# Copy protection



## jilter (Oct 4, 2002)

So, have the TivoHD all set up and imagine my surprise when almost everything is prevented from being transferred. Guess I never paid attention much to these threads before since they did not affect me. I gather this is a Comcast thing. I understand but am completely frustrated. I am sorry I ever bothered with the Series 3, because all I really wanted it for was to transfer between upstairs and down.


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

Was there previously a different provider in your service area, such as Brighthouse or TWC?

In the overwhelming majority of service areas, Comcast only protects the premium movie channels. However, former TWC service areas used to protect almost anything, and some users find that Comcast never changed that after acquiring those systems.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Where are you "happy to be here"? In Houston, Comcast only protects the pay channels (HBO, Starz, etc). Almost all cable content is not protected.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

jilter said:


> So, have the TivoHD all set up and imagine my surprise when almost everything is prevented from being transferred. Guess I never paid attention much to these threads before since they did not affect me. I gather this is a Comcast thing. I understand but am completely frustrated. I am sorry I ever bothered with the Series 3, because all I really wanted it for was to transfer between upstairs and down.


In that case, I suggest you check out the "other" forum.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

bkdtv said:


> Was there previously a different provider in your service area, such as Brighthouse or TWC?
> 
> In the overwhelming majority of service areas, Comcast only protects the premium movie channels. However, former TWC service areas used to protect almost anything, and some users find that Comcast never changed that after acquiring those systems.


IN my area, Northern VA, Comcast restricts most of the channels, but it is also inconsistent. Even with the premium channels it's inconsistent, some things are protected and some aren't. You never know.


----------



## seggers (Oct 6, 2008)

I'm in a TWC area and all my stuff is protected too. I think TWC is just racking it up as well. Be it digital or HD. The only stuff that isnt is the original OTA stuff. Kinda makes have TiVo Desktop a waste of time.

Seggers.


----------



## feeferwilly (Jul 18, 2005)

I'm on TWC. Record the show in SD. It will remove the copy protection.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

feeferwilly said:


> I'm on TWC. Record the show in SD. It will remove the copy protection.


Incorrect. Record it from an analog channel and it won't have the copy protection. I'm on TWC too -- just re-verified digital SD and HD recordings are copy protected unless from an OTA station.

On my TWC system, and I believe on most, if you have digital service and cable cards the channels that were analog before you got the cable cards will come through as digital (copy protected) versions.


----------



## JeffRapp (Sep 30, 2007)

dlfl said:


> On my TWC system, and I believe on most, if you have digital service and cable cards the channels that were analog before you got the cable cards will come through as digital (copy protected) versions.


Ding, ding, ding! I've got the exact same issue. It started when I had the tuning adapter installed. This apparently allowed TWC to set the CCI bit on EVERYTHING. Previously, I could transfer recordings from basic cable - below 100. Now, my TiVo's are on their own private islands. Thanks again, Time Warner!


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

TWC sets copy protection on everything it can in most areas. Analog channels just don't have a CCI value to set. In other words technical limitations prevent them from copy protecting analog.

They tick off a few TiVo owners but that's hardly a microdot on their overall bottom line now or in the future.


----------



## JeffRapp (Sep 30, 2007)

dlfl said:


> They tick off a few TiVo owners but that's hardly a microdot on their overall bottom line now or in the future.


If we're such a small minority and none of their equipment is affected, then why bother setting it universally like they do? Is it just being lazy?


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

JeffRapp said:


> If we're such a small minority and none of their equipment is affected, then why bother setting it universally like they do? Is it just being lazy?


Because they don't want anyone to use any DVR other than their own to record content. By blocking this functionality it levels the playing field to the lowest common denominator. Which is their equipment. If you take away tivo's advantages like multi-room viewing and Tivo to go, tivo is a DVR that can't do On demand services and requires an external box to get all channels (SDV). IMO still a better DVR, but some do just say why pay for a "crippled" DVR that can't do On Demand and requires a box to get all the channels when I can get one that does everything for free?

If you really want to get into a conspiracy theory we can get into why they want bandwidth caps to prevent widespread adoption of online video like Amazon and Netflix and other downloaded video.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

And even considering that a "conspiracy" is ridiculous. If people are deriving value from something you're providing them, then it is natural and appropriate for you to find a way to charge them for the value they're deriving. Value-based pricing isn't a conspiracy. It's the state-of-the-art in capitalism. People need to stop thinking that the whole world exists solely to inexpensively provide them what they want.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> And even considering that a "conspiracy" is ridiculous. If people are deriving value from something you're providing them, then it is natural and appropriate for you to find a way to charge them for the value they're deriving. Value-based pricing isn't a conspiracy. It's the state-of-the-art in capitalism. People need to stop thinking that the whole world exists solely to inexpensively provide them what they want.


If the ISP's were only providing internet access then that is a valid argument. People could just get another ISP and be done with it. The problem is the ISP's are also in the TV content delivery business (had to call it something generic) and they own the data delivery lines going into everybody's homes and now they are just starting to see that the internet is competition in their TV Content Delivery business. IMO its anti competitive to change the way they charge for data services if the reason for it is to stifle competition in their TV content delivery business. Outside of the BIG cities cable TV have virtual monopolies or at best Duopolies in the areas they cover and they are the same people that provide data services. So they are raising prices on data to discourage the use of things like Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Actually, what I wrote is a valid argument regardless. I respect the fact that you prefer things were different, though.

I think if folks want an ISP to operate a certain way, that they should build one, and see if they'd continue to operate that way after having to deal with the reality of the business.

I could see a mechanism sort-of like the old Bell System: Guarantee the ISP 13% return on expense, and then force them to open their pipes to whoever wants to offer service on them. I doubt, though, that many folks here would be happy with how much more expensive things would be. Regulation sounds really good until you actually see that it doesn't actually do magic, and ends up costing you more than before regulation.


----------



## jonra (Apr 1, 2005)

"because all I really wanted it for was to transfer between upstairs and down." Same here. I have the Tivo HDs setup for multi-room and the feature is worthless to me. 80&#37; of what I Tivo is HD or digital on Comcast... however most of the digital HD off the air stuff I think I can transfer. I'll have to check out if I can transfer network (ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS) shows off the air vs. the same HD shows on Comcast. I haven't used the feature in a year, but it's still hooked up. 

So, what I did instead - is an HDMI output splitter 1 to 2 and also use the component output... so I have 3 HDTVS in three rooms hooked up to one HD-Tivo. All 3 have a great picture. You also have to use an infrared remote receiver/transmitter. Problem solved. This way I can watch one of my three HD Tivos in any of three rooms.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

jonra said:


> "because all I really wanted it for was to transfer between upstairs and down." Same here. I have the Tivo HDs setup for multi-room and the feature is worthless to me. 80% of what I Tivo is HD or digital on Comcast... however most of the digital HD off the air stuff I think I can transfer. I'll have to check out if I can transfer network (ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS) shows off the air vs. the same HD shows on Comcast. I haven't used the feature in a year, but it's still hooked up.
> 
> So, what I did instead - is an HDMI output splitter 1 to 2 and also use the component output... so I have 3 HDTVS in three rooms hooked up to one HD-Tivo. All 3 have a great picture. You also have to use an infrared remote receiver/transmitter. Problem solved. This way I can watch one of my three HD Tivos in any of three rooms.


The Cable Co's can NOT set the CCI fllag to anything other than copy freely on the OTA stations. So NBC ABC, CBS, Fox, PBS, WB etc are in the clear as far as MRV is concerned.


----------



## JeffRapp (Sep 30, 2007)

Why can't TiVo do something about this issue? With TWC being one of the largest cable operators in the country, I'm sure many people are stuck with not being able to transfer from box-to-box. It seems that streaming is out of the question due to hardware limitations, so why can't we just move the bits from one box to the next and delete the original? 0x02 (correct me if I'm wrong) means "Copy Once," so moving a recording wouldn't really violate this, right? Granted, this doesn't solve place shifting issues with TTG, but I think it's a decent compromise to view recordings at a different TiVo.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JeffRapp said:


> Why can't TiVo do something about this issue?


You answered your own question:


JeffRapp said:


> With TWC being one of the largest cable operators in the country...


Given that, TiVo would have to be *right* in order to make headway on this issue, and they simply wouldn't be. Time Warner is explicitly allowed to do what they're doing. It wasn't an oversight by the regulators. It wasn't a mistake, by them, either.


----------



## JeffRapp (Sep 30, 2007)

bicker said:


> Time Warner is explicitly allowed to do what they're doing. It wasn't an oversight by the regulators. It wasn't a mistake, by them, either.


I'm not saying that we need more legislation on the issue (maybe we do). From what I've seen, CalbleLabs defines 0x02 as Copy Once. By doing a TiVo-to-TiVo transfer, we're making a second copy, which obviously violates the terms of 0x02. If we, however, move the recording from one TiVo to a different TiVo, *technically* only one copy exists, which should still fit into 0x02 territory.

If TWC thinks that they should allow only their sub par equipment on their network, then go ahead and let them think that. We have rules and regulations that let us, the consumer, do otherwise. I personally feel that TiVo is within their rights to allow us to move recordings - they shouldn't feel the need to bend to the cable co's hopes and dreams. Granted, they do have to follow CableLabs, but the things they can and cannot do have already been laid out and finalized.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JeffRapp said:


> I'm not saying that we need more legislation on the issue (maybe we do). From what I've seen, CalbleLabs defines 0x02 as Copy Once. By doing a TiVo-to-TiVo transfer, we're making a second copy, which obviously violates the terms of 0x02. If we, however, move the recording from one TiVo to a different TiVo, *technically* only one copy exists, which should still fit into 0x02 territory.


But that's not Time Warner's fault: That's TiVo's fault. *They're *the ones who decided that it was too impractical to implement a means of securely providing support for Copy Once, and therefore treat Copy Once the same as Copy Never.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> Actually, what I wrote is a valid argument regardless. I respect the fact that you prefer things were different, though.
> 
> I think if folks want an ISP to operate a certain way, that they should build one, and see if they'd continue to operate that way after having to deal with the reality of the business.
> 
> I could see a mechanism sort-of like the old Bell System: Guarantee the ISP 13% return on expense, and then force them to open their pipes to whoever wants to offer service on them. I doubt, though, that many folks here would be happy with how much more expensive things would be. Regulation sounds really good until you actually see that it doesn't actually do magic, and ends up costing you more than before regulation.


In general I agree with you, let *fair *competition decide who survives and what is the best business model is. BUT different rules come into play when you are talking about how the REALLY big boys can *fairly compete* with the small fry. Look at the microsoft anti trust case for example, they got smacked down for using their market share in windows to get an unfair advantage in the web browser market. That despite the fact that people could still download and install any browser they wanted, ie was bundled with the OS and that gave them an unfair advantage. Change the players and what is used to leverage something to say Comcast is using their market share as the only ISP in xxx to get an unfair advantage in the Video delivery (which includes both cable and internet) market.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Look at how little Microsoft had to change, in that regard, to be compliant.

And beyond that, your analogy fails because the ISPs aren't *favoring *their own web video distribution channel. Comcast, for example, in its web-delivered content offering, will STILL apply the bandwidth caps.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> Look at how little Microsoft had to change, in that regard, to be compliant.
> 
> And beyond that, your analogy fails because the ISPs aren't *favoring *their own web video distribution channel. Comcast, for example, in its web-delivered content offering, will STILL apply the bandwidth caps.


But they do make money (in fact most of its money) on their NON web based Video distribution that does not count towards a bandwidth cap. The comcast just views its broadband division as extra money that they can make off the same cable lines. They make most of their money from the cable TV bill NOT the broadband bill. If the cable co's had their way there would be no feature length or series length professional video on the internet at all because it is competiton to their TV business. Think about it If you were a comcast and came to the conclusion that if someone came up with a way to easily distribute the same content that you distribute for less money than you do except over the web would you want to figure a way to stop that. Well thats whats happened. Between OTA and services like Amazon, netflix and itunes, you can get 90%+ of the content you are providing for at $100 (Cable tv bill) for only $70 (Internet access + Netflix + downloads from itunes and amazon + OTA) once people figure it out and do the math for their individual tastes at lot of people could conclude that they will save a pot full of money dropping comcast tv and just use comcast for internet. A $100 bill vs a $50 bill. The thing that is holding internet distribution of video back is file size and download times. Wonder why our internet access is generally slower than other parts of the world? This is one of the reasons. Whats a good way to make it so they can increase the speed of the connection but have it so it doesn't compete with the TV service? Put in a bandwidth cap so you can't download a lot of large files (typically high def video).


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

bicker said:


> Look at how little Microsoft had to change, in that regard, to be compliant.


The reason for that is that after they were found guilty, the a new president was elected and the new administration didn't want to pursue penalties against Microsoft.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

bicker said:


> You answered your own question:Given that, TiVo would have to be *right* in order to make headway on this issue, and they simply wouldn't be. Time Warner is explicitly allowed to do what they're doing. It wasn't an oversight by the regulators. It wasn't a mistake, by them, either.


They came up with the copy freely/copy once/copy never scheme before DVRs. At the time, they were thinking we would all be using D-VHS recorders, or something like them. With D-VHS, you could record a copy once program onto a D-VHS tape, but you couldn't make a copy of the tape. There was nothing to stop you, though, from taking the original tape anywhere you wanted to watch it (like to another room in your house).

I actually think that TV-recording technology has changed enough since they wrote some of the regulations that it might be a good idea to revisit them.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> But they do make money (in fact most of its money) on their NON web based Video distribution that does not count towards a bandwidth cap.


Apples and oranges. Again, your analogy fails.



JWThiers said:


> The comcast just views its broadband division as extra money that they can make off the same cable lines.


Incorrect. It is a separate service.



JWThiers said:


> They make most of their money from the cable TV bill NOT the broadband bill.


Since I've corrected some points you made, I felt it important to highlight that you did say somethings that were accurate. This is one of them.



JWThiers said:


> If the cable co's had their way there would be no feature length or series length professional video on the internet at all because it is competiton to their TV business.


If I had my way, none of my competitors would exist either. That's a pointless observation.

The more important aspect of this is that one service provider should not be expected to do the heavy lifting for a competitor, without being compensated for the value they're providing to the competitor's service. The competitor should do their own heavy lifting, or the customer should pay for that portion of additional value, separately.

If the deal isn't worth it, bandwidth caps and all, then *drop the service entirely*. If it is worth it, then pay the bill, and move on. Very simple.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Brainiac 5 said:


> The reason for that is that after they were found guilty, the a new president was elected and the new administration didn't want to pursue penalties against Microsoft.


No, the reason for that is that they transgression was minor, so the remedy was minor.

I know you *want *to demonize any big company and make anything they do sound far more horrible than it ever was. But your wanting doesn't make it so. Reality is what it is.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Brainiac 5 said:


> They came up with the copy freely/copy once/copy never scheme before DVRs.


TiVo didn't come up with it. Beyond that, they had full control over deciding whether they'd implement Copy Once differently than Copy Never. They decided not to. Their choice. They could still implement them differently, now, in an update, if they wish. They choose not to. Their choice. TiVo's choice. TiVo's responsibility. Solely.

You are *again *misdirecting your frustration.



Brainiac 5 said:


> I actually think that TV-recording technology has changed enough since they wrote some of the regulations that it might be a good idea to revisit them.


Yes, piracy has become so much more of a problem that it is probably time to provide content owners more ways of protecting their assets.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

the order of your quotes was changed so I could address them.



bicker said:


> Since I've corrected some points you made, I felt it important to highlight that you did say somethings that were accurate. This is one of them.


Thank you for acknowledging places where we agree.



bicker said:


> Incorrect. It is a separate service.


That is the same thing. The people providing level 2 support (once you get passed the generic people reading a script) are not in the same. they have data services and cable services (What ever they call their service divisions). the money is even tracked separately.



bicker said:


> The more important aspect of this is that one service provider should not be expected to do the heavy lifting for a competitor, without being compensated for the value they're providing to the competitor's service. The competitor should do their own heavy lifting, or the customer should pay for that portion of additional value, separately.


The problem is the competitors (as you called them) are already paying for business class internet access. The consumers are already paying for internet access. The service that is being providing for (the heavy lifting) is internet access. The Customers are having their billing changed from unlimited bandwidth access to a capped amount. This discourages customers from using high bandwidth internet services including Internet based HD video, which is a competitor to your ISP's cable TV services which is where they are making most of their money which you said was true.

So what is happening is the cable TV companies see a drop in revenue from TV customers that have both TV and internet are dropping cable and their internet usage skyrockets. So what do they propose to do? Have their internet services put a cap in place so that it becomes too expensive to use the internet as an alternative.



bicker said:


> If I had my way, none of my competitors would exist either. That's a pointless observation.


That IS the point. Any company would want to eliminate their competition, that's normal business. It's legal too as long as you don't hold a monopoly or are using anti competitive practices to keep it or leverage into other areas. That is what I'm saying, The broadband companies are also providing Cable TV and telephone and they hold virtual monopolies in the areas that they serve. If you are lucky your choices for broadband will be, your cable TV provider, your telephone provider, (and I hate to say it because the "broadband" they provide is usually pretty poor from what I've heard) satellite. They want to use their monopoly (or at best Duopoly) in their internet area to affect the bottom line of their cable TV services by eliminating a competing service that is internet based. And as I pointed out above both the user (customer) and competitors are paying already for internet access access.

If you are really lucky you may have some other local provider, but their market penetration is usually pretty small and for the purpose of this could be ignored.

A solution that I think would be better for everyone is instead of counting how many bits of data flow and paying for that (This is what hey want to do now), is tier the services based on how fast the bits flow. Ultra low speed access is $5 per month, low speed is $10 normal speed is$15, high speed is $20, Ultra high speed is $30, and the PTPAYBBEAYPWYHOF speed (peel the paint as you blow by everyone as you pass with your hair on fire) is $50. You can adjust the pricing and number of tiers but you get the idea.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

bicker said:


> No, the reason for that is that they transgression was minor, so the remedy was minor.


Okay, you seem to remember it a lot differently from how I do. 

You don't remember there was talk about breaking Microsoft up into an OS company and an application software company? That was a real possibility at the time. The reason that option went off the table was that a new administration took over and announced that they wouldn't seek any such penalty. It wasn't that the Justice Department couldn't get a more severe penalty than they did (they almost certainly could have); the reason they got the penalty that they did was the new administration had them back off.



> I know you *want *to demonize any big company and make anything they do sound far more horrible than it ever was. But your wanting doesn't make it so. Reality is what it is.


I'm not sure where you're getting that. 

I do *not* want to "demonize any big company." In fact people who are like that irritate me to no end. Being big does not make a company evil in any way, shape or form. On the other hand, it also does not make them immune from doing something wrong.

Note that I didn't say anything about whether what Microsoft had done was good, bad, or indifferent. I only mentioned what happened in the case. In fact, until the change in administration I think that Microsoft was going to get a raw deal. Their legal team made a lot of mistakes and the case went very badly for them, I would say probably worse than they deserved. They were in line for some big-time penalties until the Justice Department backed off. But deserved or not, the reason they got got off as lightly as they did was that the prosecutors dropped the demand for heavier penalties, not because the judge wouldn't have granted them.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

bicker said:


> TiVo didn't come up with it.


I'm not sure what you're getting at here, did you think I said that TiVo came up with it?



> Beyond that, they had full control over deciding whether they'd implement Copy Once differently than Copy Never. They decided not to.


Copy once *is* implemented differently than copy never. Copy never doesn't let you keep the show for more than 90 minutes after it's over (as per FCC regulations).



> Their choice. They could still implement them differently, now, in an update, if they wish. They choose not to. Their choice. TiVo's choice. TiVo's responsibility. Solely.


They could, and working within the current rules would certainly be the the easiest path. Of course, the options available are not completely ideal - they could stream, but some people's networks might not be able to keep up with an HD stream. Or they could implement a "move" operation, but presumably you'd have to wait for the entire thing to transfer before watching it (I'm thinking you wouldn't be able to watch any part of the show on the 2nd DVR while it still existed on the 1st one).



> You are *again* misdirecting your frustration.


When did I express any frustration? An at whom am I misdirecting it? The FCC because I said it might be useful to revisit the copy protection rules? I didn't say I was angry and indignant that they aren't doing so, I just said that things have changed since they made those rules and it might be a good idea to review them.



> Yes, piracy has become so much more of a problem that it is probably time to provide content owners more ways of protecting their assets.


That would certainly be something they could look at if they reviewed the copy protection rules. As you yourself often say, they need to provide balance between the affected parties.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> So what is happening is the cable TV companies see a drop in revenue from TV customers that have both TV and internet are dropping cable and their internet usage skyrockets. So what do they propose to do? Have their internet services put a cap in place so that it becomes too expensive to use the internet as an alternative.


This is true, but I'm not sure what can be done about it now. The only viable solution I can see is not to allow one company to provide both cable TV and Internet. But since several large companies are already doing it, I don't see any way to undo it. Nor would it necessarily be desirable overall - if Comcast didn't provide my high-speed internet, I wouldn't have any. It's a bad situation in that the cable TV/ISP companies have a conflict of interest between their two businesses, but I don't know what can be done about it. 



> A solution that I think would be better for everyone is instead of counting how many bits of data flow and paying for that (This is what hey want to do now), is tier the services based on how fast the bits flow.


Many companies already tier service by speed, that doesn't seem to make them want to control the number of bits any less.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> The problem is the competitors (as you called them) are already paying for business class internet access.


That is not the case. They're not paying for the heavy lifting involved in getting their transmission down the pipe from your service provider's head-end to your home.



JWThiers said:


> The consumers are already paying for internet access.


But not absolutely unlimited -- that's the whole point of the cap. The basic fee for access covers a reasonable amount of usage, as defined by the terms and conditions. There is no excuse for charging different customers the same amount when there are magnitude of difference between the value each derives, because of a quantum different in utilization, and therefore load on, the service facility.

And if the consumer doesn't like the terms and conditions, they can do without the service. If consumers do so, then the supplier will have no customers and will have to change their offering or go out of business. That's capitalism.



JWThiers said:


> A solution that I think would be better for everyone is instead of counting how many bits of data flow and paying for that (This is what hey want to do now), is tier the services based on how fast the bits flow.


I don't think that would be a bad idea, but one consumer doesn't get to unilaterally impose the terms and conditions on a mass-market service provider. Instead, the mass-market service provider gauges by market research what service offerings are going to be most favored by consumers in general.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Brainiac 5 said:


> Okay, you seem to remember it a lot differently from how I do.


Yes, a lot differently: I remember it _correctly_. 



Brainiac 5 said:


> You don't remember there was talk about breaking Microsoft up into an OS company and an application software company?


You don't remember that there was talk about impeaching G W Bush? Talk is meaningless. What was the actual result of the legal case?



Brainiac 5 said:


> I'm not sure where you're getting that.


From the one-sided, anti-business perspective.



Brainiac 5 said:


> I'm not sure what you're getting at here, did you think I said that TiVo came up with it?


Your use of the word "they" was vague. However, any other intention on your part would be non-sequitur. My contention is that the concern raised was about how TiVo implemented Copy Once. *That implementation was TiVo's decision* alone. It had nothing to do with anything anyone else did or didn't do.



Brainiac 5 said:


> When did I express any frustration?


I think what you meant to write was that you deny being frustrated. Wording your denial as a question is ridiculous IMHO.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

Brainiac 5 said:


> This is true, but I'm not sure what can be done about it now. The only viable solution I can see is not to allow one company to provide both cable TV and Internet. But since several large companies are already doing it, I don't see any way to undo it. Nor would it necessarily be desirable overall - if Comcast didn't provide my high-speed internet, I wouldn't have any. It's a bad situation in that the cable TV/ISP companies have a conflict of interest between their two businesses, but I don't know what can be done about it.
> 
> Many companies already tier service by speed, that doesn't seem to make them want to control the number of bits any less.


Like you said they could break up the companies. They did it to ATT (I think actually Bell Telephone but you know what I mean). Is it the best solution? Probably not. But it is something that needs to be monitored to ensure that undue leveraging isn't applied. there are things you can do as a small company with low market penetration that large companies with high penetration shouldn't ever be allowed to do.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

bicker said:


> Yes, a lot differently: I remember it _correctly_.


It would appear you don't.



> You don't remember that there was talk about impeaching G W Bush? Talk is meaningless. What was the actual result of the legal case?


Whether they deserved it or not, they were found guilty. The Justice Department got everything they asked for (which at the end wasn't much).



> From the one-sided, anti-business perspective.


Which there wasn't any of in my message. I merely stated what happened in the Microsoft case. As I clarified, knowing that the case went badly for Microsoft and that they could have gotten a worse punishment if the Justice Department had asked for it does not equal my thinking that they deserved that.

This Microsoft thing is rather off-topic, so let's just agree that we remember it differently.



> Your use of the word "they" was vague.


You're right, sorry about that. I meant the FCC.



> I think what you meant to write was that you deny being frustrated. Wording your denial as a question is ridiculous IMHO.


Okay, I deny being frustrated. Although given the choice I'd like to be able to use MRV, I don't have that choice and am pretty okay with the way things are.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> Like you said they could break up the companies. They did it to ATT (I think actually Bell Telephone but you know what I mean). Is it the best solution? Probably not.


Definitely not. I was there at the time, and lemme tell you, that set the whole industry back a bit. It would have been far better for the government to actually do some hard work, and make it attractive for *new *competitors to *enter *the marketplace, rather than callously destroy something that people had worked to build and that was working well.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Brainiac 5 said:


> It would appear you don't.


No, it would appear that you don't. (Hint: Instead of making inane and insulting assertions about what we each think the other does or doesn't understand, how about we just grant that we both do understand and just disagree. Otherwise, I'm fully prepared to parrot back every idiotic insult you launch at me. I type really fast so it doesn't really cost me much.)



Brainiac 5 said:


> The Justice Department got everything they asked for (which at the end wasn't much).


Because the transgression wasn't anywhere near as grievous as arch-consumerists would want you to believe.


----------



## blacknoi (Jan 23, 2006)

All political stuff aside, I just want to watch True Blood on my living room S3, that was recorded on my Bedroom HD unit. But the CCIx02 prevents me from doing that.

Tivo: Please figure out a way to "stream" the shows instead of making a copy to satisfy the 02 CCI bit, but not scare movie studios and content providers. 

Thank you.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

blacknoi said:


> .........Tivo: Please figure out a way to "stream" the shows instead of making a copy to satisfy the 02 CCI bit, but not scare movie studios and content providers.
> ..........


Why should MRV bother content providers anyway? I don't see how it would reduce their revenues any significant amount.

I agree TTG is another thing, although unfortunately the users like me, who just want to archive videos off-TiVo for later viewing, must pay the price to prevent piracy -- and I don't believe serious pirates are deterred by this anyway.

Did someone mention Bit Torrent? How could MRV ever even approach the magnitude of that?


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

bicker said:


> No, it would appear that you don't. (Hint: Instead of making inane and insulting assertions about what we each think the other does or doesn't understand, how about we just grant that we both do understand and just disagree.


Sounds fine.



> Otherwise, I'm fully prepared to parrot back every idiotic insult you launch at me. I type really fast so it doesn't really cost me much.)


I'm sorry if you saw that as an insult, I did not mean it as one. It was just a preface to my explaining how my recollection differed from yours. I type fast, too, perhaps *too* fast in this case.



> > The Justice Department got everything they asked for (which at the end wasn't much).
> 
> 
> Because the transgression wasn't anywhere near as grievous as arch-consumerists would want you to believe.


I agree that the new administration saw it that way, and that is why they sought lighter penalties. I guess I was thinking that the statement that the remedies were minor because the transgression was minor implied that those were the harshest remedies the Justice Department was able to get through the legal system, which very likely was not the case. But I see your point.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

dlfl said:


> Why should MRV bother content providers anyway? I don't see how it would reduce their revenues any significant amount.


I don't think it does bother them. The "copy once" flag was created with removable media in mind, which is all we'd had for recording TV up to that point. With removable media, this just wouldn't be an issue. For all we know, content providers would be fine with being able to transfer shows between DVRs with non-removable media inside the same house, but there's no permission setting to allow that and not allow those who still have D-VHS recorders to make unlimited perfect copies.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Brainiac 5 said:


> I don't think it does bother them. The "copy once" flag was created with removable media in mind, which is all we'd had for recording TV up to that point. With removable media, this just wouldn't be an issue. For all we know, content providers would be fine with being able to transfer shows between DVRs with non-removable media inside the same house, but there's no permission setting to allow that and not allow those who still have D-VHS recorders to make unlimited perfect copies.


I'm not sure what a D-VHS recorder is but how would that prevent a (mythical) TiVo decision to allow MRV even for CCI=0x02 ? We know this could be done inside the TiVo because there are hacks that do that (and more). Thus no new permission setting is required.

I still don't see any legal or technical barrier to TiVo allowing MRV of copy-once content. I agree there could be cost factors although, considering the simplicity of the hacks that do this, I have a hard time believing they are large.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I think the issue is that Copy Once requires a change in the CCI flag (to Copy Never) on the original (as well as setting the CCI flag on the copy to Copy Never, of course). How to ensure that that happens, avoiding all probability of abuse? Well, the only way to do that is to make that change at the very beginning of the transfer process, with the ability to complete the transfer, therefore, stored only in volatile memory (and I suspect even that could perhaps represent a risk of abuse, but let's ignore that for now). So given that, any interruption of that process, such as a power outage, or reboot of the TiVo box, will result in an inability to continue the transfer and therefore significant upset within the user. I suspect that that is why TiVo shows no interest in offering any other means of handling Copy Once: It would lead to inconsistency, confusion and upset.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

dlfl said:


> I'm not sure what a D-VHS recorder is but how would that prevent a (mythical) TiVo decision to allow MRV even for CCI=0x02 ?


The D-VHS recorder was meant to be the replacement for VHS. It recorded the raw bit-stream of a digital broadcast onto a tape that looked just like a VHS tape.

What prevents TiVo from allowing MRV for CCI=0x02 is that the rules say you can record such a stream, but can't make a copy of that recording. Current MRV involves making a copy onto the other DVR.



> We know this could be done inside the TiVo because there are hacks that do that (and more). Thus no new permission setting is required.


They could make it do whatever they want, but if it doesn't follow the rules then CableLabs will not approve it and they can't use CableCARDs in it. So TiVo or other companies cannot just change the behavior of their devices when the stream has a given copy protection setting.

With the possible values that exist for the CCI byte, the only setting that would allow MRV is "copy freely." But this would allow people with D-VHS recorders to make unlimited perfect copies of their tapes. It would also allow TiVo-to-Go. There's no available setting that restricts these things that content providers would want to restrict and doesn't restrict the current implementation of MRV.



> I still don't see any legal or technical barrier to TiVo allowing MRV of copy-once content. I agree there could be cost factors although, considering the simplicity of the hacks that do this, I have a hard time believing they are large.


If they change the way it works, so that the recording is streamed or moved (deleting the original copy), then that's true. But they can't legally allow the current MRV to work.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

I would be okay with a "move" function for MRV. Make it so you can't watch the show on _either_ DVR until the transfer is complete.
Hell, go one step further and make it so that once the transfer is complete, change the CCI bit to "copy never" so that the show is limited to just that one move.
ANYTHING to have a functioning MRV system.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> That is not the case. They're not paying for the heavy lifting involved in getting their transmission down the pipe from your service provider's head-end to your home.


I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying the hard work is delivering internet data from the head-end to the consumer? I suppose in a way you are right, the websites are not paying for that they are paying for the upstream part, the consumer is paying for the downstream part from the head-end to the home (most home use traffic is inbound not out). I guess we just see things a bit differently.



bicker said:


> But not absolutely unlimited -- that's the whole point of the cap. The basic fee for access covers a reasonable amount of usage, as defined by the terms and conditions. There is no excuse for charging different customers the same amount when there are magnitude of difference between the value each derives, because of a quantum different in utilization, and therefore load on, the service facility.
> 
> And if the consumer doesn't like the terms and conditions, they can do without the service. If consumers do so, then the supplier will have no customers and will have to change their offering or go out of business. That's capitalism.


 And *if* the "Reasonable amount of coverage, as defined by the terms and conditions" becomes anti competitive I hope the DOJ smacks them with a lawsuit. When I signed up for my broadband it was for unlimited bandwidth. In fact it still is, fortunately the bandwidth caps haven't come to my area yet, If they come I may just reevaluate my position.



bicker said:


> I don't think that would be a bad idea, but one consumer doesn't get to unilaterally impose the terms and conditions on a mass-market service provider. Instead, the mass-market service provider gauges by market research what service offerings are going to be most favored by consumers in general.


I'm glad we agree that that isn't a bad idea, but please, don't put words in my mouth (I can get my own foot in my mouth by myself), I never said I would unilaterally impose anything. I said "A solution that I think would be better for everyone is..." I was voicing an opinion as to what a *possible solution could be*, in this case what I thought would be fair to all parties. Another possible solution would be to have a tier of service that was unlimited at a reasonable cost (no more that 1.5 times the next lower tier or something). But then the arguement will breakdown into how much a byte of data cost to transmit. Ironically there was a congressional hearing about that a few weeks ago, it was about how much money does it cost to send an SMS via cell phones. At .10 a message (about what you pay for a message if you don't get unlimited messaging (why that is separate from regular data is another arguement for another place butt...)) I think it comes out to something like $100 a MB.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> I think the issue is that Copy Once requires a change in the CCI flag (to Copy Never) on the original (as well as setting the CCI flag on the copy to Copy Never, of course). How to ensure that that happens, avoiding all probability of abuse? Well, the only way to do that is to make that change at the very beginning of the transfer process, with the ability to complete the transfer, therefore, stored only in volatile memory (and I suspect even that could perhaps represent a risk of abuse, but let's ignore that for now). So given that, any interruption of that process, such as a power outage, or reboot of the TiVo box, will result in an inability to continue the transfer and therefore significant upset within the user. I suspect that that is why TiVo shows no interest in offering any other means of handling Copy Once: It would lead to inconsistency, confusion and upset.


but why not create an "unplayable" copy on the second box. THen when the copy is complete and verified ONLY then mark the orig as copy no more then send a signal to set the copy to a playable copy no more?

sure there's a few milliseconds where that too could fail. But not minute and minutes or hours like could in fact happen in your example.

in fact such a system could be used to "move" content also. Just replace the step to mark the orig as copy no more to destroy it.

plus there's many wiser folks in the world than I- I'm sure there's even some logic that could be developed to make it even less likely to fail.

I think perhaps part of it is perhaps that tivo's encryption is not yet approved by cablelabs and maybe tivo doesn't want to use the approved options?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bkdtv said:


> Was there previously a different provider in your service area, such as Brighthouse or TWC?
> 
> In the overwhelming majority of service areas, Comcast only protects the premium movie channels. However, former TWC service areas used to protect almost anything, and some users find that Comcast never changed that after acquiring those systems.


that happened to my system. Comcast bought Patriot Media. Patriot tagged EVERY digital channel that wasn't a rebroadcast local. Even as Comcast added a few here and there those new digitial channels got flagged.

Last month they sent the notices that they are going all digital. I got bummed and assumed that now I'd be losing even the analogs i have now.

BUT i was pleasantly surprised when i looked and saw that a short time before they had shut ALL THE FLAGS off- even on the premiums. I guess someone from the mothership saw to it that when they go all digital that all the flags are stripped. I couldn't be happier.

Good luck to the OP that they go all digital soon and the mothership sees to it that the system gets switched over to be in line with the corporate policy.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

MichaelK said:


> but why not create an "unplayable" copy on the second box. THen when the copy is complete and verified ONLY then mark the orig as copy no more then send a signal to set the copy to a playable copy no more?
> 
> sure there's a few milliseconds where that too could fail. But not minute and minutes or hours like could in fact happen in your example.
> 
> ...


Probably because one of the features of MRV is the ability to start viewing almost immediately, and having some content that could and some that couldn't would confuse the unenlightened masses creating service calls about why they couldn't watch "Buckaroo Banzai" before it completed its transfer.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

The law needs to be changed so that MRV isn't considered to be a violation of "copy once." Again I ask: what would be the significant damage to content providers if several copies exist on several TiVos in one household?

I don't know why I even care. I only have one TiVo. What I want is TTG so I can transcode to MPEG4 and archive for later viewing.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

dlfl said:


> The law needs to be changed so that MRV isn't considered to be a violation of "copy once." Again I ask: what would be the significant damage to content providers if several copies exist on several TiVos in one household?
> 
> I don't know why I even care. I only have one TiVo. What I want is TTG so I can transcode to MPEG4 and archive for later viewing.


Because according to the MPAA, RIA and others you are a criminal and must be treated with suspicion. The only possible reason anyone would ever to copy any content would be to sell it for piracy and legitimate reasons.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> Definitely not. I was there at the time, and lemme tell you, that set the whole industry back a bit. It would have been far better for the government to actually do some hard work, and make it attractive for *new *competitors to *enter *the marketplace, rather than callously destroy something that people had worked to build and that was working well.


I was a bit young at the time to really understand (or care) the why's but wasn't that because they were using there monopoly to also stifle competition? Not having choice, no 3rd party handsets, only Bell equipment could be connected to "there system"? No competition stagnates innovation.


----------



## HTH (Aug 28, 2000)

JWThiers said:


> If you really want to get into a conspiracy theory we can get into why they want bandwidth caps to prevent widespread adoption of online video like Amazon and Netflix and other downloaded video.


TWC already register high on the conspiracy against TiVos when they put the mystro software on the Scientific Atlanta boxes. It is impossible to use them with a Series1 TiVo and Series2 TiVos require tweaking to padding in order to work around the apparently designed-in problem of preventing accurate channel changes according to the schedule.

I've posted about this before. The city of Lincoln, NE was going to impose sanctions against TWC for the problems customers had due to being an unwilling beta test market and suffering through failure to deliver service through their own DVRs during the beta (such as one free month of service), but nothing has come of that.


----------



## sinanju (Jan 3, 2005)

dlfl said:


> The law needs to be changed so that MRV isn't considered to be a violation of "copy once." Again I ask: what would be the significant damage to content providers if several copies exist on several TiVos in one household?
> 
> I don't know why I even care. I only have one TiVo. What I want is TTG so I can transcode to MPEG4 and archive for later viewing.


The Mafiaa would prefer you not use a TiVo at all. Their business is taking away your court-confirmed rights of fair use so their patrons can rent those rights back to you.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> I suppose in a way you are right, the websites are not paying for that they are paying for the upstream part, the consumer is paying for the downstream part from the head-end to the home (most home use traffic is inbound not out).


They are, with the bandwidth cap in place.



JWThiers said:


> I guess we just see things a bit differently.


Only if you think that the ISP should subsidize the cost of the downstream part of the heavy lifting, instead of it being effectively paid-for by either the web video distributor or the web video consumer. Or if you think that the general customer should pay those costs thereby subsidizing the order-of-magnitude greater consumption on the part of those few consumers who use the service for web video.

If you believe either of those things, then I guess we see things a bit differently. I see things such that people pay for what they get, not expecting others to subsidize their heavy consumption.



JWThiers said:


> And *if* the "Reasonable amount of coverage, as defined by the terms and conditions" becomes anti competitive I hope the DOJ smacks them with a lawsuit.


That's just the point: Such a condition *cannot *be anti-competitive. It is an internal condition. It doesn't prevent another ISP from doing business, offering service without such a condition. Your logic has no legal merit; it seems to be nothing more than consumerist nonsense.



JWThiers said:


> When I signed up for my broadband it was for unlimited bandwidth.


Eventually it won't be. Things change. The terms and conditions of your service explicitly says so. Accept the reality.



JWThiers said:


> Another possible solution would be to have a tier of service that was unlimited at a reasonable cost (no more that 1.5 times the next lower tier or something).


Such a small multiple is not necessarily "reasonable" -- that kind of capricious limitation sounds like nothing more than more consumerist nonsense. Pricing that is based on *value *is reasonable. If you get X times as much value from heavy usage as you get from light usage, then it would be reasonable to charge X times as much. Just like if an airline flies you to a destination X times more desirable, they charge you X times more, even if that someplace is a city that you fly through to get to someplace else, that is not so desirable, and therefore they charge X times less for.



JWThiers said:


> But then the arguement will breakdown into how much a byte of data cost to transmit.


Only in a socialist economy. In a capitalist economy, *great* companies price goods and services priced based on *value*. In a capitalist economy, only *suckers* (like TiVo) price things based on cost (and to be fair to TiVo, it's only because they cannot find a way to move into the big leagues, and price based on value -- but they're trying).

That's a fundamental difference between socialism and capitalism, actually.



JWThiers said:


> Ironically there was a congressional hearing about that a few weeks ago, it was about how much money does it cost to send an SMS via cell phones. At .10 a message (about what you pay for a message if you don't get unlimited messaging (why that is separate from regular data is another arguement for another place butt...)) I think it comes out to something like $100 a MB.


Again, it all comes back down to *value*. I understand that you don't like paying for services based on what they're worth. You'd rather just pay how much it costs to provide you the service and deign to give your supplier a pittance of profit as if it were a standard gratuity. That's a patronizing perspective, not patronage. No one spends billions of dollars a year building and feeding a massive infrastructure to provide service, just for the privilege of earning gratuities.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> but why not create an "unplayable" copy on the second box. THen when the copy is complete and verified ONLY then mark the orig as copy no more then send a signal to set the copy to a playable copy no more?


I suspect because that design could more readily be exploited to create multiple copies. However, someone from TiVo would have to confirm that; as I indicated in my earlier message, I'm speculating about why they made the decision that they actually *did* make. You seem to be speculating about why they made a decision that they didn't make? I'm not sure I understand that.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> BUT i was pleasantly surprised when i looked and saw that a short time before they had shut ALL THE FLAGS off- even on the premiums. I guess someone from the mothership saw to it that when they go all digital that all the flags are stripped. I couldn't be happier.


I doubt it has anything to do with "someone from the mothership" making a capricious decision to override local policy. Rather: I suspect that for greatest efficiency of implementation Project Calvary has certain standard (iron-specific) procedures that get applied. For example, we know that one of the things they cannot do in an "all-digital" system is encrypt expanded basic. Since the project relies on using DTAs, and DTAs don't support encryption, they had to remove encryption from all digital expended basic channels (presumably going back to relying on physical traps for asset protection, where transgressions are most prevalent). So clearly one part of the procedures for getting ready for Project Calvary is to make such changes.

By the same token, unless CCI flags really interfere with something specific in Project Calvary, I wouldn't be surprised to see the flags reinstated at some later date.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> Probably because one of the features of MRV is the ability to start viewing almost immediately, and having some content that could and some that couldn't would confuse the unenlightened masses creating service calls about why they couldn't watch "Buckaroo Banzai" before it completed its transfer.


Good point. It goes back to what I said in my earlier message about this, about trying to avoid confusion on the part of the customer.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> I was a bit young at the time to really understand (or care) the why's but wasn't that because they were using there monopoly to also stifle competition? Not having choice, no 3rd party handsets, only Bell equipment could be connected to "there system"?


Those issues were (and readily can be) remedied separately. For example, the separable security regulation opened cable networks up to devices like the TiVo S3/HD.



JWThiers said:


> No competition stagnates innovation.


That was not the case in 1985. However, again, if you want more competition, then the best way to achieve that is to incentivize competition, not scuttle a business.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

sinanju said:


> Their business is taking away your court-confirmed rights of fair use so their patrons can rent those rights back to you.


That's utterly ridiculous. Fair Use has nothing to do with anything we're discussing. Fair Use pertains to inclusion of a limited portion of a copyrighted work in another larger work, for purposes of education, criticism, commentary or review.

Beyond that, there is no "right" to defeat copy protection. A content owner has an absolute right to obstruct copying any way they wish, except for very specific exclusions, such as for OTA television transmissions. And beyond that, there are laws about breaking through such copy protections -- NOT laws precluding such copy protections.

So basically, you have things *completely backwards*.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> They are, with the bandwidth cap in place.
> 
> Only if you think that the ISP should subsidize the cost of the downstream part of the heavy lifting, instead of it being effectively paid-for by either the web video distributor or the web video consumer. Or if you think that the general customer should pay those costs thereby subsidizing the order-of-magnitude greater consumption on the part of those few consumers who use the service for web video.
> 
> ...


When you have a monopoly, there are rules that have to be followed. Those rules are there because lack of competition makes it possible to charge whatever you want without the restraint of the possibility of loosing customers to the competition. I think I've said it before but if not I'll say it now, monopolies (or companies that by virtue of their market share are virtual monopolies) can't do legally some of the things that a smaller company can do. For example the Microsoft antitrust case. Microsoft got a slap on the wrist for using its 95% market share in the OS market to get an unfair advantage in the web browser market. They were getting exclusivity deals from OEM's for example that if they wanted a sweet price on the OS they had to ONLY ship with ie installed. This was in fact determined to be anti competitive and they got a penalty that was probably about right for what was done. It could have been worse but it could have been better for Microsoft. If they hadn't tied the exclusivity deal on ie to a sweet discount on their OS they probably wouldn't have gotten into trouble because at the time netscape was the 800 lb gorilla in the room and couldn't get exclusivity because of their market share.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> When you have a monopoly, there are rules that have to be followed.


Which is non-sequitur, since they don't have a monopoly.

If you don't agree, ask a judge.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> Which is non-sequitur, since they don't have a monopoly.
> 
> If you don't agree, ask a judge.


This is true, thanks to SATV. I can't imagine how bad and how expensive cable would be in the majority of areas that have only one CATV system, if SATV wasn't there.

At the moment CATV effectively *is* a monopoly for anyone wanting to TiVo but DirectTivo should take care of that "real soon now".


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dlfl said:


> ... is a monopoly *for anyone *wanting to ...


And I think this is where a lot of people get confused about this issue. There is no such thing as a monopoly "for" one person. Monopoly is essentially a market concept. It doesn't describe a single person's experience.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> Which is non-sequitur, since they don't have a monopoly.
> 
> If you don't agree, ask a judge.


They may not have a monopoly but it doesn't necessarily have to be a monopoly for anti trust laws to apply they just have to have a large enough market share (See wiki - second bullet).


> banning abusive behavior by *a firm dominating a market* (emphasis added), or anti-competitive practices that tend to lead to such a dominant position. Practices controlled in this way may include predatory pricing, tying, price gouging, refusal to deal, and many others.


Microsoft does not have a monopoly in the OS market, they have Apple and Linux competing, Microsoft just has a large enough market share to make it seem like one. The cable companies did not have a problem with unlimited data until people actually started to use it and cable TV like services became possible via the internet. Then they decided to do something about it. They want to impose bandwidth caps with fees for going over. Those fees IMO are predatory pricing. The pricing is a disincentive to using high bandwidth video download sites which they view as competition, effectively tends to help them maintain their position.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> They may not have a monopoly but ...


Y'know, for the purpose of this thread, that's all I'm saying. I don't think we need to get into the other issue you raised here. As long as we agree that they're not a monopoly, I'm willing to let the issue drop.


----------



## Onibroc42 (Feb 5, 2003)

bicker said:


> A content owner has an absolute right to obstruct copying any way they wish, except for very specific exclusions, such as for OTA television transmissions.


Problem - TWC is not the content owner, they are merely a content distributor.

TWC technically does not have the right to impose stronger copy protection on content than the provider demands.

If TWC were the subject of an FCC investigation, I suspect they'd lose.

It comes down to either sloth, anti-competitive practices, or indifference to customers.

No matter how you slice it, they should be passing through the copy control flags as they are set by the content producers. To do anything else is to assert a level of control to which TWC is not legally entitled.

Oh, and as far as the bandwidth restrictions go, it's nice to think that there's some grand conspiracy to protect their TV offerings, and that might be a part of it. But the real problem is that they have, like the airlines, overbooked their capacity. They can't provide unlimited internet to everyone at the speeds they sell, so they have to start slapping down the people who are trying to hold them to the agreement they made.

Kinda like why AT&T killed SlingPlayer for iPhone, but not other 3G phones. If all the iPhone users started using it, their network would fold up and die.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> Y'know, for the purpose of this thread, that's all I'm saying. I don't think we need to get into the other issue you raised here. As long as we agree that they're not a monopoly, I'm willing to let the issue drop.


I'll tell ya what, I'll grant NATIONALLY no one cable company is a monopoly. If you agree that the the industry as a whole acts like a cartel to serve common interests. Then the issue is, "is what they are doing predatory pricing?" which is a legal issue we can both have differing opinions on and until a court decides otherwise, they are doing nothing illegal.

Fair enough?


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

Onibroc42 said:


> Oh, and as far as the bandwidth restrictions go, it's nice to think that there's some grand conspiracy to protect their TV offerings, and that might be a part of it. But the real problem is that they have, like the airlines, overbooked their capacity. They can't provide unlimited internet to everyone at the speeds they sell, so they have to start slapping down the people who are trying to hold them to the agreement they made.


If they lit up some of the dark fiber that was overbuilt in the 80's and early 90's capacity probably wouldn't be an issue. but like any finite commodity the less of something there is the more valuable it is. If I owned the fiber backbones I wouldn't play with capacity to control pricing. But that is another debate for another day.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Onibroc42 said:


> TWC technically does not have the right to impose stronger copy protection on content than the provider demands.


Actually they do. They explicitly do. It says in the law that they do have the right, unequivocally.



Onibroc42 said:


> If TWC were the subject of an FCC investigation, I suspect they'd lose.


Your suspicion would therefore be wrong.



Onibroc42 said:


> It comes down to either sloth, anti-competitive practices, or indifference to customers.


Or .... it comes down to the fact that TWC respects their owners and the judgment of their managers, over your consumer-biased opinion about what would be best for them.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> I'll tell ya what, I'll grant NATIONALLY no one cable company is a monopoly.


The law defines monopoly on a market basis, not a national basis. They are not a monopoly in *any* municipality in the country; i.e., not a monopoly at all.



JWThiers said:


> they are doing nothing illegal.


I agree.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

JWThiers said:


> I was voicing an opinion as to what a *possible solution could be*, in this case what I thought would be fair to all parties. Another possible solution would be to have a tier of service that was unlimited at a reasonable cost (no more that 1.5 times the next lower tier or something). But then the arguement will breakdown into how much a byte of data cost to transmit.


I was refering to the notion of having an unlimited bandwidth tier. The rest of a long post was cut.


bicker said:


> Such a small multiple is not necessarily "reasonable" -- that kind of capricious limitation sounds like nothing more than more consumerist nonsense. Pricing that is based on *value *is reasonable. If you get X times as much value from heavy usage as you get from light usage, then it would be reasonable to charge X times as much. Just like if an airline flies you to a destination X times more desirable, they charge you X times more, even if that someplace is a city that you fly through to get to someplace else, that is not so desirable, and therefore they charge X times less for.


Just trying to get ideas not arguing about monopolies or some such. A Couple of thoughts on this:

I am not some much interested in a specific additional cost, more along the lines of the concept of how high such an overage fee should be. If the ISP establishes a specific amount of data for a specific amount of money they are saying that the value of our data is so much money per unit of data. If the charge is $125 for 250 GB (I think the $125 is a bit high but that actually minimizes the cost per unit) that is $.50 per GB. Not having a restriction on the amount an overage fee can be they could decide that they will charge $.50 per MB (which is $500 per GB) or 1000 times more than the rate they established as the cost per unit. Is that fair? Why would 1.5x the rate of the next highest rate be unfair. Thats a 50% premium over what they established as the value of the data? how about 5x,or 10x or 2x. I'm not against pay a fair amount for what is consumed, but what is a fair amount?

So the question is what is a fair rate to charge for an overage fee?


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> The law defines monopoly on a market basis, not a national basis. They are not a monopoly in *any* municipality in the country; i.e., not a monopoly at all.
> 
> I agree.


Well I tried,

First, please do not twist what I said to mean something that I did not. My opinion is that the cable industry wants to engage illegally in predatory pricing. what was said is until a court decides that legal question they have done nothing wrong, that is a far step from they have done nothing wrong. You know that whole legal innocent until proven guilty thing.

Second, never say never or always

You are incorrect, in my town, the local market in my area, for example the only option I have for cable tv service is BHN. Verizon is not here, Uverse is not here. They are the ONLY cable TV service available in my town, thus a monopoly. My town isn't tiny, there are much smaller in the country, and I am positive that my town isn't the exception to the rule.

In fact you would be surprised at how many legal monopolies there are in the cable TV industry I would guess most but certainly a good number of them are. They are done that way so that the cable company that installed all the cable had a guaranteed market for their product. also that way there wouldn't be separate cable from Comcast, Verizon, Uverse, BHN, etc, that all had to be paid for before a company could turn a profit. It served a public good to get cable service into the communities, but would have been too costly if it were done the other way.

Just because it is a legal monopoly doesn't mean they won't/aren't doing something illegal.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> I suspect because that design could more readily be exploited to create multiple copies. However, someone from TiVo would have to confirm that; as I indicated in my earlier message, I'm speculating about why they made the decision that they actually *did* make. You seem to be speculating about why they made a decision that they didn't make? I'm not sure I understand that.


your speculation seems awfully simplistic and unimaginative and i was attempting to show that.

if you want my speculation as to why they dont do it- it's that they cant get cablelabs to approve their encryption. ANd they dont feel that figthing with cable over that is worth the ill will they would get with cable since they want so much to be friends.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> I doubt it has anything to do with "someone from the mothership" making a capricious decision to override local policy. Rather: I suspect that for greatest efficiency of implementation Project Calvary has certain standard (iron-specific) procedures that get applied. For example, we know that one of the things they cannot do in an "all-digital" system is encrypt expanded basic. Since the project relies on using DTAs, and DTAs don't support encryption, they had to remove encryption from all digital expended basic channels (presumably going back to relying on physical traps for asset protection, where transgressions are most prevalent). So clearly one part of the procedures for getting ready for Project Calvary is to make such changes.
> 
> By the same token, unless CCI flags really interfere with something specific in Project Calvary, I wouldn't be surprised to see the flags reinstated at some later date.


I dont know why you like to argue everything- i guess it's just the name.

there was not a single channel that the DTA"s are goign to receive that already existed digitally- so their was no encryption to "remove". They could have easily just added the 70 or so new digital channels leaving encryption off.

Rather then do that they ALSO took the extra effort to go back and undo what they had previously done in encrypting scores and scores of channels.

you can beleive whatever you want but in this case I actually happened to speak to the VP of operations of the indenpendat company that comcast bought up and THE head end engineer prior and after the move to comcast.

and no idea why you think it's "capricious" - if you bother to read there have been many reports for many many months that the comcast corporate policy is no flags unless requested. So just because you dont think it's warrented doesn't mean it wasn't a well thought out choice that comcast made to have as their policy.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

can we jsut get a sticky that says "bicker says cable is not legal monopoly" and be done with it?

;-)


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> I am not some much interested in a specific additional cost, more along the lines of the concept of how high such an overage fee should be.


How much is the extra usage worth?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> First, please do not twist what I said to mean something that I did not.


Ditto. 

There is a difference between suggesting saying, "You seem to be speculating that..." and saying that you actually said something. So effectively, you twisted what I said into something I did not, while I didn't do anything of the sort.



JWThiers said:


> My opinion is that the cable industry wants to engage illegally in predatory pricing.


You're using legal words making legal accusations without the law to back up what you're saying. You're essentially engaging in an invariably losing proposition. If you really believe it, and strongly, then file a complaint, prosecute your perspective in the courts, and prevail, and then you can make such assertions without having to worry about someone pointing out that they don't have merit.



JWThiers said:


> You are incorrect, in my town, the local market in my area, for example the only option


Again, every single municipality in the country has effective competition. I'm not making this up. The definition of a market monopoly is not subject to your personal decision about what technologies you're willing to accept, or where in a town you personally chose to live. Those decisions are all on you; don't blame providers for the ramifications of your personal decisions.



JWThiers said:


> Just because it is a legal monopoly doesn't mean they won't/aren't doing something illegal.


They aren't a monopoly. You're just using a word that has emotional impact to make your criticism of them sound more important than it is.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> I dont know why you like to argue everything- i guess it's just the name.


So what's *your* excuse for "always" arguing back, then?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> can we jsut get a sticky that says "bicker says cable is not legal monopoly" and be done with it?
> 
> ;-)


How about people simply present their disappointment and dissatisfaction as such, without trying to make it sound like the providers are doing something wrong?

;-)


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> Again, every single municipality in the country has effective competition. I'm not making this up. The definition of a market monopoly is not subject to your personal decision about what technologies you're willing to accept, or where in a town you personally chose to live. Those decisions are all on you; don't blame providers for the ramifications of your personal decisions.
> 
> They aren't a monopoly. You're just using a word that has emotional impact to make your criticism of them sound more important than it is.


Tell you what, here is a link to a wiki on monopoly. It is not just a section of a town, it is an entire town of 25000 people that has a single provider. This is what I am using to define monopoly. please link me to what you mean



bicker said:


> Ditto.
> 
> There is a difference between suggesting saying, "You seem to be speculating that..." and saying that you actually said something. So effectively, you twisted what I said into something I did not, while I didn't do anything of the sort.


Here is what you said



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by JWThiers View Post
> I'll tell ya what, I'll grant NATIONALLY no one cable company is a monopoly.
> The law defines monopoly on a market basis, not a national basis. They are not a monopoly in any municipality in the country; i.e., not a monopoly at all.
> ...


Here is what it was in response to



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by bicker View Post
> Y'know, for the purpose of this thread, that's all I'm saying. I don't think we need to get into the other issue you raised here. As long as we agree that they're not a monopoly, I'm willing to let the issue drop.
> I'll tell ya what, I'll grant NATIONALLY no one cable company is a monopoly. If you agree that the the industry as a whole acts like a cartel to serve common interests. Then the issue is, "is what they are doing predatory pricing?" which is a legal issue we can both have differing opinions on and until a court decides otherwise, they are doing nothing illegal.
> ...


by shortening my statement " is a legal issue we can both have differing opinions on and until a court decides otherwise, they are doing nothing illegal." to "they are doing nothing illegal." you are twisting my meaning to imply I think they are doing think they are doing nothing illegal.

As far as the suggestion to file suit goes, until a cap is imposed where I am I would not have legal standing to file so it would be pointless to even try. If they ever do I will examine my options at that time.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> Tell you what, here is a link to a wiki on monopoly. It is not just a section of a town, it is an entire town of 25000 people that has a single provider. This is what I am using to define monopoly. please link me to what you mean


That's as good of a definition as any. And there is effective competition even in your town. There is. Despite your denial and you insistence on imposing your own personal limitations on the scope of who offers the service (subscription television entertainment). Again, the definition of a market monopoly is *not *subject to your personal decision about what technologies you're willing to accept, or where in a town you personally chose to live. Those decisions are all on you; don't blame providers for the ramifications of your personal decisions.



JWThiers said:


> by shortening my statement " is a legal issue we can both have differing opinions on and until a court decides otherwise, they are doing nothing illegal." to "they are doing nothing illegal." you are twisting my meaning to imply I think they are doing think they are doing nothing illegal.


If by shortening the quotation you thought I changed the meaning of what you wrote, then perhaps your clarification here has cleared that up for folks. All I was doing was highlighting the part of your message that I was replying to. It is the only part of the sentence I wanted to comment on. I didn't mean to imply you said nothing else, and I didn't say that you said *something *else..



JWThiers said:


> As far as the suggestion to file suit goes, until a cap is imposed where I am I would not have legal standing to file so it would be pointless to even try. If they ever do I will examine my options at that time.


And realize what everyone already subject to the cap has already discovered.


----------



## Onibroc42 (Feb 5, 2003)

bicker said:


> Actually they do. They explicitly do. It says in the law that they do have the right, unequivocally.
> 
> Your suspicion would therefore be wrong.
> 
> Or .... it comes down to the fact that TWC respects their owners and the judgment of their managers, over your consumer-biased opinion about what would be best for them.


I'm gonna have to go Missouri on you for this one. I distinctly remember reading in a thread either here or at AVS about this issue in the past that the cable operators were not supposed to be messing with the CCI flags.


----------



## Onibroc42 (Feb 5, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> If they lit up some of the dark fiber that was overbuilt in the 80's and early 90's capacity probably wouldn't be an issue. but like any finite commodity the less of something there is the more valuable it is. If I owned the fiber backbones I wouldn't play with capacity to control pricing. But that is another debate for another day.


Indeed. But they are knowingly selling a product advertised as "unlimited" with their fingers crossed behind their backs, knowing that they cannot hope to meet demand.

So, when faced with the choices of honking off customers by jacking up rates (to add bandwidth), honking off customers by imposing caps (to conserve it), or going to tiered pricing, they chose the worst possible option - hard caps with no way to monitor usage, no warnings, and no recourse.


----------



## drcos (Jul 20, 2001)

Onibroc42 said:


> ...cable operators were not supposed to be messing with the CCI flags.


There have been several discussions on this, the only actual law regards the Copy Never flag (0x03). According to Federal regulations, this can only be used on pay-per-view channels.
This thread contains pertinent info.


----------



## Onibroc42 (Feb 5, 2003)

drcos said:


> There have been several discussions on this, the only actual law regards the Copy Never flag (0x03). According to Federal regulations, this can only be used on pay-per-view channels.
> This thread contains pertinent info.


Thank you. I stand corrected. bicker, I apologize for doubting you.

Doesn't change the fact that it's a bogus practice, though. I don't personally have to put up with it, I've got Cox. But I guess they could be DBs about it, couldn't they?


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

drcos said:


> There have been several discussions on this, the only actual law regards the Copy Never flag (0x03). According to Federal regulations, this can only be used on pay-per-view channels.


Actually, the FCC regulations also allow Copy Once (0x02) on any channel except over-the-air channels. I quote the specific regulation in this thread:

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=429628&page=2

(See post #45.)


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> That's as good of a definition as any. And there is effective competition even in your town. There is. Despite your denial and you insistence on imposing your own personal limitations on the scope of who offers the service (subscription television entertainment). Again, the definition of a market monopoly is *not *subject to your personal decision about what technologies you're willing to accept, or where in a town you personally chose to live. Those decisions are all on you; don't blame providers for the ramifications of your personal decisions.


First let me say up front, I don't think a monopoly is necessarily a bad thing it just means they "_lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods_". My opinion is that the cable companies operate as legal monopolies in that they were "_provided an incentive to invest in a risky venture_" install and maintained the cable infrastructure in an area. This keeps the cost down because they have a built in service area that only they can deliver service to. This is a good thing. It may be a legal monopoly but a monopoly just the same.

If my town of 25000 can only get 1 service from 1 company, my choice is what move? that would mean that the company has "_sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it._" Please show me what you mean, I really would like to understand it or you understand my position better. I don't see the personal limits you referred to.

FYI in case you didn't notice or for others, the "_quoted parts_" are from the referenced wiki.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> Please show me what you mean, I really would like to understand it or you understand my position better. I don't see the personal limits you referred to.


Bicker can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he's referring to satellite TV. Some people may not be able to receive it depending on what obstructions are around their house, but generally it's available if you live in the continental US.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

Brainiac 5 said:


> Bicker can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he's referring to satellite TV. Some people may not be able to receive it depending on what obstructions are around their house, but generally it's available if you live in the continental US.


I had forgotten about Satellite (and I had used it myself for years) but even then, monopoly doesn't mean that here is no other competition, it means "_when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it_". Does cable have that level of control even with Satellite being considered? I had mentioned that on a wider scale, I had said cable companies but could include Satellite as a subscription television entertainment as Biker called it, are acting as a cartel "_in which several providers act together to coordinate services_". At best there is little competition and they have incentive to limit the competition from other sources like the internet. I'm don't mean to imply that it is happening sometimes I do forget that a lot of this is hypothetical because so far they don't have widespread caps on bandwidth. But it is something that should be watched to make sure that it doesn't happen. I could be wrong and Bicker right, I just don't see it. Like I said I don't have a problem with a legal monopoly, if it keeps the cost down. The problems come about when greed starts getting involved. Enron, Worldcom for example and the whole Prime Rate Mortgage fiasco. Greed can make companies do terrible things.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> It may be a legal monopoly but a monopoly just the same.


It isn't a monopoly.



JWThiers said:


> If my town of 25000 can only get 1 service from 1 company, my choice is what move?


That isn't the case in any municipality in the country. There is effective competition for subscription television service, _everywhere_. Your *personal* decisions that blind you to, or deprive yourself of, the options of satellite service providers have no merit in the determination of whether any specific supplier within that market is a monopoly.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> I had forgotten about Satellite (and I had used it myself for years) but even then, monopoly doesn't mean that here is no other competition, it means "_when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it_". Does cable have that level of control even with Satellite being considered?


And the answer is "no". And again, if you don't believe me, just ask a judge to find in your favor. This is really the point where it is time to put up or shut up. Claiming that there is a legal status without the willingness to adjudicate your perspective and thereby have change applied to the reality you are experiencing is puerile and inane. You're not the first person to come up with the idea that you're unhappy with how much you have to pay and what you get for it. However, despite *so many *people whining about this for *so many *years, the government doesn't take the action that it would be required to take if what you claim is true. The only reasonable explanations are that either all those unhappy are simply weak-willed cry-babies and really have no sense of conviction whatsoever (and therefore dismiss-able on those grounds), *or* your accusation is wrong. I suppose you can say I'm being charitable by concluding that the latter is the case.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> And the answer is "no". And again, if you don't believe me, just ask a judge to find in your favor. This is really the point where it is time to put up or shut up. Claiming that there is a legal status without the willingness to adjudicate your perspective and thereby have change applied to the reality you are experiencing is puerile and inane. You're not the first person to come up with the idea that you're unhappy with how much you have to pay and what you get for it. However, despite *so many *people whining about this for *so many *years, the government doesn't take the action that it would be required to take if what you claim is true. The only reasonable explanations are that either all those unhappy are simply weak-willed cry-babies and really have no sense of conviction whatsoever (and therefore dismiss-able on those grounds), *or* your accusation is wrong. I suppose you can say I'm being charitable by concluding that the latter is the case.


No reason to get snippy. This is just a user forum, not a court of law. And I asked you, politely I might add, what I was missing? I wanted to learn something, and possibly change my opinion if I could understand what your reasoning was, I had forgotten about Satellite in our discussion of if the cable company had a monopoly in the Premium TV Delivery market, but I don't think that makes a difference.

I will still point out that just because you have competitors, doesn't mean you can't have a monopoly, you just have to have a large enough market share. Also in fact, legal monopolies can be established where competition is intentionally stopped. Also I pointed out that monopolies are not in and of themselves illegal, it when they do anti competitive things that they get into trouble , a legal monopoly just has the legal backing to bar competition.

The only arguments you make for your opinion are either: "Its not a monopoly", there is effective competition EVERYWHERE, or my personal decisions have no bearing.

Just saying something doesn't make it so.

Never use absolutes (or at least be suspicious of them) aside from that what is the competition, when one has 80%+ of a market and the competition has 20%- of a market, that's arguable either way and we can have different opinions and not get personal. Microsoft had close to those same numbers and got in trouble for anti competitive behavior. its about control of a market.

What personal decisions are you talking about? where I work, where I live? That's a lot of control the cable industry would have if they influence those choices.

I too can think of a few reasonable explanations why we have a difference of opinion. either you are a troll just looking for a confrontation, you are wrong, or maybe we just have a difference of opinion. Instead of implying that I am being polite by inferring one while choosing another I'll say we just have a difference of opinion and two people can have a difference of opinion with no qualifiers and be polite about it.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

What most cable companies have is not a "monopoly", but a "natural monopoly".

It's stupid to allow multiple companies to tear up the street running wires to houses. Anyway, it rarely makes economic sense for companies to do that, so they don't.

Fortunately I live in an area where both Comcast and Verizon are franchised to deliver video to my house. But this situation isn't very common in this country. It also may not be sufficiently profitable, as can be seen by Verizon choosing to sell off its local operations to Frontier Communications.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> What most cable companies have is not a "monopoly", but a "natural monopoly".
> 
> It's stupid to allow multiple companies to tear up the street running wires to houses. Anyway, it rarely makes economic sense for companies to do that, so they don't.
> 
> Fortunately I live in an area where both Comcast and Verizon are franchised to deliver video to my house. But this situation isn't very common in this country. It also may not be sufficiently profitable, as can be seen by Verizon choosing to sell off its local operations to Frontier Communications.


I could buy that. But it still is a type of monopoly.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> What most cable companies have is not a "monopoly", but a "natural monopoly".
> 
> It's stupid to allow multiple companies to tear up the street running wires to houses. Anyway, it rarely makes economic sense for companies to do that, so they don't.
> 
> Fortunately I live in an area where both Comcast and Verizon are franchised to deliver video to my house. But this situation isn't very common in this country. It also may not be sufficiently profitable, as can be seen by Verizon choosing to sell off its local operations to Frontier Communications.


We have two choices here, Comcast and FIOS. A few miles south, where I used to live, they have three choices now since FIOS came to the area.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

aaronwt said:


> We have two choices here, Comcast and FIOS. A few miles south, where I used to live, they have three choices now since FIOS came to the area.


Hence the use of the word MOST. Don't forget Satellite


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> No reason to get snippy.


Sorry, but this is a very common point of contention here, and I get annoyed with people basically crafting self-fulfilling disappointment for themselves and others, but ignoring the reality, because the reality has ramifications that don't make consumers happy. The reality is that making consumers happier now, by thinking something that is actually not realistic, just makes things worse when the actual reality hits them in the face.



JWThiers said:


> The only arguments you make for your opinion are either: "Its not a monopoly", there is effective competition EVERYWHERE, or my personal decisions have no bearing.


I'm going to play this another way, now. Are you suggesting that the franchising authorities nationwide are idiots? That they actually have legal justification to take actions that are substantially in their constituents' best interest and don't do so because they are morons? Or is it some big conspiracy -- everyone in government is getting a big payment so that you have to pay more to get what you want, with regard to what we're talking about in this thread? Seriously, and with respect: What the heck are you saying? Because the message I'm getting, perhaps through innuendo, is that someone is doing something wrong. I've made it really clear that it isn't the suppliers, so if you want a pound of flesh, let's see if we can find a target for your ire that is valid, vis a vis the reality of the situations.



JWThiers said:


> What personal decisions are you talking about?


The two I've mentioned are where you choose to live (i.e., without a place to erect a satellite dish -- again, your choice to live there, not any supplier's fault that you made that decision), and what technology you choose to use (i.e., TiVo -- again, your choice, and no one's fault but your own that you've limited your choices in that manner).

Going back to that pound of flesh that I would hope to help you find.... I have a suggestion, with regard at least to the matter of technology choice: The anti-cable FCC under Kevin Martin neglected to impose separable security on satellite providers. So if you really want someone to blame for something, in this realm, let's start with Kevin Martin.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> Sorry, but this is a very common point of contention here, and I get annoyed with people basically crafting self-fulfilling disappointment for themselves and others, but ignoring the reality, because the reality has ramifications that don't make consumers happy. The reality is that making consumers happier now, by thinking something that is actually not realistic, just makes things worse when the actual reality hits them in the face.
> 
> I'm going to play this another way, now. Are you suggesting that the franchising authorities nationwide are idiots? That they actually have legal justification to take actions that are substantially in their constituents' best interest and don't do so because they are morons? Or is it some big conspiracy -- everyone in government is getting a big payment so that you have to pay more to get what you want, with regard to what we're talking about in this thread? Seriously, and with respect: What the heck are you saying? Because the message I'm getting, perhaps through innuendo, is that someone is doing something wrong. I've made it really clear that it isn't the suppliers, so if you want a pound of flesh, let's see if we can find a target for your ire that is valid, vis a vis the reality of the situations.
> 
> ...


Glad you replied, I was and still am trying to tone things down a notch and still get information. To recap, this whole thing started I think when I brought up Internet as a possible competitor to cable in the premium TV market and the possibility that the ISP side of their business could be wanting to imposing caps to kill some competition before it grew too big. Its gets real complicated real quick because what has traditionally been 2 very separate and distinct markets are starting to merge (Premium TV and Internet usage side). To complicate them further The Major providers of Premium TV (Cable Satellite, and now the phone companies (with Verizon Fios and ATT U-verse) service are also the big players in broadband internet as providers. If that wasn't the case an ISP that was truly independent of premium TV content wouldn't care that the bits going thru there lines were HD video, they would be in the business to make money making sure those bits get from point a to point b. It is the conflicting markets, TV vs internet, that these companies own, that concerns me. The TV side of the cable company which is what we have been disusing has traditionally been their cash cow, the data side of the company was icing on the cake. I am not accusing the industry of anything at this point, but when they make that large a change in their pricing policy you have to wonder why? I think that in recent years the people that traditionally had their High end TV service and also had their High end internet service were dropping the TV service and their internet usage spiked and this worries the TV providers. And I feel a reasonable conclusion could be they want to save their big money maker from what they are seeing as a threat. That is where the talk of monopolies came in. I don't think we will ever come to an agreement on if they are or aren't. I think they (the cable companies) are some kind of monopoly because of the overwhelming market share they have, or at least all the current big players are acting in cartel like fashion to circle the wagons. If I understand your reasoning you don't think their can be a monopoly because no matter where you live satellite is an effective competitor. I guess we will just have to disagree about it. Hopefully that summarizes what we have been discussing (It is how I saw it anyway) free of all the posturing and emotion and with implying anyone is a cry baby or a troll.

At this point can we just say we disagree on the matter and not imply anyone is wrong or right? Or do you want to debate further as long as we are respectful I actually enjoy a well thought out argument, it challenges my own thinking on a subject.

You might be right about the separable security thing with satellites. Oh and a piece of information I used satellite for like 12 years and I did forget about them in this discussion (but it doesn't matter), and I still think that if a cable company can influence where I live to get a different provider that they are a monopoly.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> I am not accusing the industry of anything at this point, but when they make that large a change in their pricing policy you have to wonder why?


However, it doesn't take an MBA to recognize that a small number of consumers started using the Internet pipe to derive a new type of value from it (and a type of value that places an extraordinary load on the resources), and so the pricing changes represented the standard practice for for-profit companies to capitalize on additional value their customers derive from the services they consume.



JWThiers said:


> That is where the talk of monopolies came in. I don't think we will ever come to an agreement on if they are or aren't.


Which is a shame, because that leaves you, and anyone who decided to go along with your mythos, believing in something that simply will not be what they experience in reality. I can only do as much as I can do to help, though.



JWThiers said:


> At this point can we just say we disagree on the matter and not imply anyone is wrong or right?


Sorry, but I'm not going to kowtow. They're not monopolies. They are not ignored by regulators, but instead only a small part of the service is regulated. That's deliberate. My believe in that reality hasn't changed, nor has my belief that it is bad for folks to peddle a perspective that fosters people feeling entitled to dictate to companies not only what they'll be offered, but how much they'll pay for it. We don't need to discuss it any further if you don't want. We've both made our points and we've reached a stopping point perhaps. However, if someone decides to peddle that entitlement mentality again, either later in this thread or in another, I will correct that perspective. Sorry if that's not optimal for you.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> However, it doesn't take an MBA to recognize that a small number of consumers started using the Internet pipe to derive a new type of value from it (and a type of value that places an extraordinary load on the resources), and so the pricing changes represented the standard practice for for-profit companies to capitalize on additional value their customers derive from the services they consume.
> 
> Which is a shame, because that leaves you, and anyone who decided to go along with your mythos, believing in something that simply will not be what they experience in reality. I can only do as much as I can do to help, though.
> 
> Sorry, but I'm not going to kowtow. They're not monopolies. They are not ignored by regulators, but instead only a small part of the service is regulated. That's deliberate. My believe in that reality hasn't changed, nor has my belief that it is bad for folks to peddle a perspective that fosters people feeling entitled to dictate to companies not only what they'll be offered, but how much they'll pay for it. We don't need to discuss it any further if you don't want. We've both made our points and we've reached a stopping point perhaps. However, if someone decides to peddle that entitlement mentality again, either later in this thread or in another, I will correct that perspective. Sorry if that's not optimal for you.


Its not kowtowing to say that we differ on an opinion. If you don't want to enlighten me as to why you think they are not fine you are entitled to your opinion, but it wont convince me that you are correct. I'm entitled to my opinion and I could point to a definition and give examples where other companies that held/hold similar market share (Microsoft) were found to be abusing their market position to gain an unfair advantage. Monopolies are not illegal, abusing the power of a monopoly is. IMO to argue that a company that has well over 80% market share is not a monopoly or has monopoly like powers is absurd on its face. A better argument would be that the cable companies are NOT abusing their market share, but that is another story.


----------



## wackymann (Sep 22, 2006)

I don't care what it's called or the reasons for it, but in my town, we only have Comcast cable TV. And I have no access to satellite TV due to trees. We will be getting Fios about a year from now, and I will be very happy to have another choice for my cable provider! Comcast service is fine, but it is expensive. Some local competition will almost certainly help me keep my costs down.

And to stay sort of on topic for this thread, I will most likely go with Fios if they don't copy-protect almost every channel like Comcast does.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck well then it is probably a duck. And IF Fios ever comes here, I will be signed up the first week the are available.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> So what's *your* excuse for "always" arguing back, then?


clearly the fact that I REPLY to your bickering (and arguing BACK) shows I do have issues too. laughing.

But for whatever reason you do seem to like to pick at many many posts even when "unprovoked".

anyway back to the discussion at hand. sorry for taking off topic.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

wackymann said:


> And I have no access to satellite TV due to trees.


And bicker's response?

I bet it is something like (paraphrasing) " So, cut your trees down."


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Some people clearly aren't reading the messages that they're replying to. 

Stop trying to blame others for your circumstances, which are due to your own decisions. Your decisions about what technology to use or where to live don't incur obligations on the part of service providers. The world does *not* revolve around you.

There is effective competition for subscription television service in every municipality in the country. Every single one of them.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> Some people clearly aren't reading the messages that they're replying to.


I agree



bicker said:


> Stop trying to blame others for your circumstances, which are due to your own decisions. Your decisions about what technology to use or where to live don't incur obligations on the part of service providers. The world does *not* revolve around you.


Despite having a 80%+ market share, the land line cable companies, of which in many places in the country, there is only 1 serving a particular market area, don't have a monopoly. The don't have "sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it." They don't control the whole thing only 80%+. As pointed out by some you have a choice if you don't like it you can always move to an area servicesd by another provider, who probably has a monopoly in that market area. Seems like sufficient control to me.



bicker said:


> There is effective competition for subscription television service in every municipality in the country. Every single one of them.


And in a world of ironies I can think of instances where cable does not have a monopoly. They don't have a monopoly in the really rural areas of the country that they don't serve. In those areas Satellite has a monopoly.

Despite the name, you don't have to be the only game in town to be a monopoly, you just have to have enough market share to significantly dictate the terms that people have access to it. If you don't believe me just ask Microsoft.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> Seems like sufficient control to me.


Why doesn't your franchising authority, state government, the federal government, or the courts agree?


----------



## wackymann (Sep 22, 2006)

steve614 said:


> And bicker's response?
> 
> I bet it is something like (paraphrasing) " So, cut your trees down."


They're not my trees...

But I don't really like the idea of getting TV from a satellite anyways. Cable is a much more robust method. I don't like the idea of rain/snow affecting my reception, nor do I want a dish on my roof.

If Comcast would remove some of their draconian copy protection, stop charging ridiculous rates for my cable card access, and used less compression, I wouldn't care at all when Fios arrives in my town. All three of these issues will supposedly improve with Fios, so I'm looking forward to it!


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

I know this is just stirring things up again, but here's an interesting article (which appears to be from 2005):

http://www.ipbusinessmag.com/departments/article/id/139

Basically it says that a where there's a second choice for cable service, competition works to reduce prices, but where the only competition is satellite, it doesn't (much). This doesn't change that the markets in question were found to have effective competition in the form of satellite, but it's an argument for the availability of satellite not having been the best basis on which to decide this.

It also seems to say that at least in 2005, there were still markets where there had not been a finding of effective competition (one of the charts shows prices for such markets).


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

There is Cox, TWC, Charter, Cablevision, Verizon, DirecTV, Dish Network, Comcast, Brighthouse, MediaCom, Insight, SuddenLink, etc. No one MSO has more than 80&#37; across the nation. So nationwide, there is competition.

However, the cable companies have an unofficial agreement (implicit collusion?) to not compete with each other locally. So in that case let's go to the numbers. We have to use national numbers and fit them into any given market, which is flawed but the best I can do for now:

Cable: 145 million subscribers
DirecTV: 18 m
Dish: 14 m
FIOS: 2.5 m
U-verse: 1.6m

Cable has 80% of households in a given market, but there is also the Internet, Netflix, Blockbuster, etc. So locally they have a weak monopoly which is getting weaker.

However, even if DirecTV, Dish, FIOS, etc. continue to grow in numbers, all that will do is create a local oligopoly. Economists use game theory to predict what will happen, but it's basically non-price competition. You won't see prices go down, but they usually offer slightly different services from each other. Maybe MRV is one of these services.

So let's get back to the original topic. FIOS has implemented MRV with a few limitations. Cable has MRV, but may be limited in many markets. Dish has limited MRV (one DVR, two TVs). DirecTV is going to have it, but its limitations are unknown. So if MRV is really important to you to have now, get FIOS. Or wait a while and maybe switch to DirecTV. If you can't get them, move to somewhere that gets them, as there is competition nationally.

The thing is, Tivo could implement MRV correctly, they just choose not to. The cable companies could also offer MRV on their boxes. But there is an even bigger oligopoly that owns all the media content (Disney, CBS, NBC, News Corp., & Time Warner). If the MSO ticks them off, they're in big trouble. Hence, MRV is not developed for their boxes and the copy protection flags are turned on.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> Why doesn't your franchising authority, state government, the federal government, or the courts agree?


I haven't been contending that they are doing anything illegal only that they are a monopoly. So why doesn't my franchising authority, state government, or courts agree? Mainly because *it isn't illegal just to be a monopoly, you have to abuse the power of that monopoly* (unless we are talking "Minority Report" type stuff in which case sue the heck out of them). Also isn't it that franchising authority that said, "having cable TV serves a public good, much like free OTA TV, but it costs a butt load of money for the Cable Company to do we are purposely going to eliminate competition in an area as an incentive to get cable TV services" in other words a LEGAL monopoly, one that has legal backing. kind of like what that wiki article about monopolies talked about. I've been trying to contend that with an 80+% market share and the local franchising by government that they are a monopoly and a least when they make major changes to to their business plan that change should at least be examined to ensure that it isn't abusive. Your contention is they are not a monopoly so they can't abuse the power of an 80+% market share no matter what they do.

And what this all started out as "Copy protection" on premium TV channels on cable, was brought up because of possibly instituting caps on data to eliminate competition from a new source, namely the internet. Since the cable companies have largely rethought those caps (Probably because of a threatened law suit), there is nothing to file a law suit against. All of that is a separate argument from "is the cable TV company a monopoly?".


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

BobCamp1 said:


> There is Cox, TWC, Charter, Cablevision, Verizon, DirecTV, Dish Network, Comcast, Brighthouse, MediaCom, Insight, SuddenLink, etc. No one MSO has more than 80% across the nation. So nationwide, there is competition.
> 
> However, the cable companies have an unofficial agreement (implicit collusion?) to not compete with each other locally. So in that case let's go to the numbers. We have to use national numbers and fit them into any given market, which is flawed but the best I can do for now:
> 
> ...


As previously stated NATIONwide has nothing to do with the local markets. It is an uncommon occurrence to even have 2 cable companies and satellite, let alone the 8 land based competitors, that is why it is a local market and local franchising. Unless you mean all should be available. When considered locally I used the WAG (Wild ... Guess) 80% to differentiate between land based traditional cable (Cox, ComCast, BHN, etc) and all others (including Fios U-Verse, Sat, etc). One could argue its a weak monopoly, but weak or strong locally it is still a monopoly.

The reason all this is important is because the major players in Premium TV distribution (Cable TV, Satellite, and Telephone are also the big players in the DATA delivery market (ISP's). Here is a question to consider. If someone stated to use the data delivery side of your business, which traditionally had been offered at low rates for unlimited use, to compete with the TV side of your business which is where your core business is and where you make most of your money, could you use a method like instituting data caps on you data networks to protect your TV business? You said they had a weak monopoly and getting weaker because of things like the internet. Are data caps a concern now? Is that anti competitive? When the markets were separate (TV and Internet) it wasn't a concern, but the market is changing to data delivery. I view it as a business that is struggling with that change and grasping at anything they can to keep their business the way it is, instead of changing with the times, innovating, and giving customers a reason to use them. Here's an idea, Turn you business upsidedown. Instead of paying for the number of bits, pay for the speed of the bits, offer faster speeds (compared to a lot of places in the world our networks are slow). Speed up the networks and make it your selling point. What would you pay for a 10 M bit up/down connection?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

And the beating of the dead horse continues. 

No matter how much folks try to deny the reality, the reality won't change folks. They're not doing anything wrong. Live with it. nuf sed.


----------



## rocko (Oct 29, 2002)

Howzabout you two get a room or take it to email?

Thanks.


----------



## JeffRapp (Sep 30, 2007)

bicker said:


> However, it doesn't take an MBA to recognize that a small number of consumers started using the Internet pipe to derive a new type of value from it (and a type of value that places an extraordinary load on the resources), and so the pricing changes represented the standard practice for for-profit companies to capitalize on additional value their customers derive from the services they consume.


But see, this right here is the problem at hand. Cable Co's want everything to be value-added. Consumers just want a dumb pipe. There's obviously not much money to be made beyond basic subscribe fees for dumb pipes - and these are the exact growing pains that wireless providers are trying to fight. Consumers see internet service more and more as a utility, a commodity. We want it to behave like the power company does. They don't change our billing plan when we buy a new refrigerator - we just get charged more if it uses more electricity. But this is where the ISPs need to be careful. We've been trained to treat electricity as a resource. The more we use, the more it costs. However, ISPs have traditionally (post dial-up era) advertised internet access as "Unlimited." If they want to charge by the byte, then they're going to have some major problems on their hands.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JeffRapp said:


> Consumers just want a dumb pipe.


So let consumers provide sufficient financial incentive for suppliers to just offer a dumb pipe.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> And the beating of the dead horse continues.
> 
> No matter how much folks try to deny the reality, the reality won't change folks. They're not doing anything wrong. Live with it. nuf sed.


Well we finally agreed on something. 2 things actually. They aren't DOING anything wrong (depending on your opinion by, either by being a monopoly or not being a monopoly). and second that there is a dead horse here somewhere. I'll stop beating mine if you stop beating yours.

PEACE :up:


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

rocko said:


> Howzabout you two get a room or take it to email?
> 
> Thanks.


Where would the fun be in that.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

JWThiers said:


> Where would the fun be in that.


Yeah, this debate going on... 
I don't care that the horse is dead already.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

Just remember what the Mongols taught the Chinese, "When the horse dies, get off".


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

JWThiers said:


> If someone stated to use the data delivery side of your business, which traditionally had been offered at low rates for unlimited use, to compete with the TV side of your business which is where your core business is and where you make most of your money, could you use a method like instituting data caps on you data networks to protect your TV business?


Not in my area. I have FIOS. Also, I have Clearwire in our area. And there's DSL. And 3G cell phone service.

Also, for streaming like that there is Hughesnet data service which should work.

Seems there are lots of choices. I don't have cable in any way. And I don't miss it. If you don't like those other choices, or for some odd reason have access to none of them, move.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

BobCamp1 said:


> Not in my area. I have FIOS. Also, I have Clearwire in our area. And there's DSL. And 3G cell phone service.
> 
> Also, for streaming like that there is Hughesnet data service which should work.
> 
> Seems there are lots of choices. I don't have cable in any way. And I don't miss it. If you don't like those other choices, or for some odd reason have access to none of them, move.


First Bicker and I were talking about if cable held a monopoly or not, not about if there were choices in ISP's or not. The whole ISP thing is more of an if the ISP's are also providing Premium TV service wouldn't the have a vested interest that data services be high to discourage people moving off of there TV service and just get the shows they want off the internet for less money. And I am even assuming you are getting legal copies not stuff from Pirate Bay or something for free. They would have an interest in that I think.

Second, You are probably a statistical outlier to have so many choices for broadband ISP (FIOS and Clearwire are really not in all that many palces) so congrats to you there. Judging from that list of ISP's you probably live in one of the few areas that actually may have real competition in the Premium TV market as well. Your doing great there. Let me introduce you to the rest of the US that only has the choice off 1 cable company and Satellite (probably between 66% and 75% or more of us). Or even worse that only has the choice of Satellite because they live far on the fringes (probably 5%-10% as a guess). I'm sure many of us would really enjoy that choice.

As far as moving goes if I don't like the choices I have in this area. Lets see to get the same level of service as you the closest place is probably Baltimore and I really don't want to commute 900 miles one way to get to work and the traffic sucks up there. Besides I am not dissatisfied with my ISP for now, so why move. But thanks for your concern.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

And *moving *isn't the point: The point is that we each have to accept responsibility for the limits on the choices we have that are based on the decisions we ourselves have made, rather than seeking to blame suppliers for the fact that we, by our own decisions and actions, have limited our own choices.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> And *moving *isn't the point: The point is that we each have to accept responsibility for the limits on the choices we have that are based on the decisions we ourselves have made, rather than seeking to blame suppliers for the fact that we, by our own decisions and actions, have limited our own choices.


<sigh>

I really don't want to start this again about what constitutes a monopoly or not. I know how you feel about the issue you know how I feel about it. I was merely pointing out that our previous discussion had to due with cable companies not ISP's. Unless you want to talk about do the premium TV delivery people have a concern about competition from internet sources? If that is the case we could start a new thread. I also pointed out that even if we were talking about ISP's his case is pretty unusual to have that many choices. most peoplwe have a choice between their 1 cable company for cable modem, DSL from 1 or 2 phone providers and satlellites. Too have both FIOS and Clearwire as an alternative is pretty unusual.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

The point I made was not specific to any scenario. I deliberately worded it to show how generically it applies:


> ... we each have to accept responsibility for the limits on the choices we have that are based on the decisions we ourselves have made, rather than seeking to blame suppliers for the fact that we, by our own decisions and actions, have limited our own choices.


You can (and I probably *will*) drop that line into a discussion about newspaper delivery, OTA television reception, automobile service centers -- essentially, everything where decisions the consumer makes, perhaps even seemingly unrelated decisions, end up limiting the choices that that consumer has with regard to some service offering.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> The point I made was not specific to any scenario. I deliberately worded it to show how generically it applies:You can (and I probably *will*) drop that line into a discussion about newspaper delivery, OTA television reception, automobile service centers -- essentially, everything where decisions the consumer makes, perhaps even seemingly unrelated decisions, end up limiting the choices that that consumer has with regard to some service offering.


For what its worth I don't think we disagree on the services you mentioned above. I can always get a different paper delivered (even from out of state if you don't mind it a few days later and paying for delivery, or use the internet), OTA TV Evereyone in the market has access to the same stations I can change channels if I don't like the show (and besides its free ), Auto service I can drive down the road to a different station, but a home can't move and certain other services must come to them (utilities like electric, water, gas, etc) we might a different view there, but I don't want to go there because it will just take us back to the whole monopoly thing again and I don't want to go there. Can we just agree politely to disagree and let it drop?


----------



## m_jonis (Jan 3, 2002)

Brainiac 5 said:


> Actually, the FCC regulations also allow Copy Once (0x02) on any channel except over-the-air channels. I quote the specific regulation in this thread:
> 
> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=429628&page=2
> 
> (See post #45.)


Although the Cable company (used to) be able to get around that before the digital broadcast. In our area, we had OTA both in analog and digital (and some of the digital in HD, and some not). Our SD OTA channels were: 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15 The Digital versions were 1806, 1808, etc.

What TW did to us users with cable cards is take ALL the analog channels and digitally simulcast them. Then they changed the cable card code so that you could ONLY receive the "digital" version of the analog OTA. Then they set ALL the channels to 0x02 (including the "analog" OTA).

The FCC regs aren't clear cut either way on whether that could be done, but since the digital transition, it's kinda moot now.

So right now, TWC has (for us) all channels at 0x02 except the HD local OTA broadcasts (and they had those set as 0x02 for about 2 weeks until I called and complained).

Personally I can't wait for Verizon to get here, but the franchising is a royal PITA here, so it may be a few more years.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> First let me say up front, I don't think a monopoly is necessarily a bad thing


Although perfectly true, this can be quite misleading, albeit not intentionally, I'm sure. First of all, nothing is necessarily bad, up to and including killing someone. More to the point WRT this topic, however, is the fact a particular real world monopoly or inherently monopolistic situation may not be bad is not the point. Dictatorships and monarchies are not necessarily bad, either. Indeed, the best of dictatorships or monarchies are better for the vast majority of their constituents than any democracy can reasonably hope to be. The problem is not that a good one cannot exist, it is that inevitably a really bad one is bound to come along, and when it does, there is nothing the constituents can do about it, unless they are willing to rise up en masse to destroy the insitu government. Actually, the same thing is true of a democracy (and the analogous market types), but it is just with a democracy it's relatively easy to overthrow the government. Just wait two to six years or so and toss them out on their keesters. A similar situation ostensibly holds for a monopoly or oligopoli vs. a free market. In a free market, the consumer simply dumps the company he deems less than desirable and chooses another, and a relatively small number of such rejections properly subjects the poorly performing company to extreme pressure to clean up their act or die. While a monopoly is not completely immune to market pressures, it is only going to respond to vast scale market pressures, and even then rather weakly. In a free market, any company whose price performance falls even a small amount below the maximum value for cost will wither and die in a hurry. Of course it is also true in a free market the consumer has a large, perhaps even a vast number of alternatives from which to choose whenever his first choice turns out to be a dud. In a monopoly, the only choices are to either take what the monopoly offers or do without.

The other issue is time. Although any new restricted government may be not only extremely effective in providing a good, well balanced environment for its citizens, as time goes by, inefficiency and special interest concerns are bound to start accumulating. By the same token, even if a monopoly is effective, efficient, and committed to providing a quality product to its customers, eventually the organization is bound to start accumulating people whose only concern is drawing a maximum paycheck for minimum labor. What starts out as a perfectly wonderful situation will sooner or later decompose into a mess, with no simple or moderately painless way to fix it.

All of which is really just a verbose way of saying that power inevitably corrupts. Of course it corrupts democracies and free markets, too, but the idea is the area of corruption is limited by the nature of the underlyuing infrastructure. With dictatorships, monarchies, monopolies, and oligopoliers, it is that much more difficult for anyone - particularly an individual citizen - to have any impact on developing (or fully developed) corruption. Again, that's the idea. How well it works in practice...

OTOH, no matter how effective or efficient a monarchy or dictatorship may be, and no matter how inexpensive or convenient a monopoly may be, I will take a democarcy and a free market, thank you.



JWThiers said:


> My opinion is that the cable companies operate as legal monopolies in that they were "_provided an incentive to invest in a risky venture_" install and maintained the cable infrastructure in an area.


How many CATV companies can you name which went bankrupt? In fact, there are few, if any, less risky investments on this planet than a CATV system. Now, although the notion seems almost ubiquitous, I am always puzzled why it is considered that a risk should guarantee a profit. By definition, if a profit is guaranteed, then it isn't a risk in the first place, yet time and time again I hear people say that XXXX should be protected from failure (usually by the government) because they have made an investment. The point here, however, is that it isn't even a risk in the first place. What it is, is a long term investment. Many people would say a very long term investment, although I do not consider it so. Basically, especially for a new CATV system, any investment is generally going to have to wait 10 - 20 years to see a return. Personally, I am going to be happy if any of my investments show a profit in less than 30 - 40 years, but that is another matter.



JWThiers said:


> This keeps the cost down because they have a built in service area that only they can deliver service to. This is a good thing. It may be a legal monopoly but a monopoly just the same.


I think you know what you mean, but you've stated it rather badly. By definition any monopoly provides goods or services which only they can supply. No matter how bad a monopoly may be, it still is "the only game in town", and they still had to invest the money to create the infrastructure (or buy the infrastructure from someone else, which amounts to the same thing). What I think you are trying to say is a CATV company (or any utility company) must build a very expensive infrastructure which is capable of servicing effectively every indivdual in its service area, whether it does in fact provide that service or not to any particular individual. Unless some sort of cooperative plan is put in place, or the infrastructure is funded and maintained by public funds, then a second provider must spend just as much to build his infrastructure as the first provider, yet both are only likely to serve half the number of subscribers. This means if N is the number of providers in the area, then the costs to each individual consumer before provider profits is roughly equal to N times the cost of an identical franchse area with only 1 provider. The bottom line is in such a situation, the cost to the consumer may be much, much higher than the monopoly franchise. The upside is they may be able to enjoy much better service. Maybe. Multiple utility providers in an area provide both a literal and figurative rats-nest of transport problems. Take a look sometime at the photographs taken of the early days of electricity when many large cities had sometimes 7 or 8 power providers. The utility poles were not only a horrible, ugly mess, they were unsafe, as well. In the early days of telephone companies, some towns had two or more phone systems, and half or two thirds of the people could not talk to people on the other systems.

The bottom line? It may, repeat MAY, be true for utility companies such as power, telephone, and yes, CATV service the consumer is sometimes best served if there is only 1 landline based solution. At most, there probably needs to be only a very small handful. What soemone needs to explan to me is why anyone, no matter who, shoud be allowed to own and operate more than one franchise. It is not by definition a monopoly for one company to own a CATV system in every city in America, but it most certainly is a trust.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> I can change channels if I don't like the show (and besides its free )


People keep saying this, but it is total nonsense. In fact, few things the average TV viewer consumes costs him more than OTA television. It's just that it doesn't cost him anyhing MORE to switch the channel, and he won't save any money by not watching the programs. He pays whether we wants to, or not. Indeed, he pays even if we doesn't have a TV.


----------



## markens (Apr 12, 2007)

lrhorer said:


> How many CATV companies can you name which went bankrupt?


I can't really comment about the rest of your post, but I can certainly name a pretty big cable operator which is currently under bankruptcy protection: Charter Communications. Recent reference here:
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN1423472120091014


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

markens said:


> I can't really comment about the rest of your post, but I can certainly name a pretty big cable operator which is currently under bankruptcy protection: Charter Communications. Recent reference here:
> http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN1423472120091014


I should have phrased that better. "How many can you name that have filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy?", is what I should have asked. Even so, that's one out of a couple of thousand CATV companies that has gone bankrupt. As risk goes, it's way down the investment scale. Compare that to the percentage of telecommunications companies that have gone bankrupt. It's more than 99.9%. How many dotcoms out of 1000 have gone bankrupt? Restaurants? Retail outlets?


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> Where would the fun be in that.


If you don't know of any way to have fun in a hotel room... 

OTOH, I don't know if bicker is your preferred playmate, or not.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

lrhorer said:


> How many CATV companies can you name which went bankrupt? In fact, there are few, if any, less risky investments on this planet than a CATV system. Now, although the notion seems almost ubiquitous, I am always puzzled why it is considered that a risk should guarantee a profit. By definition, if a profit is guaranteed, then it isn't a risk in the first place, yet time and time again I hear people say that XXXX should be protected from failure (usually by the government) because they have made an investment. The point here, however, is that it isn't even a risk in the first place. What it is, is a long term investment. Many people would say a very long term investment, although I do not consider it so. Basically, especially for a new CATV system, any investment is generally going to have to wait 10 - 20 years to see a return. Personally, I am going to be happy if any of my investments show a profit in less than 30 - 40 years, but that is another matter.
> 
> I think you know what you mean, but you've stated it rather badly. By definition any monopoly provides goods or services which only they can supply. No matrer how bad a monopoly may be, it still is "the only game in town", and they still had to invest the money to create the infrastructure (or buy the infrastructure from someone else, which amounts to the same thing). What I think you are trying to say is a CATV company (or any utility company) must build a very expensive infrastructure which is capable of servicing effectively every indivdual in its service area, whether it does in fact provide that service or not to any particular individual. Unless some sort of cooperative plan is put in place, or the infrastructure is funded and maintained by public funds, then a second provider must spend just as much to build his infrastructure as the first provider, yet both are only likely to serve half the number of subscribers. This means if N is the number of providers in the area, then the costs to each individual consumer before provider profits is roughly equal to N times the cost of an identical franchse area with only 1 provider. The bottom line is in such a situation, the cost to the consumer may be much, much higher than the monopoly franchise. The upside is they may be able to enjoy much better service. Maybe. Multiple utility providers in an area provide both a metaphorical and literal rats-nest of transport problems. Take a look sometime at the photographs taken of the early days of electricity when many large cities had sometimes 7 or 8 power providers. The utility poles were not only a horrible, ugly mess, they were unsafe, as well. In the early days of telephone companies, some towns had two or more phone systems, and half or two thirds of the people could not talk to people on the other systems.


Sorry but I'm getting a bit punchy, I been pretty busy at work in addition to posting here. Maybe some of you saw some of the work I've been doing Nasa launched it today. Cool stuff. Enough self promotion.

Anyway I always learn a bit when you post. You got the gist of what I was trying to say. I was trying to cut and paste from the wiki on natural monopolies and in stringing it together with my thoughts didn't come out as smooth as I would have liked. One thing I don't think you considered in discussing how cable tv systems really are not a risky venture, When they were first coming out the idea of people paying cash up front for TV was very risky. IMO originally governments (State and local) saw a public benefit to cable. Better TV reception to a wider area meant better communication with the public in an emergency. We take it for granted now but I remeber when I was in 3rd or 4th grade my dad saying something to the effect why in the heck would anyone pay for TV (I know see your next post). It wasn't so much they wanted to guarantee a profit as it was it was the price to have someone else upgrade communication. I could be wrong but that's my feeling on it



lrhorer said:


> The bottom line? It may, repeat MAY, be true for utility companies such as power, telephone, and yes, CATV service the consumer is sometimes best served if there is only 1 landline based solution. At most, there probably needs to be only a very small handful. What soemone needs to explan to me is why anyone, no matter who, shoud be allowed to own and operate more than one franchise. It is not by definition a monopoly for one company to own a CATV system in every city in America, but it most certainly is a trust.


Good question, I have no idea.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

lrhorer said:


> If you don't know of any way to have fun in a hotel room...
> 
> OTOH, I don't know if bicker is your preferred playmate, or not.


Ouch!


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

lrhorer said:


> People keep saying this, but it is total nonsense. In fact, few things the average TV viewer consumes costs him more than OTA television. It's just that it doesn't cost him anyhing MORE to switch the channel, and he won't save any money by not watching the programs. He pays whether we wants to, or not. Indeed, he pays even if we doesn't have a TV.


I guess you are technically right (I think this discussion has been around before also) better phrasing would have been "Besides It's already paid for and it wont cost any more or less." But that doesn't roll off the tongue as easy as, "Besides its free."


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> I guess you are technically right (I think this discussion has been around before also) better phrasing would have been "Besides It's already paid for and it wont cost any more or less." But that doesn't roll off the tongue as easy as, "Besides its free."


How about, "Besides, I'm already paying for it, so I may as well use it"? It's not only accurate, I admit it's a difficult argument for me to counter in terms of the real world. Most people dislike not making use of something for which they have paid, and I find it difficult to blame them.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> Sorry but I'm getting a bit punchy, I been pretty busy at work in addition to posting here. Maybe some of you saw some of the work I've been doing Nasa launched it today. Cool stuff. Enough self promotion.


'Way cool. Promote away, if you ask me.



JWThiers said:


> One thing I don't think you considered in discussing how cable tv systems really are not a risky venture, When they were first coming out the idea of people paying cash up front for TV was very risky.


Well,yes, but that was 60 years ago, and was only true for the first decade or so. With few, if any, exceptions, all the CATV plant in the U.S. has been built in the last 20 - 30 years, and the vast bulk of investments in the systems has been made in the last 15 years. The original startup investments have been paid off years ago.



JWThiers said:


> IMO originally governments (State and local) saw a public benefit to cable.


Municipal, originally. Other than the FCC, state and federal agencies didn't really pay much attention one way or the other until somewhat more recently. Indeed, even as late as 1977, many large cities did not have CATV systems. It developed in small towns first, for a number of reasons. It also wasn't until the early 80s that there was a whole lot of competitive content available on CATV systems. The main attraction prior to that was superior reception, especially in mountainous areas where OTA reception was spotty at best. It also was great for towns too small to have their own TV stations and too far from the nearest big city to allow for reliable reception of "local" channels without purchasing large, ugly, expensive mast-mounted external antenna systems.



JWThiers said:


> Better TV reception to a wider area meant better communication with the public in an emergency. We take it for granted now but I remeber when I was in 3rd or 4th grade my dad saying something to the effect why in the heck would anyone pay for TV (I know see your next post).


That was my reaction, too, when I first heard of CATV. I was about 13 or 14. At the time, there wasn't a great deal of contrent available, as I said, but also at the time I had not stopped to consider what OTA actually cost, since like many, I didn't see anyone paying the national netorks. It's still a problem today. Because people don't stop to think about from where the money comes to support the huge profits being raked in by the networks, they somehow think they aren't the ones paying for it.



JWThiers said:


> It wasn't so much they wanted to guarantee a profit as it was it was the price to have someone else upgrade communication. I could be wrong but that's my feeling on it


No, you are correct. My statement was an offhand one concerning bailouts, subsidies, and government protections for businesses in general. In the case of landline based services, there is a very real physical limitation involved which strongly argues for and encourages a local monopoly. It's a really tough problem, make no mistake, and none of the solutions (at least none that I have seen, and I have seen quite a few) are terribly satisfactory from either an economic or a moral and philosophical standpoint. At the same time, the services which can be provided are highly desirable. It's a situation rife with opportunities for corruption and abuse of power.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

lrhorer said:


> 'Way cool. Promote away, if you ask me.
> 
> Well,yes, but that was 60 years ago, and was only true for the first decade or so. With few, if any, exceptions, all the CATV plant in the U.S. has been built in the last 20 - 30 years, and the vast bulk of investments in the systems has been made in the last 15 years. The original startup investments have been paid off years ago.
> 
> ...


Careful with th M word, people could really go into orbit


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

markens said:


> I can't really comment about the rest of your post, but I can certainly name a pretty big cable operator which is currently under bankruptcy protection: Charter Communications. Recent reference here:
> http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN1423472120091014


Don't forget Adelphia Communications.

According to Wikipedia (as honest as the day is long!) Charter is the 3rd largest cable operator and Adelphia was the 5th largest when they went bust.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> It is not by definition a monopoly for one company to own a CATV system in every city in America, but it most certainly is a trust.


I won't argue that point, but I will say that at least with the word "trust" the casual reader would be, at best, aware of the distinction you're making, and at worst, they will not be deceived into thinking what you're saying means something other than the reality of the situation. If folks must take out their petty anger on cable companies, let it at least not have negative impact on the extent to which others understand the reality of the situation.


----------



## jilter (Oct 4, 2002)

I see this thread has gone off in another direction.
Currently Comcast (northern IL) has "flagged" NBC shows as well.
This is ridiculous.
Any advice?


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

jilter said:


> I see this thread has gone off in another direction.
> Currently Comcast (northern IL) has "flagged" NBC shows as well.
> This is ridiculous.
> Any advice?


That's a mistake by the franchise, and they'll correct it as soon as you find the right person to complain to. They can't legally copy protect OTA channels.


----------



## jilter (Oct 4, 2002)

Any advice who to direct complaints to?


----------

