabs Certification, but has finally succeeded. the others are still trying.


----------



## tivogurl (Dec 16, 2004)

lrhorer said:


> By federal law, they can't. There can only be one ILEC in any given service area. There can be more than one CLEC, but Verizon is an ILEC, and as such is forbidden from servicing AT&T areas, and vice-versa.


Why does that affect FIOS TV and Internet service? I don't care about Verizon's landline telephone service, I just want TV and Internet.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

I'm a bit fuzzier on that, and my memory is foggy at the moment, but I seem to recall it has to do with regulations concerning requirements they share any lines they build all the way to the customer. Perhaps someone else can clarify.


----------



## wesmills (Mar 8, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> By federal law, they can't. There can only be one ILEC in any given service area. There can be more than one CLEC, but Verizon is an ILEC, and as such is forbidden from servicing AT&T areas, and vice-versa.





tivogurl said:


> Why does that affect FIOS TV and Internet service? I don't care about Verizon's landline telephone service, I just want TV and Internet.


It is true that there can only be one ILEC (Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier) in a given area, but it is not true--at least in Texas, whose Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has approved this arrangement--that an ILEC cannot be a CLEC (Competitive Local Exchange Carrier) in another ILEC's market. AT&T (nee Southwestern Bell) has served various Verizon/GTE cities in North Texas as a CLEC for years. Until a couple years ago, it was very possible to get AT&T DSL on a Verizon circuit; my parents did just that.

In addition, Verizon is "overbuilding" (that is, providing service in AT&T areas) in several areas in North Texas, such as south Keller (which is primarily AT&T, even though Verizon started FiOS there in the part of Keller that is Verizon-served) Watauga, Frisco, Allen, and Garland. In some of these areas, where there is a Verizon-deployed Central Office (CO) in Verizon ILEC territory close enough, they even offer phone service. In a majority of those areas, they only offer TV and Internet.


----------



## tivogurl (Dec 16, 2004)

wesmills said:


> It is true that there can only be one ILEC (Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier) in a given area, but it is not true--at least in Texas, whose Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has approved this arrangement--that an ILEC cannot be a CLEC (Competitive Local Exchange Carrier) in another ILEC's market. AT&T (nee Southwestern Bell) has served various Verizon/GTE cities in North Texas as a CLEC for years. Until a couple years ago, it was very possible to get AT&T DSL on a Verizon circuit; my parents did just that.


Does Texas have statewide franchises? As I recall some states like Florida do, so the carriers don't have to negotiate individually with (extorted by) every city council.

If Verizon can act as a CLEC, then I'm totally clueless as to why Verizon won't bring FIOS TV to Houston. In a couple of the surrounding towns, Verizon sells Internet service, but _not_ TV, which I think rather odd. Of course, they don't sell either in Houston proper or the immediately surrounding county. I have Comcast for my TiVo HD, which admittedly has been pretty reliable, but Comcast compresses their channels more and their Internet service is slow for the price.


----------



## wesmills (Mar 8, 2006)

tivogurl said:


> Does Texas have statewide franchises? As I recall some states like Florida do, so the carriers don't have to negotiate individually with (extorted by) every city council.
> 
> If Verizon can act as a CLEC, then I'm totally clueless as to why Verizon won't bring FIOS TV to Houston. In a couple of the surrounding towns, Verizon sells Internet service, but _not_ TV, which I think rather odd. Of course, they don't sell either in Houston proper or the immediately surrounding county. I have Comcast for my TiVo HD, which admittedly has been pretty reliable, but Comcast compresses their channels more and their Internet service is slow for the price.


Yes, Texas adopted a statewide video franchise in 2005. Verizon won't install FiOS in Houston because it would have to build the infrastructure from the ground up. In Verizon-served areas, they can collocate their equipment with the regular telco equipment in the Verizon-owned Central Offices. This is also true for areas that are near to Verizon-served areas. Note that all of the cities I gave earlier are next door to cities that are Verizon territories. This means they "simply" run the fiber a relatively short distance to their existing facilities. In Houston, they would not have such a head start.

I don't know why Verizon doesn't roll out FiOS in the small pockets like you described, but I can guess: The return on investment isn't there. Even if every eligible customer signed up, the fixed cost of the fiber gear would likely put them underwater on every customer for years. That's why they roll out to largeish cities where there will likely be a lot of uptake.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

BobCamp1 said:


> Even if the FCC paves the way to separable security with gold, I don't think anyone would use it.


They don't need to provide incentives, they need to impose mandates. Across the board, for all video providers. I don't care if it's one-way or two-way, it's the only way to level the field to open access for all. And by open, I mean open. No license fees, independent ANSI or IEEE standards and certification, no blocking out Linux or other open source systems etc.

I keep hoping that eventually IPTV will get us out of this ridiculous box lock-in crap we have today, but since the cableCos and telcos own the IP pipes, it's probably not going to happen without regulations.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

wesmills said:


> It is true that there can only be one ILEC (Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier) in a given area, but it is not true--at least in Texas, whose Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has approved this arrangement--that an ILEC cannot be a CLEC (Competitive Local Exchange Carrier) in another ILEC's market.


You may be right. Now we are getting far afield of my area of expertise. I try to stay as far away from the PUC and its regulations as I can.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

slowbiscuit said:


> They don't need to provide incentives, they need to impose mandates. Across the board, for all video providers. I don't care if it's one-way or two-way, it's the only way to level the field to open access for all. And by open, I mean open. No license fees, independent ANSI or IEEE standards and certification, no blocking out Linux or other open source systems etc.


Agreed, and the standards need to be based on sound engineering principles, not specialized business interests. Of course, that's part of the reason for utilizing an independent standards organization. Of course, some consideration needs to be taken of the delivery mechanism, since different delivery mechanisms dictate different approaches, but a properly crafted set of standards can take that into account while still providing a uniform engineering approach.



slowbiscuit said:


> I keep hoping that eventually IPTV will get us out of this ridiculous box lock-in crap we have today, but since the cableCos and telcos own the IP pipes, it's probably not going to happen without regulations.


IPTV is not well suited to a CATV environment and far less so for satellite, and is impossible with OTA. For the most part, it calls for a switch boundary at or very near the customer premise. It is also rather inefficient given the current viewing habits of the American public.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

slowbiscuit said:


> They don't need to provide incentives, they need to impose mandates. Across the board, for all video providers. I don't care if it's one-way or two-way, it's the only way to level the field to open access for all. And by open, I mean open. No license fees, independent ANSI or IEEE standards and certification, no blocking out Linux or other open source systems etc.
> 
> I keep hoping that eventually IPTV will get us out of this ridiculous box lock-in crap we have today, but since the cableCos and telcos own the IP pipes, it's probably not going to happen without regulations.


No license fees? Right.... The standards might be free, but the method of implementing them will be patented. And will all of those parties agree to the same standard even though they may have completely different needs? What if something in the new standard forces DBS to scrap their entire satellite fleet? That's unfair and hurts competition.

Open source systems? LOL. The FCC cannot mandate how the boxes or systems are built. Maybe the FTC could.

Finally, most people LIKE the box lock-in. The content providers only have to support a few types of boxes. Consumers like it because they can lease the box and simply change boxes when changing service providers. If the box breaks, it gets replaced almost free of charge. They can get help from their friends and neighbors. The box is considered part of the service. You don't like the box? Don't get the service. Don't like services in your area? Move. Cable TV is not a utility.


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

BobCamp1 said:


> ... Cable TV is not a utility.


Could of fool me, quick, someone tell Cable TV.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Bob is correct. Cable television is not a utility. There is one aspect of cable television service that is like a service provided by a utility -- the provision of local over-the-air broadcast channels. Other than that, cable television is not a utility.


----------



## turbobozz (Sep 21, 2006)

BobCamp1 said:


> Cable TV is not a utility.


Maybe it should be.
Not purely for the TV, but for the communications part that is becoming an increasingly important part of the infrastructure of modern day society.
Transition it away from privately owned luxury to publicly owned service of local municipalities (the medium at least).
Didn't a similar thing happen with telephone landlines? Gov't paying for the infrastructure to be built?

Should an~internet pipe really be different than sewage, water, electricity, gas, roads, telephone, broadcast spectrums, etc.?
The medium of the service should ultimately owned by the citizens, not individuals/corporations.

(Granted, I haven't really researched it and I'm probably just regurgitating internet babble.)


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

turbobozz said:


> Maybe it should be.


When I worked for the Bell System, were were guaranteed a specific percentage return on expense. That would be a sweet deal to offer incumbent service providers, instead of having to deal with the competitive marketplace like they do now. Besides, I doubt any municipality is going to be willing to pay service providers what they'll be required to offer to essentially buy out via eminent domain the infrastructure improvements that the service providers have made in the interest of competing in the competitive market.



turbobozz said:


> Not purely for the TV, but for the communications part that is becoming an increasingly important part of the infrastructure of modern day society.


Ask yourself why so few municipalities are willing to float bonds or assess taxes to build a municipal fiber optic network or even a less expensive wireless network solution.

These are great ideas, but the American people are simply unwilling to pay for these things -- they'd rather have commercial enterprises spend investor capital for these things, even though it means that provision of such services are consequently subject to the forces of supply and demand.



turbobozz said:


> Didn't a similar thing happen with telephone landlines? Gov't paying for the infrastructure to be built?


No. Investors in the company I worked for (long before my time) paid for the infrastructure to be built, in return for that guaranteed return on expense.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

bicker said:


> Ask yourself why so few municipalities are willing to float bonds or assess taxes to build a municipal fiber optic network or even a less expensive wireless network solution.


Possibly because they are afraid of getting sued by businesses for using public bonds to compete with local businesses. Even if they win, they could end up losing.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Let's get together and fix *that*. Something we all can agree on...


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

BobCamp1 said:


> Finally, most people LIKE the box lock-in. The content providers only have to support a few types of boxes. Consumers like it because they can lease the box and simply change boxes when changing service providers. If the box breaks, it gets replaced almost free of charge. They can get help from their friends and neighbors. The box is considered part of the service. You don't like the box? Don't get the service.


If most people here like the box then they are morons. The box they let us have here has an undersized hard drive (two sports events and it's 30% full already) and no capability for expansion.

All for $15/month!



> Don't like services in your area? Move. Cable TV is not a utility.


Hmmm... a utility that uses utility easements and is regulated by the state Public Utilities Commission... hmmm... If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck...


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> actually they only deploy in towns they have a current footprint here in NJ.
> 
> they have a statewide license.
> 
> They clearly cherry pick (who wouldn't?) the more affluent towns. I live in hunterdon county- trust me it's affluent - the towns here without verizon (centurtylink- was embarq- was sprint- was united telecom- was cleatus phone service...) DONT get fios- even though we are right next door to less dense verizon served areas. It's off behavior and i dont get it. It costs them just as much to run wire through an entire town no matter if there is already verizon copper or not. I dont get why they draw a line where the verizon copper ends. If anything they could steal the other phone company's customers. So why wouldnt they?


They do it in Texas - there are areas in Texas that have both FiOS and U-Verse. But expansion outside of the territory is very limited.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

BobCamp1 said:


> You don't like the box? Don't get the service. Don't like services in your area? Move. Cable TV is not a utility.


I love this answer. Don't like the cable box? Get satellite (oops). Don't like sat's box? Get FIOS (oops). Don't like FIOS' box? Get U-Verse (oops).

What I mentioned was a wishlist, I know it's not reality. The playing field should be level and it's not, so I'm not jumping ship from cable as long as there is something akin to Cablecard left. It might not be the best solution, but at least cable offers you some choice.


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

bicker said:


> ...Cable television is not a utility. There is one aspect of cable television service that is like a service provided by a utility -- the provision of local over-the-air broadcast channels. Other than that, cable television is not a utility.


Is natural gas piped into an area a utility? Is propane gas trucked and pumped into leased or purchased tanks in locations beyond gas pipes a utility? Is anyone required to get either?

Is water piped to an area a utility? Is a community water system supplied from a well in an area beyond water mains a utility? Is an individual well on a property a utility? Is anyone required to get water from any of these?

Is a sewer system a utility? A septic system? A porta-potty?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

This is a thread about cable television. Cable television is not a utility.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

bicker said:


> This is a thread about cable television. Cable television is not a utility.


Television is a utility. It may not be a protected utility like water, gas, and electric, but it is an essential utility.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

You must have missed it earlier where I said that local television channels are an essential service -- *not cable television*.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

bicker said:


> You must have missed it earlier where I said that local television channels are an essential service -- *not cable television*.


At least one judge disagrees with you. Check out the link.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

First of all, that was a state judge, with regard to a state law. 

Beyond that, I think it is pretty clear that the court overtyped. "Indeed, many people access essential telephone service, the Internet, news information and entertainment by way of cable," the court wrote. Telephone service is an essential service, as is news, and information. An argument can perhaps be made that the Internet perhaps could be consider such, though there are no significant precedents for that outside of that one. However, there is no basis for the assertion that entertainment is an essential service. That is one of those things that, if taken alone (i.e., if the cable company just shut off entertainment, and not news and information) they court would find differently. I bet any judge in the state, or country, would simply chalk the "and entertainment" part up as a mistake.

Actually, New Hampshire has bigger problems with regard to cable television, so fixing this judge's potential error is the least of their concerns. LOL!


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2009/11/03/4461207.htm

*Cable TV is ruled an essential utility*

CONCORD, Oct 31, 2009 (The Telegraph - McClatchy-Tribune Information Services via COMTEX) -- No matter how mad he or she might be, your landlord isn't allowed to deprive you of your MTV.

The state Supreme Court ruled Friday that cable television is a protected utility under state law, meaning landlords cannot cut the entertainment cord during landlord-tenant disputes. The ruling is similar to the ban that says landlords cannot shut off electricity or heat during such disputes to forcibly evict tenants.

Judy Nesset, head of the Nashua chapter of the New Hampshire Property Owners Association, disagreed with the ruling and said cable is clearly an amenity, not a utility.

"I don't understand why cable would be a necessity," Nesset said. "Cable TV a necessity? I don't think so." The court, in a unanimous ruling, sided with Christopher Lally, who faced eviction last year. He was renting an apartment on a month-to-month basis from Lauren Flieder. The pair did not have a lease and, in June 2008, they agreed he would move out at the end of August.

On July 31, Lally paid for August and told Flieder he wasn't moving until the following summer. She gave him an eviction notice that day requiring him to leave by the end of August.

Lally stayed. On Sept. 2, Flieder filed paperwork seeking unpaid rent and a court order for Lally to move out. Six days later, she ended his cable TV service.

Lally petitioned a judge, accusing Flieder of trying to carry out what's known as a self-help eviction, which is illegal in most states. Flieder argued the cable provider told her the apartment was receiving the service through an illegal connection, so she disconnected a wire. The judge sided with Flieder and ruled that cable TV was not a protected utility.

The Supreme Court reversed that decision Friday.

"In view of legislative history and widespread use of cable television as a utility service, we conclude that the unlawful termination of cable television by a landlord is the type of self-help tactic that the legislature intended to prevent," the ruling states. "Indeed, many people access essential telephone service, the Internet, news information and entertainment by way of cable," the court wrote.

"Thus, the unlawful termination of a tenant's cable television service would be a means of accomplishing a self-help eviction -- the very evil the Legislature meant to deter." Nesset, who owns Bishop Real Estate Management and oversees about 115 units in Nashua, said it is very rare for a landlord to provide cable as part of a lease. The only owners that do, she said, are at extended-stay motels and the like where tenants aren't expected to stay for more than a month.

"When we have units we rent out and we include utilities, that does not include cable TV," she said.

She said she has never heard of a landlord shutting off cable that a tenant was paying for.

"I have never heard of that happening in my life," she said.

The law states no landlord shall cause the interruption or termination of any utility service to a tenant, "including, but not limited to water, heat, light, electricity, gas, telephone, sewerage, elevator or refrigeration," except for repairs or temporary emergencies.

The Supreme Court ruling states that cable television is "comparable" in that it pertains to the "habitability of a dwelling and a person's well-being," and therefore should be considered a protected utility.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

To see more of The Telegraph, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.nashuatelegraph.com Copyright (c) 2009, The Telegraph, Nashua, N.H.

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

One other important note: The ruling refers to the threshold for determining the essential nature: "habitability of a dwelling and a person's well-being." Entertainment surely would not qualify (while local news and information would).

What the cable company should have done is reduce the service down to limited basic and they'd been okay.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

bicker said:


> First of all, that was a state judge, with regard to a state law.
> 
> Beyond that, I think it is pretty clear that the court overtyped.


That's your opinion.


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

bicker said:


> I think... I bet..


Good for you!

Another opinion!


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Utilities are allowed to put poles on public property and have easements to put poles on private property. There is a utility pole on my property. I'm "stuck" with it. I never had a chance to tell the local cable company to get their wire off the pole on my property.

At one time local communities thought that gave them the right to regulate cable companies. Cable companies couldn't function if they had to negotiate with individual (nonsubscribing) land owners. I don't think they could function if they weren't allowed to use existing utility poles.

That opinion is now longer shared and almost all cable service is currently unregulated.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> This is a thread about cable television. Cable television is not a utility.


Once again you are wrong. In some states it is. In others it is not. It depends on whether the state's PUC issues certificates of public convenience and necessity to CATV franchises or not. Generally speaking, if an entity is issued a CPUCN, then no building owner / manager can deny access to any structure certified for occupancy in the franchise area, and every other utility must make accommodations for easement access by the certificate holder. Sans such authority, the franchise may be out of luck if an easement is full or a building owner wants to refuse to allow them to enter the building.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

lew said:


> I don't think they could function if they weren't allowed to use existing utility poles.


One does not have to be a public utility to make use of a pole. If one has a pole lease agreement with a public utility, then they can also make use of the entity's poles. Although technically if the entity attempts to attach to a pole owned by another utility with whom the entity does not have a lease agreement the other utility can refuse an attachment or make them get off the pole, in practice (here at least) as long as one has a pole attachment agreement with the power company, no one else usually kvetches when the entity wants to attach to the other utility's pole. Mostly it is because no one has the resources to go around keeping track of who is attached to whose poles. Since CPS owns more than 80% of the poles here, most people don't even bother to go to the other utilities for permission to attach to a pole, or even to find out who owns it. If CPS is attached to te pole, then they just assume CPS does and apply to CPS for a pole permit. CPS also doesn't bother to double-check, so they just collect the permit fee and issue the permit. If the pole requires replacing because of utility congestion, CPS just does it without worrying about who actually owns it.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lew said:


> That opinion is now longer shared and almost all cable service is currently unregulated.


And you've hit the nail on the head with your last sentence: The portion of cable service which is regulated (limited basic) *is* the utility.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> Once again you are wrong. In some states it is. In others it is not.


I was admittedly talking about federal law. Granted.


----------

