# I just realized that I can't use HD tivo with satellite....



## emandbri (Jul 5, 2004)

It never occurred to me that I wouldn't be able to, I'd love some advice on what to do. 

First let me tell you want we have now. We have dish network through At &T. The upstairs TV is a 9 year old Hitachi and hooked up to it we have the at&t homezone which is a combo DVR/ satellite receiver and a 3 1/2 year old TOSHIBA SD-H400. We had to get a separate receiver for the tivo since it wasn't compatible with the homezone. The tivo is a single tuner so we record almost everything on it and use the homezone if there are two shows on at the same time. The homezone also can be accessed on the TV in the basement a 7 year old magavox, that is the kids' tv. 

The plan was to wait until we got our tax return or my husband got a bonus and buy the new TV and an HD tivo to go with it and now that blue ray has won a blue ray player as well (for those who don't know the toshiba is a tivo/ DVD combo). We were going to hook the toshiba to the basement TV, we have not been happy with the DVR, it isn't nearly as user friendly as tivo.

We might be buying something sooner then planned however because the TV might be on it's last leg. I think maybe 2 years ago if it was on for too long it would turn itself off. It wasn't a big deal because for it to happen it had to be on for like 5 hours which very rarely happened. I would say it would happen maybe 2 or 3 times a year. It is getting worst and has now happened 3 or 4 times in the last month. 

So I'm set to figure out what TV to get then check out the HD tivo and it can't be used with satellite. It seems my choices are get the HD tivo and switch to cable or wait until there is an HD tivo that can be used with satellite. When do you guys think that will happen? There is only one cable company in St. Louis, Charter, and we have had them before and they suck big time. 

I need to decide in the next week because next week AT&T is coming out to install faster internet if we have to switch to cable I need to cancel that!

Thanks!


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 1, 2007)

emandbri said:


> It seems my choices are get the HD tivo and switch to cable or wait until there is an HD tivo that can be used with satellite. When do you guys think that will happen?


Short answer? Never.

The satellite providers show no interest in working with TiVo - they push their own DVRs.


----------



## ADent (Jan 7, 2000)

The satellite companies have a waiver on the Cable Card requirement (apparently as do any cable company that uses SDV, ie most of them). Write your Congresspeople to get the rule fixed.

Otherwise don't look for a new HDTivo - ever.


----------



## emandbri (Jul 5, 2004)

Thanks guys. We need to decide if we love tivo more than we hate charter! We had them before and had issues. I would say we would lose internet or tv about once a month. The worst was when I was hold for about an hour and when I finally got ahold of someone was told "I don't know how to answer your question, why don't you call back and maybe you will get someone who does. " That was 4 years ago, I guess it is possible that they have improved and it could also have been the lines in our old subdivision. Our old house in St. Peters was build in 1974 and this house was build in 1989. I'm going to go out with the kids at the bus stop and ask our neighbors.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Factor this in Emily: What makes you think you'll appreciate the service from DirecTV or Dish Network any better? The number of complaints I read about multi-channel television service providers are roughly in proportion to the number of subscribers each has. There is a standard of service in the industry. Since customers generally choose providers predominantly based on what channels are provided at what price, none of the major providers have any incentive to distinguish themselves with regard to service, and consequently none of the major providers do.


----------



## Mike500 (Jun 29, 2004)

bicker said:


> Factor this in Emily: What makes you think you'll appreciate the service from DirecTV or Dish Network any better? The number of complaints I read about multi-channel television service providers are roughly in proportion to the number of subscribers each has. There is a standard of service in the industry. Since customers generally choose providers predominantly based on what channels are provided at what price, none of the major providers have any incentive to distinguish themselves with regard to service, and consequently none of the major providers do.


*Emily is RIGHT! You don't know Charter.*

They are at the BOTTOM of the list in a recent Consumer Reports survey. Have you seen their STOCK performance, recently?

We have Charter, here, in Upstate South Carolina. I do Home Theater systems. They NEVER connect any box, even those with HD, with anything more than coax and "F" connectors. Their signal quality is terrible.

Personally, I use Dish Network with my Series 2 SA TiVo and OTA. I'll keep it, until it dies. With OTA, I hope TiVo will have IR blaster codes and guides for OTA DTV conversion boxes.


----------



## herdfan (Feb 5, 2003)

Maybe a little OT, but I was from the "they'll pry my TiVo from my cold dead hands" school when DirecTV went with the own DVR. And from the inital complaints, I was right. However, their current HD DVR (HR20/21) has been fine. Its not a TiVo, but if all you want is a device that will reliably record and playback your shows, the new DirecTV HD DVR is a good substitute.

Now if you must have some TiVo features like suggestions and dual buffers, then forget what I said.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

I currently have Dish with their HD DVRs, which are (IMO) as good or better than TiVo.

Depending on your home wiring, it could be trouble to install the dual tuner DVRs, so if I were you, since you love TiVo so much, I would just stick with your current setup - use that moolah for something else right now, or save it.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Mike500 said:


> Emily is RIGHT! You don't know Charter.


I suspect you don't know Comcast, or Time Warner, or DirecTV, etc., or haven't had enough experience with each to know where they all stand with regard to service. Meanwhile, read my statement again: *The number of complaints I read about multi-channel television service providers are roughly in proportion to the number of subscribers each has.* This is something you can come to know, by your own observation, if you read messages about MSOs without regard to whether or not the MSO is your specific supplier or not.

I also believe you're mistaken or overstating the situation with regard to Consumer Reports.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

emandbri said:


> So I'm set to figure out what TV to get then check out the HD tivo and it can't be used with satellite.Thanks!


if the neighbors still vote that Charter is not worth the trouble they bring then
see if you can get the VIP622 DVR from Dish. Not sure what AT&T adds in to the mix but if you are staying with Satellite then that series of DVRs may be your best route. Sometimes, TiVo DVRs are not the correct option and HD adds some twists whee TiVo inc. simply can not nake a DVR you can use 

I really wish the FCC had not waivered DISH and DirectTV on the open security standard


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> . . . see if you can get the VIP622 DVR from Dish.


This is what I have, but the wiring may be tricky, and she may not have the correct satellite dishes. If you're not going to be using the second room function [using it as a single dual-tuner DVR] then you will need only one coax run from the switch to the receiver. If you want to use the second room option, you'll need a second, or a viable wireless option.

Depending on the situation, this can create added cost in which the OP may not be interested.

to the OP, is OTA only an option?


----------



## TolloNodre (Nov 3, 2007)

bicker said:


> I also believe you're mistaken or overstating the situation with regard to Consumer Reports.


No, no. Charter is near the bottom, if not the bottom.

Remember, this is the same company that deleted *14,000* email accounts. _With no backup._
http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/Charter-Accidentally-Deletes-14000-Users-Email-91229

Proof that the 'free market' doesn't always work....


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I thought you were mistaken, and a little research indicated how: What Consumer Reports reported was that Charters triple-play bundle *offering* was the worst among the major providers. It wasn't talking about its customer service.


----------



## emandbri (Jul 5, 2004)

classicX said:


> This is what I have, but the wiring may be tricky, and she may not have the correct satellite dishes. If you're not going to be using the second room function [using it as a single dual-tuner DVR] then you will need only one coax run from the switch to the receiver. If you want to use the second room option, you'll need a second, or a viable wireless option.
> 
> Depending on the situation, this can create added cost in which the OP may not be interested.
> 
> to the OP, is OTA only an option?


Right now we have the homezone which is dual tuner and the tivo which is a single tuner and can record three things at once. Would that mean our wiring is okay?

What is "OTA?"


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

emandbri said:


> What is "OTA?"


OTA = Over The Air, in other words regular local broadcasts you receive with an antenna at your house. Works a lot better now with digital broadcasts in most cases than the analog broadcasts did.


----------



## emandbri (Jul 5, 2004)

There is an HD homezone.

http://www.att.com/gen/general?pid=11153

That might be the way to go since the wiring is already set up for the homezone. It also also kind of nice that the kids can watch their shows upstairs or downstairs without having to have season passes on two boxes.


----------



## ciper (Nov 4, 2004)

Another alternative - wait for FIOS in your area and use the THD with it!


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

emandbri said:


> That might be the way to go since the wiring is already set up for the homezone. It also also kind of nice that the kids can watch their shows upstairs or downstairs without having to have season passes on two boxes.


MRV between two Tivos would also work for this.


----------



## CrashHD (Nov 10, 2006)

ADent said:


> The satellite companies have a waiver on the Cable Card requirement (apparently as do any cable company that uses SDV, ie most of them). Write your Congresspeople to get the rule fixed.
> Otherwise don't look for a new HDTivo - ever.


Any chance anyone out there has/could write a form letter on the subject, that those of us interested could print, sign our names to, and send to our congressmen? I think would be a great idea, and I'd love to send mine a letter on the subject, but I don't know anything about the subject other than I'd like to get an HD Tivo with satellite. I lack the necessary knowledge of the subject, and the writing skill necessary to write a letter that would make an eloquent, compelling, factually correct agrument for it. If I were to write a letter that said, "Give me this, I want it," I will accomplish nothing, but a well written one that we could all print, sign, and mail to our congressmen might stand a better chance of actually making something happen.


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

ciper said:


> Another alternative - wait for FIOS in your area and use the THD with it!


FIOS is a Verizon product. The OP is eligible for Uverse, which is AT&T's answer to FIOS, but is not the same (Fiber to the node instead of fiber to the home, and Uverse is IP based).

Uverse does not work with Series3 TiVo units.


----------



## NealS (Feb 6, 2008)

A friend has a DIRECTV HD DVR. I think it's about the same or better than the TiVo DVR.
The menus are different of course but anyone that claims the non-TiVo DVRs are crap really has an attitude problem.


----------



## emandbri (Jul 5, 2004)

SullyND said:


> FIOS is a Verizon product. The OP is eligible for Uverse, which is AT&T's answer to FIOS, but is not the same (Fiber to the node instead of fiber to the home, and Uverse is IP based).
> 
> Uverse does not work with Series3 TiVo units.


Uverse is availble here but the stuff I've read hasn't been favorable. We are getting the uverse just for internet, we can only get the slowest DSL right now.


----------



## emandbri (Jul 5, 2004)

UGGGGGGGGG A guy from At&t was here all morning trying to set up uverse for the internet and it can't be done. He says our lines are too long from the source to make it work. He suggested calling back every 3 months to see if we can get it. 

We are really sick of the slow DSL, at&t has 3 speeds but we are only able to get the lowest one. He also checked it and he said the download is where it should be but the upload is even slower then what we should be getting. 

I was wondering if we shouldn't switch to cable even though we have had problems with charter in the past. I called chater up and she said we first had to check to see if we were paying month to month or if we had a contract with dish (I should know I know) so I call them up and we are paying month to month. I also asked about the HD homezone and she says we can't get it because we aren't new customers, what a crock. I called back and we would have to cancel for 180 days and go back to be "new customers." 

I did ask charter about the moxi box and they do have some, in the past there was a waiting list. We could try the moxi box downstairs for a while, see how we like charter and if we do go ahead and get the HD tivo for upstairs and put this tivo downstairs.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

I don't really know how bad really cable is, but I'd go for cable, if I had the choice, unless there is a compelling reason to stay with satellite.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

yep, this is the typical sat user dilemna. DSL is only good if you are close to the telephone line station house adn they have equipped that station house with the proper insulators/filters and so forth to do DSL well. He wants you to check back every 3 months because they likely have no current plans to extend DSL further in your area.

My roadrunner cable modem currently is testing at 3.29 Mb download and .444 Mb upload. I use it to work from home and have never had any fits with sharing bandwidth, etc.. that DSL sales reps try to claim.

You could give charter a test run and just have them add internet only service to your house. Course you want to be careful if that impacts getting any bundle deals if you go down a full cable service road.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Mike500 said:


> *Emily is RIGHT! You don't know Charter.*


Charter is a little different the most cable companies. They're kind of like a franchise. They're made up of a bunch of little cable companies that they've bought up over the years, but they don't really apply any sort of company wide standard of service. So Charter in one area could be completely different then Charter in another area. We have Charter here in Northern Nevada and they're not bad at all. Back before the S3 was available they hooked up their MOXI HD DVR to my HDTV using decent quality component video cables that they supplied. They also had absolutely no trouble installing the CableCARDs in my S3, even when I had a beta unit way back before they even existed in the wild. I never have outages and my internet connection runs at full speed (5Mbps) 95% of the time. (peak hours, like 5:00-7:00pm it slows a little)

So while Charter may very well be horrible in your area, they're so fractured as a company that it's almost impossible to compare your experience to any other region in the country.

Dan


----------



## LuvGolf (Mar 12, 2005)

i have Directv with 3 tivos of varying size. suffice it to say, i find it hard to give up the tivo live guide. is there anything on directv hd dvr that is comparable


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> Charter is a little different the most cable companies. They're kind of like a franchise. They're made up of a bunch of little cable companies that they've bought up over the years, but they don't really apply any sort of company wide standard of service.


I don't know that that's different from most cable companies. Comcast is exactly the same way.


----------



## jerryez (May 16, 2001)

Get a Dish VIP722 HD DVR. It will record two sat channels and one OTA (over the air) channel at the same time, all in glorious HD, And you can watch a recording while its does three recordings. I have two Series II TiVos and the VIP722. I have lifetime subs on both tIvos, but never watch either of them since I bought the 722. It is better than the TiVos. Go ahead and flame me, children.


----------



## emandbri (Jul 5, 2004)

I wasn't aware that with the VIP722 HD DVR you could have one box and use it on two TVs, I thought that you could only do that with the homezone which is why I wanted it so bad. Since it would be the same set up we have now DVR and tivo on the upstairs TV and be able to access the DVR downstairs doesthat mean our wiring we be okay to do this? 

I have an appointment for cable but can cancle the TV and still change over the internet and phone.


----------



## emandbri (Jul 5, 2004)

I called AT&T and can get the vip722 but it would be $200 installaion and I would have to have a 2 year contract, that makes me very nervous. I tried to call to find out why we would have a contract when we don't know but the office is closed right now.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

emandbri said:


> or wait until there is an HD tivo that can be used with satellite. When do you guys think that will happen?


Dish network will be offering Tivo far sooner than most people think. In 2004, Tivo initiated a lawsuit against Dish network for patent infringement. Tivo won the first trial and the second trial appeal. March 17 is the deadline for Dish to ask for this to go to the Supreme court, however, people on these threads, familiar with the court system, say that there is only a 1-2 percent chance that the Supreme Court will agree to hear this case.

Once Dish either gives up or gets turned down for the Supreme Court hearing, then it looks like the original injunction will be imposed. At least that was the order of the appeal court. The injunction is a court order for Dish Network to erase the hard drives on their DVR's so there is no operating system on the hard drive for DVR functionality. At that point the DVR will only be a tuner and not capable of recording. So either, Dish will make an emergency agreement with Tivo or they will stop using DVR's. We should have the answer within about 1-3 months.


----------



## emandbri (Jul 5, 2004)

HPD said:


> So either, Dish will make an emergency agreement with Tivo or they will stop using DVR's. We should have the answer within about 1-3 months.


Sounds like the best plan right now is to wait. Right now we are getting one DVR through charter and the plan is to see if we like them and maybe buy another tivo but maybe we should get a second DVR through them so we can record things in HD until we make a decision.


----------



## leftheaded (Feb 28, 2008)

LuvGolf said:


> i have Directv with 3 tivos of varying size. suffice it to say, i find it hard to give up the tivo live guide. is there anything on directv hd dvr that is comparable


can anyone clarify whether or not you can use a tivo series3 with direct tv? this post is confusing me


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

leftheaded said:


> can anyone clarify whether or not you can use a tivo series3 with direct tv HD programming?


You cannot. It is for cable or over the air only.


----------



## spowers53 (Feb 29, 2008)

We're in a similar situation as Emily.

We've got Hughes DirectTivos in a couple of rooms. They're modded for more storage and also to allow network sharing. We are getting an HDTV and are looking to put a DVR on it - once we decide who will be providing the content.

I'm not looking to replace every box in the house right now, so am looking at interim solutions and have questions.

1) will the Series 3 HD DVR share SD content with the DirectTivo receivers over the network? (ours are modded)

2) will the Series 3 interface at all to the DirectTV HD satellite box (non-DVR box)?

3) can the DirectTivos do anything useful if we switch to Comcast?

Thanks

Steve


----------



## CrashHD (Nov 10, 2006)

1)No. The software update for the Series2 that added MRV capability broke MRV compatibility with previous versions(<9.x).
2)Doubtful, but I am unsure.
3)No.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

spowers53 said:


> We're in a similar situation as Emily.
> 
> We've got Hughes DirectTivos in a couple of rooms. They're modded for more storage and also to allow network sharing. We are getting an HDTV and are looking to put a DVR on it - once we decide who will be providing the content.
> 
> ...


The HR20 makes a pretty decent interim solution for me. It's not a Tivo but if you aren't ready to replace every box...or you want the most HD channels.


----------



## dalesd (Aug 2, 2001)

Forget cable and/or satellite. Go OTA. Add Amazon Unbox, a Netflix account to go with your Blu-ray player, and maybe something like Miro with pyTivo (if you're feeling adventurous.) 

I didn't think it could be done, but I took a good look at my Season Pass list, and there's very little I can't get OTA, and I won't miss most of those. 

DW, however, is not convinced, so we still have DirecTV.


----------



## emandbri (Jul 5, 2004)

dalesd said:


> Forget cable and/or satellite. Go OTA. Add Amazon Unbox, a Netflix account to go with your Blu-ray player, and maybe something like Miro with pyTivo (if you're feeling adventurous.)
> 
> I didn't think it could be done, but I took a good look at my Season Pass list, and there's very little I can't get OTA, and I won't miss most of those.
> 
> DW, however, is not convinced, so we still have DirecTV.


I don't think that would work for us, my 4 year old and 1 year old watch shows on nick and disney, the older kids like mythbusters and ghost hunters, and my husband and I need to be able to watch doctor who, torchwood, and battlestar galactica.


----------



## jerryez (May 16, 2001)

Dish has changed the software on all their DVRs where they no longer violate the TiVo patent. The suit only applies to past infringements. The 722 will not be turned off according to Dish.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

jerryez said:


> Dish has changed the software on all their DVRs where they no longer violate the TiVo patent. The suit only applies to past infringements. The 722 will not be turned off according to Dish.


They made that announcement on the day they lost the appeal. I believe they are liars. I know they are thieves and thieves are usually liars. I choose not to believe them thieves. Why have they not announced this sooner? Answer, they only did it for damage control to keep customers from jumping ship until the matter is final.


----------



## emandbri (Jul 5, 2004)

I called At&t again and we can't change to HD without a 2 year contract. If we are new customers we don't have to, a new customer is one who hasn't had them for 6 months. We are going to try the cable and then figure out what we want to do. 2 years is a long time to be locked into something we don't know that we would like.


----------



## propermodulation (Jan 12, 2006)

NealS said:


> A friend has a DIRECTV HD DVR. I think it's about the same or better than the TiVo DVR.
> The menus are different of course but anyone that claims the non-TiVo DVRs are crap really has an attitude problem.


 Ha! good joke!


----------



## Okeemike (Apr 24, 2002)

NealS said:


> A friend has a DIRECTV HD DVR. I think it's about the same or better than the TiVo DVR.
> The menus are different of course but anyone that claims the non-TiVo DVRs are crap really has an attitude problem.


I guess I have a SERIOUS attitude problem, then.


----------



## ciper (Nov 4, 2004)

I think the Tivo naysayers often dont realize that its Tivo driving the industry and the other DVRs follow suit when Tivo does something right. 
I believe the Comcast "Tivo" is perfect proof of this. Would you ever think a company like Comcast would give money to Tivo to replace something they already had in place?!



Okeemike said:


> I guess I have a SERIOUS attitude problem, then.


Me too! We should get along just fine


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

HPD said:


> They made that announcement on the day they lost the appeal. I believe they are liars. I know they are thieves and thieves are usually liars. I choose not to believe them thieves. Why have they not announced this sooner? Answer, they only did it for damage control to keep customers from jumping ship until the matter is final.


While I wouldn't put lying in a press release past them, they said the same thing in a quarterly SEC filing. A blantant lie there could lead to jail time or worse a shareholder lawsuit.

They also added they have the opinions of several top patent attorney's that their new software does not infringe any Tivo patents. I'm inclined to believe it is possible until further details are released. Tivo has not said it wasn't possible.

The notion that they said it to keep customers from jumping ship doesn't fly either. Most of Dish's customers have no clue a lawsuit is even in progress. Certainly doesn't warant a press release for their benefit.


----------



## emandbri (Jul 5, 2004)

I have had charter for a few hours and I've already decided there is no way we can keep it for the TV, I'm SOOOOOOOO glad I didn't get the HD tivo at woot! I didn't do enough research and charter doesn't have enough channels in HD, I was competly unprepared for how much I would hate standard def TV after being exposed to HD.

I think these are our HD channels
HDNet 
HDNet Movies 
Golf Channel / Versus 
ESPN HD 
ESPN2 HD 
HD Theater 
Discovery HD 
KDNL-DT - ABC 
KPLR-DT - CW 
KTVI-DT - FOX 
KSDK-DT - NBC 
KETC-DT - PBS 
Fox Sports Net Midwest 
The Weather Channel HD 
A&E HD 
History Channel HD 
TNT - HD 
MHD

So here are the shows that we can't get in HD.

There is no CBS! Seriously no CBS. 
http://www.tvpredictions.com/charter010307.htm

So no Jericho, how I met your mother, or 2 1/2 men.

no USA so no pych, burn notice, and no in plain site (which hasn't started yet but looks good).

no sci fi and no Universal HD which means no atlantis, no firefly, and most important no battlestar.

We are keeping charter for internet, it is MUCH faster. We can either go with directTV or we can keep charter for six months and go back to dish network. We can't go back to dish network before that without signing a contract which I don't want to do.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Weird that they don't have CBS.
That seems about the same as the TWC lineup here until a couple of months ago, when they added a lot of channels. Of course, those channels are SDV, so the TiVo wouldn't be able to use them anyway.


----------



## rodbac (Aug 16, 2005)

TolloNodre said:


> No, no. Charter is near the bottom, if not the bottom.
> 
> Remember, this is the same company that deleted *14,000* email accounts. _With no backup._
> http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/Charter-Accidentally-Deletes-14000-Users-Email-91229
> ...


The "free market" works fine- it's when the "free market" is circumvented to some degree (as with cable companies having exclusive service rights) that it gets hosed.

Make no mistake- if capitalism were somehow able to (or allowed to, as the case may be) apply to cable companies, the service would improve dramatically and/or the prices would come down.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

emandbri said:


> There is no CBS! Seriously no CBS.


Bear in mind that the TiVo HD can also pick up OTA, so you might be able to get CBS that way.



rodbac said:


> Make no mistake- if capitalism were somehow able to (or allowed to, as the case may be) apply to cable companies, the service would improve dramatically and/or the prices would come down.


Yes, because capitalism is magic!


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Indeed, and there is clearly no correlation. In every municipality in the country, people in the municipality choose between three competitors, typically one cable company and two satellite services. However, even as you add more and more competitors to the market (we have five options here in Burlington), there is no difference in service. The service levels are what they are because that is what the market is willing to hold out for. If customers, as a group, aren't willing to _do without_ because they're unsatisfied with service, and aren't willing to _pay significantly more_ to get better service, then service will remain at a low level, since none of the three to five competitors have any incentive to provide better service.


----------



## rodbac (Aug 16, 2005)

> Yes, because capitalism is magic!


No, competition is, although some would say "magic" isn't the right word because it's plainly clear why and how it works, as it's done so for a long, long time.



> However, even as you add more and more competitors to the market (we have five options here in Burlington), there is no difference in service.


I don't know who your five providers are, but I've lived all over the NW US, and have never had more than three realistic options. That's dmn little competition, especially considering the cable company (whoever it is) can lump in broadband (a virtual necessity in 2008).

IOW, to have true competition in a market (such that it will have a noticeable effect), you need more than just "greater than 1".

Further, there is momentum to overcome. They don't just say "Oh sht- there's another competitor out there now!" and revamp their CS department and overhaul components of their business model overnight.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

rodbac said:


> I don't know who your five providers are


Here in Burlington, residents are served by Comcast, Dish Network, DirecTV, FiOS and RCN. I don't believe U-verse is offered here.



rodbac said:


> three realistic options. That's dmn little competition


I disagree completely. Two competitors constitutes competition. Three competitors can foster a highly competitive market. Your expectations for a marketplace that is so completely biased in the consumers' favor is unreasonable. However, rest assured that if the profit was there, others would follow. It is only a matter of money. The reality is that providing this kind of service *is very expensive*. It is not uncommon for folks to horribly underestimate that, and therefore not realize just how much of a good value they are already getting.


----------



## rodbac (Aug 16, 2005)

> I disagree completely. Two competitors constitutes competition.


Disagree all you want, but two competitors is only _technically_ competition.



> Three competitors can foster a highly competitive market.


Of course they _can_. The question is, with the amount of revenue (customers) available, whether they do.

And in this case, three competitors has led to some improvements, but there is still enough to go around, such that Charter (for example) is sticking with their largely shtty customer service- they're not losing enough revenue that they care yet.

I don't know why anyone wants to argue about this, really. This isn't some theory I concocted over a few beers last night- it's Econ 101.



> It is not uncommon for folks to horribly underestimate that, and therefore not realize just how much of a good value they are already getting.


I don't underestimate it at all, and I'm not really intending to complain about my service necessarily. There *are* shortcomings, though, that would diminish with either fewer customers or more providers.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

rodbac said:


> Disagree all you want, but two competitors is only _technically_ competition.


So, you mean, you've been making a religious argument. Well excuse my comments, then. I never intended to question your religious beliefs.



rodbac said:


> Of course they _can_. The question is, with the amount of revenue (customers) available, whether they do.


Indeed, so you agree then that the problem is that customer are not willing to pay enough to foster a rich enough marketplace to result in as much competition as you want there to be.



rodbac said:


> There *are* shortcomings, though, that would diminish with either fewer customers or more providers.


I think fewer customers would lead to lower revenues which would lead invariably to more shortcomings. More providers could increase service, but as we've apparently agreed, more providers requires customers to be willing to pay more. Indications are that they're not.


----------



## dalesd (Aug 2, 2001)

rodbac said:


> No, competition is, although some would say "magic" isn't the right word because it's plainly clear why and how it works, as it's done so for a long, long time.


Yeah, it's not magic. "Invisible hand" is what you're looking for.

The invisible hand has become crippled here because the CATV companies were granted monopolies by state and local governments. Competition is growing, but the existing monopoly has a huge advantage because it's difficult for competitors to get in. They have to lobby each individual town government.


----------



## rodbac (Aug 16, 2005)

> So, you mean, you've been making a religious argument. Well excuse my comments, then. I never intended to question your religious beliefs.


What are you talking about?



> Indeed, so you agree then that the problem is that customer are not willing to pay enough to foster a rich enough marketplace to result in as much competition as you want there to be.


I'm not following your argument. It has nothing to do with what I want or don't want.

Somebody presented Charter's lousy service as some kind of failure of capitalism.

My point is that assuming Charter's behavior is reprehensible enough, the only reason capitalism isn't wreaking havoc on them for it is because the "free market" is suppressed in fundamental ways with cable companies (or was for a long time and is only lately beginning to open).



> I think fewer customers would lead to lower revenues which would lead invariably to more shortcomings. More providers could increase service, but as we've apparently agreed, more providers requires customers to be willing to pay more. Indications are that they're not.


???

More providers providing a service does not require customers to pay more, fewer customers does not necessarily lead to lower revenues, and indications aren't at all that customers aren't willing to pay more for better service (see: Tivo).


----------



## rodbac (Aug 16, 2005)

> The invisible hand has become crippled here because the CATV companies were granted monopolies by state and local governments.


Exactly. It's not a truly competitive market because of those "monopolies" and a couple satellite companies (with whatever cons they entail) aren't enough to change that yet.

For the record, I'm not sure there is a realistic way around those monopolies, though, because of the infrastructure required. I'm sure someone more knowledgeable on the hardware side of things can confirm or deny that.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

and really the competition in many areas is 

1 cable company and its ability to bundle in fast Internet/VOIP

2 sat companies that are both proprietary and to move to either one requires getting their hardware and ditching what you have now. Also they can make bundle deals with 3rd parties for fast internet/VOIP but it is still other companies in the mix.

so you can go cable or a Sat company. To switch induces the kind of pain the OP is going through and bad compromises. That simply is just not competition.

some few lucky areas (higher density populations) have maybe another smaller local cable company that may strive for better customer service but overall it is second tier competing with first tier

and then FIOS - which from what I have read I would switch to in a heartbeat. FIOS does indeed, though, have the issue of high costs to run service to customer's house which slows down their spread to other regions considerably.


all of this does mean that competition is really only illusionary in the broadcast provider market place and consumers suffer from that with inadequate/incompetent Government interference which provides sparse relief.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

rodbac said:


> What are you talking about?


If you're not going to accept society's definition of competition, you must be using your own personal definition.



rodbac said:


> I'm not following your argument. It has nothing to do with what I want or don't want.


Well, not you personally, but it does have to do with people wanting things that aren't owed to them, aren't promised to them.



rodbac said:


> More providers providing a service does not require customers to pay more


I didn't say that it did. Rather, I said that service won't improve, that extra competitors won't enter the market, unless there was enough money to be made.



rodbac said:


> fewer customers does not necessarily lead to lower revenues


That much is true. Come over to the Comcast forums and help me make that point there.



rodbac said:


> and indications aren't at all that customers aren't willing to pay more for better service (see: Tivo).


Also true, but remember you were talking about competition. Note that the TiVo HD is the only product of its type currently for sale. Why do you think that is? Then apply your answer to what I was saying earlier in this message.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> That simply is just not competition.


Again: It is competition. You may want more competition, but the market isn't lucrative enough.


----------



## rodbac (Aug 16, 2005)

> If you're not going to accept society's definition of competition, you must be using your own personal definition.


Give me a break and don't try to pull "society" onto your side. We're not talking about the dictionary definition, we're talking about it as it exists in economics.

If you want to argue semantics, I'm sure there are better forums where you can get someone to engage you.



> Well, not you personally, but it does have to do with people wanting things that aren't owed to them, aren't promised to them.


I don't see the attitude of entitlement you seem to be trying to bring into this. Where was that implied? Honest question- maybe I missed it (and if I did, I'll probably be agreeing with you on it- it irritates me to no end).



> I didn't say that it did.


Here's your quote:



> but as we've apparently agreed, more providers requires customers to be willing to pay more.


Now, English isn't one of my degrees, but I don't see many ways to interpret that statement.



> Rather, I said that service won't improve, that extra competitors won't enter the market, unless there was enough money to be made.


You can argue that, but reality is that there are huge barriers in place that keep competition from entering the market, so there's no way to know for sure. Those barriers make your point immaterial.



> Also true, but remember you were talking about competition. Note that the TiVo HD is the only product of its type currently for sale. Why do you think that is? Then apply your answer to what I was saying earlier in this message.


The TivoHD is *not* the only HD DVR available to customers, and the fact that Tivo still sells any is testament to the fact that customers are in fact willing to pay for its advantages despite its relatively high cost.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Sorry, but you don't get to determine what words mean, society does, and for controversial subjects, that means the government does. Imposing your own meanings on things is semantics. Using words as they are, isn't. There is competition. That's a fact. You may not like your choices, but that's life.

Let's be clear about one thing: Service won't improve, and extra competitors won't enter the market, unless there was enough money to be made. That's not the words I used in that one case you quoted out of context, but that was the point I was making.

The TiVo HD is the only product of its type currently for sale. That's what I said, and that's what I meant. There is a reason for it, and I understand why you don't want to acknowledge either the fact or the reason, because it makes all the difference. This stuff is expensive. The problem we're talking about is all about people failing to recognize the costs of what they want, and therefore fostering unfounded expectations.


----------



## dalesd (Aug 2, 2001)

bicker said:


> There is competition. That's a fact. You may not like your choices, but that's life.


There may be multiple providers in some markets, but they're not on a level playing field. It's hard to call it competition when one competitor was given a huge head start. Cable companies were given sweetheart deals by local governments that allowed them to become monopolies. They have enormous market share, and that gives them incredible leverage over their competitors.

When government gives a company a monopoly, and then people aren't happy with the service that company provides, you can't say that's a failure of the free market. It isn't a free market.


----------



## rodbac (Aug 16, 2005)

> Sorry, but you don't get to determine what words mean, society does


Last time, bicker: I'm not arguing about Merriam-Webster's definition, I'm arguing about the meaning of the word in the context of this situation. Quit trying to frame the discussion to suit this point you can't seem to let go of.

Go to your local JC and take freshman economics and you'll realize there is a situation with the cable companies in which the "free market" has not been allowed to (or able to) operate unfettered.

THAT'S why their shortcomings as a provider are not an indication of the free market not working.



> Let's be clear about one thing: Service won't improve, and extra competitors won't enter the market, unless there was enough money to be made.


You and I don't know how lucrative this business could be because it has never operated under circumstances in which that's truly been tested.

So let's say I think there's enough dough there to make me rich because I have in mind a radical new way to run a cable business. How do you propose I start up my own cable co. there in Burlington, MA and steal all of Comcast's customers away?



> The TiVo HD is the only product of its type currently for sale. That's what I said, and that's what I meant.


You better break that news to all the DirecTV, Dish, and non-Tivo-using cable customers with their HD DVRs and tell them TivoHD is the only one there is. They'll be interested to hear that.

You're not honestly trying to argue the THD is the only HD DVR available, are you? I'm assuming you're not that ignorant, and must be trying to use some Tivo-specific definition of what a THD is so you can exclude the myriad other offerings out there.

Please tell me you're not wasting my time doing that.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dalesd said:


> There may be multiple providers in some markets, but they're not on a level playing field.


Indeed. The incumbent cable companies are required to provide lifeline service, often at a loss. It isn't fair that the other competitors aren't subject to the same onerous regulations.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

rodbac said:


> Last time, bicker:


For some reason, I doubt that.



rodbac said:


> I'm not arguing about Merriam-Webster's definition


All that means is that you're misusing words to make your dissatisfaction sound more important than it really is.



rodbac said:


> Go to your local JC and take freshman economics


I taught sophomore economics at a university for a couple of years when I was a graduate student, over twenty years ago. I actually know what I'm talking about.



rodbac said:


> You and I don't know how lucrative this business could be because it has never operated under circumstances in which that's truly been tested.


Yes we do. There is enough money to be made to prompt the spread of FiOS and U-verse. There isn't enough money to be made to perhaps satisfy your desires for superior services and low prices.



rodbac said:


> You better break that news to all the DirecTV, Dish, and non-Tivo-using cable customers with their HD DVRs and tell them TivoHD is the only one there is. They'll be interested to hear that.


No they wouldn't. They both deliberately choose to exclude devices from their systems that they didn't sell. Thanks for pointing out another disadvantage the government has imposed on the incumbent cable companies (since the incumbent cable companies are required to support separable authentication).



rodbac said:


> You're not honestly trying to argue the THD is the only HD DVR available, are you?


If I was trying to say that, I would have said that. Try arguing with what I've actually written, instead of what is easier to argue against.


----------



## rodbac (Aug 16, 2005)

Bicker, why don't you tell me exactly what your point is, as it pertains to what you originally disagreed with.

I said there has been a certain level of suppression of a true "free market" (through various mechanisms) that has taken place with the cable company situation, which is what has led to companies with fairly low levels of customer satisfaction (how bad that is is up for discussion) surviving for decades in most markets.

What about that do you disagree with?



> I taught sophomore economics at a university for a couple of years when I was a graduate student, over twenty years ago. I actually know what I'm talking about.


Then why are you being pedantic? If you've taught the subject, you know very well what I'm talking about and you realize that saying "no, there is greater than one option for customers, therefore it's a competitive market" isn't going to advance the discussion.



> No they wouldn't. They both deliberately choose to exclude devices from their systems that they didn't sell.


Who wouldn't what? Who chose to "exclude" something? I think you're replying to something other than my quote, because your replies border on nonsensical.

Customers have many options for DVRs for their HD material. TivoHD is one of those options, albeit an expensive one relative to the others.

What about that do you disagree with?



> If I was trying to say that, I would have said that.


I'm starting to doubt that.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

In message #50, you insinuated that capitalism didn't apply to cable companies. That's what I disagreed with. 

The only thing keeping the discussion from advancing is your insistence on labeling reality with inaccurate labels in an attempt to make things sound more nefarious than they are.


----------



## rodbac (Aug 16, 2005)

> The only thing keeping the discussion from advancing is your insistence on labeling reality with inaccurate labels in an attempt to make things sound more nefarious than they are.


Bicker, what the hell are you talking about? If this is what you think is going on, you need to put down the bong. I'm not implying anything "nefarious" about it in any way, shape or form- it's just how it is.

I think it's obvious you're just being semantic about it now, so just stop. Please?



> In message #50, you insinuated that capitalism didn't apply to cable companies. That's what I disagreed with.


I didn't say it didn't apply- I said it hasn't been subjected to it fully, and if you disagree with that you need to tell me how I can start up Rodbac Cable in Burlington, MA as I asked about earlier.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

rodbac, bicker will maintain that it's a competitive market, because it's what the cable companies are saying, and how they have managed to justify their local monopolies. bicker agrees with the cable companies that satellite competition constitutes a competitive market. We have had this discussion here many times.


----------



## rodbac (Aug 16, 2005)

MickeS said:


> rodbac, bicker will maintain that it's a competitive market, because it's what the cable companies are saying, and how they have managed to justify their local monopolies. bicker agrees with the cable companies that satellite competition constitutes a competitive market. We have had this discussion here many times.


That explains things- thanks. I hate being a noob to a board.

Bicker, give it up. People aren't stupid.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

rodbac said:


> I'm not implying anything "nefarious" about it in any way, shape or form- it's just how it is.


We'll just have to agree to disagree about that. I see your comments as very much disparaging.



rodbac said:


> I think it's obvious you're just being semantic about it now, so just stop. Please?


When I decide that I'm "just being semantic about it", I promise you I will "just stop". Until then, rest assured I'm not being semantic about it. If you really want the issue to drop, then grant that there is competition. It is that simple! Alternatively, you are welcome to ignore my messages.



rodbac said:


> I didn't say it didn't apply


Yes you did:


> rodbac said:
> 
> 
> > Make no mistake- if capitalism were somehow able to (or allowed to, as the case may be) apply to cable companies...


If that isn't you insinuating the capitalism doesn't apply to cable companies then we don't even have a common language with which to engage in a discussion.



rodbac said:


> - I said it hasn't been subjected to it fully, and if you disagree with that you need to tell me how I can start up Rodbac Cable in Burlington, MA as I asked about earlier.


 Assuming that was even relevant, if I actually went through the work of pulling together the information you're demanding, would that really be worth my time? How much do you REALLY think your granting my point is worth to me? Gosh you really think a lot of yourself!!!


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MickeS said:


> rodbac, bicker will maintain that it's a competitive market, because it's what the cable companies are saying


I am maintaining that it is a competitive market because it is; the government has determined it to be so, and they get to make those determinations, not businesses nor consumers. Don't you think that if the cable companies were an unregulated monopoly, some trail-blazing official looking to make a name for himself would make a point of going after them? Or are you insinuating that the entire government is in on some sort of conspiracy?

Not even cable-hating Kevin Martin is saying what you're insinuating.

If you don't like the law, get it changed. If you can't get it changed, then accept that this is the way that that the prevailing perspective in this country wants it to be. The country has been this way for over thirty years... you should be used to it by now.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

rodbac said:


> Bicker, give it up. People aren't stupid.


Sometimes I wonder. A lot of people foster expectations based on what they read online, and reading your messages people would definitely get the wrong idea about reality. These forums should help people derive the most amount of satisfaction from their entertainment choices, not to foster the most amount of dissatisfaction, stemming from unfounded expectations, which in turn stem from distorted views (such as accusations that "competition doesn't apply to cable") of what obligations businesses have in our society.


----------



## Okeemike (Apr 24, 2002)

What does any of this have to do with the topic posed by the OP?

Please stop acting a bunch of children, and move this to another thread.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Gladly. This issue shouldn't have even been raised in this thread!


----------



## rodbac (Aug 16, 2005)

> Don't you think that if the cable companies were an unregulated monopoly


Nobody called them an unregulated monopoly. It doesn't have to be one or the other, so give the strawman arguments a rest.



> We'll just have to agree to disagree about that. I see your comments as very much disparaging.


That's because you have an agenda and are reading things in that I have neither said nor really even implied. The only thing I'm disparaging is the attitude that the free market doesn't work.



> When I decide that I'm "just being semantic about it", I promise you I will "just stop".


Too late, Mr. Semantic- it's been decided for you. You don't get to play the pedantic game then holler "I'LL TELL YOU IF I'M BEING PEDANTIC!!!"



> If that isn't you insinuating the capitalism doesn't apply to cable companies then we don't even have a common language with which to engage in a discussion.


*sigh* You're right- that statement should have been qualified with "fully", as in "fully apply".

So how did you miss the next 56 statements I made clarifying what I meant for you? Were you just ignoring that clarification, or do you think capitalism has been in full operation with cable companies (so the qualification wouldn't make any difference to you)?



> Assuming that was even relevant, if I actually went through the work of pulling together the information you're demanding, would that really be worth my time? How much do you REALLY think your granting my point is worth to me? Gosh you really think a lot of yourself!!!


It is relevant, don't bother (it was rhetorical- everyone knows the answer), it's obvious you have no point, and yeah, I do.

Anyway, to clarify for anyone still reading, bicker can't tell me how to get my cable company started, because it can't realistically be done.

Hence, the free market isn't fully at work deciding whether Comcast lives or dies in Massachusetts.

These arguments are not going to end until something changes, bicker, so get used to looking like a fool to new posters like me on occasion.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> Gladly.  This issue shouldn't have even been raised in this thread!


except that the OP is the very example of limited consumer choices due to the lack of open security standards among ALL broadcast providers. If she could pick from multiple recording/receiving equipment choices and use that same equipment for multiple broadcasters then we would indeed see a change in the broadcast provider business model. Government had a chance to instigate such a change in the industry and "waivered" instead.

Both the free market and Government controlled dualopoly failed the consumer in this industry. Everyone needs to be set back to an equal footing through common access so this is not a hardware decision but an acual features and content decision.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

rodbac said:


> Too late, Mr. Semantic- it's been decided for you.


So much for _discussion_. If it doesn't fit your definition, you "decide" to call people names.



rodbac said:


> So how did you miss the next 56 statements I made clarifying what I meant for you?


I didn't. I was responding to your comments in response to my response. You should have just corrected your statement when I called you on it initially.



rodbac said:


> It is relevant


Oh right. I forgot. You get to "define" things for me.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> except that the OP is the very example of limited consumer choices due to the lack of open security standards among ALL broadcast providers.


Thanks for getting us back on the topic of using TiVo HD with satellite services.

As you know, I also share your _wish_ regarding this: The laws should have been applied to all the competitors equally, cable, satellite, IP, etc. And that should apply to separable security, must-carry, mandatory dual-carriage, etc. However, it's just a _wish_.


----------



## rodbac (Aug 16, 2005)

> So much for discussion. If it doesn't fit your definition, you "decide" to call people names.


Uh, there's no discussion about whether you were being semantic or not, and I'll repeat it for you: it's not my definition we're discussing. If you can't either grasp that or accept it, then bow out of the discussion.



> Oh right. I forgot. You get to "define" things for me.


Not just me- anyone reading your ignorant, or at least biased, take on the situation can tell you if you're being semantic. It's not a self-determined label.



> As you know, I also share your wish regarding this: The laws should have been applied to all the competitors equally, cable, satellite, IP, etc. And that should apply to separable security, must-carry, mandatory dual-carriage, etc. However, it's just a wish.


So you agree the laws weren't applied equally, hence it's not a truly fair market.

Thank you.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> Thanks for getting us back on the topic of using TiVo HD with satellite services.
> 
> As you know, I also share your _wish_ regarding this: The laws should have been applied to all the competitors equally, cable, satellite, IP, etc. And that should apply to separable security, must-carry, mandatory dual-carriage, etc. However, it's just a _wish_.


A wish from many consumers*, facing the exact same thing as the OP, that Congress should listen to and realize that sat providers do not need "kid gloves" anmore but are quite robust enough to work out some form of common access nowadays, at least for the hardware in the TV room.

The free market money says keep things closed off like it is now and keep the customers/cash for ourselves. When the free market breaks down or has already been impacted by regulation - then not applying any more regulation will not fix things.

All os this shows that while choice is feasible and the broadcasters fight over keeping customers in their camp. it just results in keeping sub prices down some and thus no money for customer service. So really we have a fixed price structure, lack of customer service and excessive control of the distribution pipes which keeps other players from attaining the same size. This lets content owners hold back distribution rights that work for the consumer as seen in UNBOX DRM and 24 hour window and download blackouts.

so technically this is competition but so is playing checkers with yourself, technically.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I note that people tend to use the word "technically" when what they're describing is something not in the consumer's favor.  It seems to m to be just a cagey way of trying to make reality go away.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> I note that people tend to use the word "technically" when what they're describing is something not in the consumer's favor.  It seems to m to be just a cagey way of trying to make reality go away.


so "technically" you did not have to deal with the rest of my post ?

you know, the part in which I laid out the reality of why there is no competition from the viewpoint of a subscriber who would need to deal with changing out all receiver/DVR hardware to make a switch knowing full well it will be a customer service hassle that will require the person to miss work


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> so "technically" you did not have to deal with the rest of my post ?


Yup, pretty much. Putting aside your extraneous attempt to label it "technically"  you said there was competition. That's good enough for me.



ZeoTiVo said:


> you know, the part in which I laid out the reality of why there is no competition from the viewpoint of a subscriber


I have said many times that the viewpoint of an individual subscriber is meaningless when it comes to determining this. Your perspective in that message is overly consumer-biased. The reality is that concepts like "monopoly" and "competition" are defined in terms of the market as a whole, not each and every individual consumer within it.

Life sucks sometimes. Bad things happen to good people. And so on...


----------



## rodbac (Aug 16, 2005)

bicker said:


> The laws should have been applied to all the competitors equally





bicker said:


> Life sucks sometimes.


Bicker, if the laws weren't/aren't applied equally, how is it a truly free, competitive market? Why do you think "life sucks" for us if that's so?

This discussion doesn't hinge on the consumer being blessed with some "right" to label the current situation as one thing or another, so arguing that we don't is meaningless. It's either a fully competitive market or it isn't, and you've implicitly admitted the latter at least twice now.

Stop with your sophomoric attempts to strawman and/or red-herring the debate to death. It's gotten really tired in this thread, and apparently in many threads before, and what's worse is that you seem to think you're being clever but are actually completely transparent.

You simply don't have a leg to stand on so quit wasting bandwidth and start debating something you have a chance to win, like whether it's realistic to expect the situation to change in any significant way anytime soon.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

rodbac said:


> Bicker, if the laws weren't/aren't applied equally, how is it a truly free, competitive market?


It's not free because the government keeps interfering. IMO, its efforts to make it competitive have made the problem worse so far. It certainly hasn't made things any better.

It is competitive, but not as you want it. The vast majority of normal people (none of them visit this forum) want to pick the service first, then just grab whatever DVR comes with it. People are like that. They'll use the VoIP service from their cable provider even though Vonage provides the same service and is cheaper. But people like having it all on one bill, and this prevents compatibility problems and finger-pointing when things go bad. I even bet some of YOU do this as well.

I have access to D*, E*, TWC, and soon FIOS. Most people also have access to at least three of these services (and their DVRs). If you don't, you can always move if you feel that strongly about it. Look, you bought/rented a house/condo in an area that you knew only had one provider, then you constantly complain about it? Why on earth did you move there in the first place? And you expect the government to wave a magic wand and immediately fix your problem? When I bought my house, I noticed the previous owner also had D* and using a tool called a "compass", I confirmed that nothing was blocking any of D*'s or E*'s satellites. Before that, I successfully did the same thing with my apartment (I really hate TWC). And see how I'm not complaining?

Any new DVR that comes out would have to be designed to be future-proof. To do that, you don't need separable security. You need to establish a business relationship with the service providers so you can get a copy of their roadmap and design your box accordingly. Cell phone companies do this all the time. Tivo's new CEO understands this and he is why there is going to be an SDV adapter. But this adapter (or built-in hardware) should have been available at the S3 launch in order to avoid the problems everyone is having today.

Here's hoping the S4 will work much better. I think it will be future-proof by implementing OCAP, which is what the cable companies recommend (some would say they insist on it, but if they are telling you that OCAP is best to make a competitive box then why argue?).


----------



## rodbac (Aug 16, 2005)

> It is competitive, but not as you want it.


No, it's not competitive _as it would need to be for capitalism to have full control_.

I don't give two squirts of pss whether it's there or not, really- I'm fairly content. I'm only pointing out that it isn't, so indicting the "free market" based on this industry's failings (whatever they may be) is not warranted.

Clear yet?

You guys seem to be under the impression I'm crabbing about my service, or arguing to change something. I'm not. I don't care if it changes. Is that your hangup?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> I have said many times that the viewpoint of an individual subscriber is meaningless when it comes to determining this.


fixed my own post

"you know, the part in which I laid out the reality of why there is no competition from the viewpoint of a*ny* subscriber"


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

rodbac said:


> Bicker, if the laws weren't/aren't applied equally, how is it a truly free, competitive market?


Some of the competitors, specifically the satellite companies, were given unfair advantages over the cable companies.



rodbac said:


> It's either a fully competitive market or it isn't, and you've implicitly admitted the latter at least twice now.


You're confused. You need to read what I wrote in context, and stop trying to argue against things I haven't said.



rodbac said:


> Stop with your sophomoric attempts to strawman and/or red-herring the debate to death.


Pot, Kettle, Black.

Get over yourself. This isn't your thread. If you don't like reading perspectives that conflict with yours, then either ignore me or go elsewhere.


----------



## rodbac (Aug 16, 2005)

Bicker, I quoted you. Everyone read it. Everyone knows exactly what you said.

Jesus.



> Some of the competitors, specifically the satellite companies, were given unfair advantages over the cable companies.


OUTSTANDING! Right or wrong about the specifics, at least you finally now admit it's not a completely fair market.



> This isn't your thread.


My apologies- I didn't realize thread "ownership" was required. I'll make sure I have that from now on...



> If you don't like reading perspectives that conflict with yours, then either ignore me or go elsewhere.


No, I'm doing fine, bicker. Thanks. You can ignore *me* if that's what you view as a proper course of action.

And your perspective doesn't just conflict with mine- it conflicts with reality. You know it, and that's why you keep dodging the issue.

Whether you think the situation should change or not, whether you think it's better or worse for consumers... doesn't matter. It's not a completely free market.

Ah, what am I telling you again for- you admit it now. Thanks.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

rodbac said:


> Everyone knows exactly what you said.


Despite your best efforts.



rodbac said:


> OUTSTANDING! Right or wrong about the specifics, at least you finally now admit it's not a completely fair market.


No, you (deliberately) misunderstood what I wrote. If you refuse to accept gaining understanding from me, then read what BobCamp1 posted again. Maybe he can get through to you where I cannot.



rodbac said:


> My apologies- I didn't realize thread "ownership" was required to post.


I was referring to your attempts to dictate what others can and cannot post, specifically telling me to "stop".



rodbac said:


> No, I'm doing fine, bicker. Thanks. You can ignore *me* if that's what you view as a proper course of action.


Why would I? That would give your ill-advised perspective an un-rebutted platform.


----------



## rodbac (Aug 16, 2005)

> No, you (deliberately) misunderstood what I wrote. If you refuse to accept gaining understanding from me, then read what BobCamp1 posted again. Maybe he can get through to you where I cannot.


No, bicker, I understood perfectly. Your post was clear. Thanks for admitting it.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

BobCamp1 said:


> It's not free because the government keeps interfering. IMO, its efforts to make it competitive have made the problem worse so far. It certainly hasn't made things any better.


 the government didnot agree with itself and ended doing a halfway job of regulation. They need to just finish now and drop the waiver on DBS. Nothing more - nothing less.


> It is competitive, but not as you want it. The vast majority of normal people (none of them visit this forum) want to pick the service first, then just grab whatever DVR comes with it. People are like that.


 true enough. There are consumers who think it is normal to just have to chuck out everything and start over to move to a different broadcaster. Many just use the same provider all the time out of habit and do not even bother to see what other option and what they really have. Many just eat at the same restaraunt whenever they go out as well.

Still does not mean that eating places should not all have equal access. I have no illusion of a magic wand - just want the gov. to finish what they started - it has actually worked well enough with cable, just slowly like the free amrket sometimes is.


----------



## Martyp (Jan 6, 2004)

bicker said:


> Thanks for getting us back on the topic of using TiVo HD with satellite services.
> 
> As you know, I also share your _wish_ regarding this: The laws should have been applied to all the competitors equally, cable, satellite, IP, etc. And that should apply to separable security, must-carry, mandatory dual-carriage, etc. However, it's just a _wish_.


The only problem here is that cable use's the public right of way . Satellites do not . Cable has must carry rules because they where able to get into areas that sat was not allowed or is not a choice .


----------



## Martyp (Jan 6, 2004)

I would aslo state that sat tuners and cable are different . How would tivo be able to assure directv or dish that folks would not be able to tune channels they dont pay for? 

I am still using directv with tivo units and also have 2 of their hd dvrs while different it does do the job . I still like the tivo interface but to record hd ota and sat the directv unit does just fine .


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

rodbac said:


> No, bicker, I understood perfectly. Your post was clear. Thanks for admitting it.


You've stooped to posting self-serving drivel, now, rodbloc. Let us know when you're willing to rejoin an actual discussion, where two sides get to present their perspectives.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> the government didnot agree with itself and ended doing a halfway job of regulation. They need to just finish now and drop the waiver on DBS. Nothing more - nothing less.


As you know, I would like to see that, but the reality is that they don't necessarily "need" to do that. There may be no prevailing support for doing anything other than what they've already done. Remember, their charter is to balance consumer and business considerations, not advocate for one over the other. The various waivers that apply to satellite services are part of that balance, and removing any of them, while that may be good for consumers, could be bad for the competitive market as a whole.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Martyp said:


> The only problem here is that cable use's the public right of way . Satellites do not . Cable has must carry rules because they where able to get into areas that sat was not allowed or is not a choice .


Well, as I indicated above, I think there are *other* reasons why things need not change. Cable's use of the public rights of way is already accounted for, in the vast majority of franchising agreements, by way of lucrative benefits for the municipalities, starting with free cable and television service. In addition, through such deals, cable is required to submit to price regulation for lifeline cable service, often offered at less than cost.

Beyond that satellite services do use public rights of way, of a sort; NASA has to track them.


----------



## ciper (Nov 4, 2004)

I invite all of you to click the small caution logo







on Bickers posts which are "problematic (harassment, fighting, or rude)" according to the guidelines of this forum.

I enjoy a good argument like everyone else. I love debating with nearly all of you but my personal opinion is that bicker does more harm to the health of this forum than good.



bicker said:


> You've stooped to posting self-serving drivel, now, rodbloc. Let us know when you're willing to rejoin an actual discussion, where two sides get to present their perspectives.


----------



## rodbac (Aug 16, 2005)

> Let us know when you're willing to rejoin an actual discussion, where two sides get to present their perspectives.


English wasn't one of my majors, but reading back over the thread, it looks like we both did so. A number of times, actually.

I've merely acknowledged what you said. If that's what's getting you all worked up, go back and edit it out or something.

[edit]

Thinking about it, if I've done something whereby you didn't get to "present your perspective", bicker, I sincerely apologize. Please take this opportunity to post all those well-informed perspectives you have pent up inside of you and I promise not to delete them, or whatever it is you believe I did to stifle your voice.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

No you haven't done something -- you've specifically told me to "stop". That was my objection.

Don't you worry; I've posted them anyway.


----------



## rodbac (Aug 16, 2005)

> Don't you worry; I've posted them anyway.


Thank goodness for that.

So you *have* been able to "present your perspective" after all.

That's what I thought.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

Martyp said:


> I would aslo state that sat tuners and cable are different . How would tivo be able to assure directv or dish that folks would not be able to tune channels they dont pay for?
> 
> I am still using directv with tivo units and also have 2 of their hd dvrs while different it does do the job . I still like the tivo interface but to record hd ota and sat the directv unit does just fine .


The same way that people aren't able to tune channels that they don't pay for via cable. That's the whole point of the seperateable security mandate.


Martyp said:


> The only problem here is that cable use's the public right of way . Satellites do not .


Err, wrong again. I'm pretty sure that the public airwaves that the satellites broadcast on are just a public resource just as the rights of way that cables run through are.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> The various waivers that apply to satellite services are part of that balance, and removing any of them, while that may be good for consumers, could be bad for the competitive market as a whole.


The only waiver I want dropped is the one on a common seperate security access. Please reply with specifics on how dropping that waiver would be bad for the competitiv market as a whole. And you need more than costs involved, the cable industry seems to be doing alright despite the added cost of cable card access.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

The other waiver I have in mind is the one regarding local broadcast must-carry. I believe the logic is that satellite providers need the waivers to remain profitable. I suspect DirecTV could withstand the loss of the waivers, but Dish Network almost surely cannot. Dish Network won't reveal the proprietary information needed to know how much revenue they would lose from not being able to impose their own equipment on their customers, but I see no reason to believe it wouldn't be large enough to put them over the edge.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> Dish Network won't reveal the proprietary information needed to know how much revenue they would lose from not being able to impose their own equipment on their customers, but I see no reason to believe it wouldn't be large enough to put them over the edge.


Dish has not been well run for years - there is a reason they shuffled all the business divisions around into new entities - effectively letting hardware be its own profit center.

Tha handling of local carriage by DISH is a prime example of bad busines dealings effected from the top down at DISH

The handling of the TiVo lawsuit and driving it to the edge versus just making a mutually beneficial deal and moving on is another example of their bad business dealings.

There is balancing competitive forces and there is letting a disreputable business man skate by on his bad choices.

Still - that is a different waiver and one they can keep in place on its merits despite ropping the common access waiver. So are you going to answer to "reply with specifics on how dropping that waiver would be bad for the competitiv market as a whole"


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> The only waiver I want dropped is the one on a common seperate security access. Please reply with specifics on how dropping that waiver would be bad for the competitiv market as a whole. And you need more than costs involved, the cable industry seems to be doing alright despite the added cost of cable card access.


D* already does this. They use Smart Cards instead of CableCards. ISO 7816. Separable security. Since most customers wouldn't want a Tivo that did both satellite and cable (way too expensive), why force D* to switch the type of card they use if it's already an industry standard? Let the cable Tivos use CableCards and the D*Tivos use Smart Cards.

And was D* invited to these meetings that determined the CableCard standard? D* isn't a member of the NCTA nor is it a member of CableLabs. As a DBS provider, they are actually banned from joining CableLabs. How would they provide input or get their equipment validated?

Finally, one of the reasons the SDV dongle is being developed is that Tivo has unofficially sworn off DBS. Even if DBS were forced to support CableCards, I don't think Tivo would bite. And I don't think anyone else would, either.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

The thing is, Cable cards were never the mandate. The mandate was that the FCC put in place a mechanism to ensure that there the consumer would have the ability to purchase their equipment independent of the service provider that they chose. I posted the exact text of the law in the other thread discussing this same topic (why we need to have the same conversation twice in two different places is completely beyond me).

The current situation is a result of the FCC halfway implementing the will of the people (as expressed by our legislators). There is no technical reason that a smart card enabled Tivo can't be built, it would just take the FCC mandating that E* and D* open up their standards to allow this to happen, perfectly (almost) satisfying the intent of the 96 telecom act.

Finally, your statement that the SDV dongle equates to swearing off DBS is absolutely the most ridiculous thing that I've read all day. There is no way that a sane person can say that just because Tivo wants to serve their cable customers to the best of their ability that this is some magic sign that they're not interested in the DBS business. The two are completely and utterly unconnected.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

BobCamp1 said:


> D* already does this. They use Smart Cards instead of CableCards. ISO 7816.


 I am not saying that DBSproviders have to use cable cards. I am saying that the wiaver be dropped and the process should begin of figuring out common access among all nulti-channel video providers.



> And was D* invited to these meetings that determined the CableCard standard? D* isn't a member of the NCTA nor is it a member of CableLabs. As a DBS provider, they are actually banned from joining CableLabs. How would they provide input or get their equipment validated?


 that statement belies you do not know the history behind this. Congress passed the law that all multi channel providers work out a common access standard. Dish and DirectTV cried that they could not survive such an onerous change to their systems and got a temporary waiver from the FCC. so yes they were invited but they uninvited themselves and left the cable companies to proceed on their own. Now they can deal with the consequence of getting the waiver and deal with the in-place work of the cable companies while hammering out a universal standard for all multichannel.



> Finally, one of the reasons the SDV dongle is being developed is that Tivo has unofficially sworn off DBS. Even if DBS were forced to support CableCards, I don't think Tivo would bite. And I don't think anyone else would, either.


again wrong. Cable companies are working on SDV dongle as they want to avoid govt. oversight which was threatened if they did not work earnestly to make cable cards be as effective as their own equipment.

TiVo would happily make a dual tuner HD DVR for directTV - they could sell oh -say 140,000 a quarter.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> So are you going to answer to "reply with specifics on how dropping that waiver would be bad for the competitiv market as a whole"


I already did.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> I already did.


no technically about it even. I have not read any specifics from you about this. Can you point out where you did list the specifics.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

With respect, I have a funny feeling that you would refuse to acknowledge whatever I point out. So it doesn't make sense to bother pointing it out. Sorry things didn't work out.


----------



## rodbac (Aug 16, 2005)

> With respect, I have a funny feeling that you would refuse to acknowledge whatever I point out.


I'll back bicker up on this one- he seems to have a problem with that around this forum, so I get the same funny feeling.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> The only waiver I want dropped is the one on a common seperate security access. Please reply with specifics on how dropping that waiver would be bad for the competitiv market as a whole. And you need more than costs involved, the cable industry seems to be doing alright despite the added cost of cable card access.





bicker said:


> As you know, I would like to see that, but the reality is that they don't necessarily "need" to do that. There may be no prevailing support for doing anything other than what they've already done. Remember, their charter is to balance consumer and business considerations, not advocate for one over the other. The various waivers that apply to satellite services are part of that balance, and removing any of them, while that may be good for consumers, could be bad for the competitive market as a whole.





bicker said:


> The other waiver I have in mind is the one regarding local broadcast must-carry. I believe the logic is that satellite providers need the waivers to remain profitable. I suspect DirecTV could withstand the loss of the waivers, but Dish Network almost surely cannot. Dish Network won't reveal the proprietary information needed to know how much revenue they would lose from not being able to impose their own equipment on their customers, but I see no reason to believe it wouldn't be large enough to put them over the edge.





bicker said:


> With respect, I have a funny feeling that you would refuse to acknowledge whatever I point out. So it doesn't make sense to bother pointing it out. Sorry things didn't work out.





rodbac said:


> I'll back bicker up on this one- he seems to have a problem with that around this forum, so I get the same funny feeling.


actually, I was engaging Bicker in a constructive debate. He mentins some broad reasons why the DBS companies needed the waivers and I agree that for their business with its high startup costs and high risk that the waivers are part of the balancing act.

Now, what I have done is focus in on the one specific waiver about common access. How specifically would requiring a common access among DBS "be bad for the competitive market as a whole". It is these specifics I did not see elsewhere and without a reply on these specifics then there is no more debate and I have yet to see a good reason for keeping the common access waiver in place.

The idea that DISH would loose to much revenue by not being able to impose its own equipment I just do not see. The cable industry has figured out how to charge digital access fees per place in the house and I am sure Dish could figure out the same. The common access is not about a consumer still paying the same amount of money regardless of what they use nor is it about DIsh has to charge less since they are not renting out a receiver. As Bicker points out - the role of Govt. decreed common access is simply that I could make a DVR that would work with DBS and give them away for free or charge a million. Dish is also allowed to charge whatever fee for providing the feed of content to my 3rd party DVR, within reasonable competition. (they can not charge a million for my feed and 29.99 for a feed to their own DVR)


----------



## rodbac (Aug 16, 2005)

If you look back over my limited interaction with him, you'll see it's a lot of strawmen and non sequitors, so I'm not surprised at all when he feels people just don't "get" him.

So, in this case, I'm on his side because I get the same feeling he does that whatever "argument" he would make would have a high likelihood of being rejected.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Dish and DirectTV cried that they could not survive such an onerous change to their systems and got a temporary waiver from the FCC. so yes they were invited but they uninvited themselves and left the cable companies to proceed on their own. Now they can deal with the consequence of getting the waiver and deal with the in-place work of the cable companies while hammering out a universal standard for all multichannel.
> ...
> again wrong. Cable companies are working on SDV dongle as they want to avoid govt. oversight which was threatened if they did not work earnestly to make cable cards be as effective as their own equipment.
> 
> TiVo would happily make a dual tuner HD DVR for directTV - they could sell oh -say 140,000 a quarter.


DBS wasn't in a position to contribute to the standards over 12 years ago. They were still small and didn't have any power. I've been in these standards meetings before -- the big companies are always in charge, and the smaller companies just nod in agreement. So why bother going to the meetings, especially if the FCC gave indications that waivers would be forthcoming for several years?

Your reason is not the main reason why the SDV adapter exists. Cable companies have fought off the FCC on various issues for over 10 years now. Suddenly when it comes to SDV they are tired of fighting? I don't buy it. Yes, the FCC has clamped down a little recently, but it seems that SDV would be important enough to battle the FCC for another 10 years. Why would they go out of their way to create an adapter when the FCC didn't even mandate it? Simple -- there is a business case that encouraged it (not just with the S3s, but the S4s as well). The "satisfying the FCC" argument is a nice bonus, but not the main reason.

Finally, I'm sure Tivo would love to have their cake with a new D*Tivo and eat it too. But this new relationship between the cable companies and Tivo is new and a little fragile still, and that's where Tivo's focus is right now. Not only that, but D* is currently rolling out lots of new features (none of these features deal with separate security, so lifting the waiver would be pointless). It would be difficult for Tivo to catch up and support these new features right now. I think Tivo would want to wait a couple of years for things to settle down before trying to reestablish a relationship with D*.

As far as E* goes, well, they are still busy suing each other. I don't think an E*Tivo is in the near future.


----------



## gguillot (Sep 22, 2003)

Emily,

I was in a similar situation. Tivo could not get my Series 3 to work with my cable company, so I went with Dish Network and their new VIP722 model DVR. While it is definitely not a Tivo, I am managing to get by with it. I still use the cable companies basic cable with 2 Series 2 Tivo's, but no HD through cable.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

BobCamp1 said:


> DBS wasn't in a position to contribute to the standards over 12 years ago. They were still small and didn't have any power. I've been in these standards meetings before -- the big companies are always in charge, and the smaller companies just nod in agreement. So why bother going to the meetings, especially if the FCC gave indications that waivers would be forthcoming for several years?


As I've said before, while that might have been a reasonable case for a *temporary* waiver 12 years ago, the landscape is different now. The reasons for that waiver are no longer valid and it should go away.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

BobCamp1 said:


> DBS wasn't in a position to contribute to the standards over 12 years ago. They were still small and didn't have any power. I've been in these standards meetings before -- the big companies are always in charge, and the smaller companies just nod in agreement. So why bother going to the meetings, especially if the FCC gave indications that waivers would be forthcoming for several years?


 Right. The FCC granted the waiver specifically to ensure DBS got off the ground(could not resist pun). I actually think adding in DBS would have prolonged the standard speccing with the wrinkles they added. DBS would not be just nodding over cable card and the big cable companies of course would not know what worked for DBS. Still DBS *wanted* to be excluded then, it was not the other way around.



> Your reason is not the main reason why the SDV adapter exists. Cable companies have fought off the FCC on various issues for over 10 years now. Suddenly when it comes to SDV they are tired of fighting? I don't buy it.


 not tired of fightingt, but just recognizing that Cable Card was a working reality, SDV was a strategic piece of their infrastructure and that the FCC would not let Cable Card stay at only getting some of the channels.
An easy enough answer was available in hanging a DOCIS modem off the TiVo and that would keep the FCC/Congres mollified and they would not come up with new rules. So they avoid a battle with the FCC and keep SDV and TiVo partner of Comcast is happy as well - wins all around. So it looks like we are saying the same thing just from different perspectives.



> Finally, I'm sure Tivo would love to have their cake with a new D*Tivo and eat it too. But this new relationship between the cable companies and Tivo is new and a little fragile still, and that's where Tivo's focus is right now.


Well of course TiVo is focused on cable, they can not do anything with DBS  I highly doubt that a contract with a DBS company would upset the cable/TiVo dealings other than resource contentions within TiVo itself. Also a new DirectTV TiVo that was truly 3rd party independant of DirectTV would be what TiVo wanted it to be - not what DirectTV wanted it to be - that is what common access is all about - competition and innovation.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> So it looks like we are saying the same thing just from different perspectives.
> ...
> Also a new DirectTV TiVo that was truly 3rd party independant of DirectTV would be what TiVo wanted it to be - not what DirectTV wanted it to be - that is what common access is all about - competition and innovation.


I agree we agree. 

Also, competition does exist between DBS and cable. DBS had on-screen guides and PPV, and cable followed. Cable offered VoD, and D* followed. ReplayTV and UltimateTV came out, then Tivo enhanced the idea, and suddenly everyone offered DVRs. Everyone offered DIFFERENT DVRs.

The only argument is who the driver of innovation should be. My point is that D* and Tivo would have to work together. I think if a new company had a great idea, D* or E* would be willing to work with them (DirecTivo). But if it's the same device they already have with a different GUI, that really isn't innovation and just adds lots of support costs for no reason. What new functionality would Tivo add that would make it really stand out from an HR-2x or VIP722?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Now, what I have done is focus in on the one specific waiver about common access. How specifically would requiring a common access among DBS "be bad for the competitive market as a whole". It is these specifics I did not see elsewhere and without a reply on these specifics then there is no more debate and I have yet to see a good reason for keeping the common access waiver in place. The idea that DISH would loose to much revenue by not being able to impose its own equipment I just do not see.


Which is literally exactly what I said: "With respect, I have a funny feeling that you would refuse to acknowledge whatever I point out."


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

rodbac said:


> If you look back over my limited interaction with him, you'll see it's a lot of strawmen and non sequitors, so I'm not surprised at all when he feels people just don't "get" him.


Except ZeoTiVo knows that he and I have substantial discussions all the time. So the problem between me and you -- that must be you.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

GoHokies! said:


> As I've said before, while that might have been a reasonable case for a *temporary* waiver 12 years ago, the landscape is different now. The reasons for that waiver are no longer valid and it should go away.


Especially if Swanni is correct: http://www.tvpredictions.com/swanniseventext.htm

As a matter of fact, I could see revocation of the waivers being a condition of approval of the merger.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

bicker said:


> Especially if Swanni is correct: http://www.tvpredictions.com/swanniseventext.htm
> 
> As a matter of fact, I could see revocation of the waivers being a condition of approval of the merger.


Hmm, now that's an interesting wrinkle.

I think that if we see the Sirius/XM merger go through, that there will be a lot of serious (no pun intended) thought about the merger between the two.

To add in another can of worms, this could provide the motivation for E* to settle their legal issues with Tivo.

A huge settlement check and a mandate that they be able to build DVRs for use with the new DBS company would be a hell of a win for Tivo. There's a hell of a lot of very weak "if"s in there, but it's certainly nice to dream about.


----------



## rodbac (Aug 16, 2005)

> So the problem between me and you -- that must be you.


Good reasoning. It wasn't me you were speaking to when you said you didn't think he'd think what you had to say had merit.

"ZeoTivo, I don't think you'd agree with what I think, so it must be rodbac."

Boy you extend a helping hand to someone and this is the thanks you get...


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> Which is literally exactly what I said: "With respect, I have a funny feeling that you would refuse to acknowledge whatever I point out."


OK - then you think DIsh would loose too much money if they could not provide their own hardware and I think they would just figure out how to charge differently. We disagree on that we will not know without spending a lot of money to get the real research.

Still if that is your only specific then it does not seem much of a reason to keep the waiver. Part of the idea of competition is to make companies react with better ways to do things versus just letting them shovel the same old stuff at us.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> Especially if Swanni is correct: http://www.tvpredictions.com/swanniseventext.htm
> 
> As a matter of fact, I could see revocation of the waivers being a condition of approval of the merger.


that would be a large and costly merger - ironic that they would have to deal with sorting out their two differnet delivery and security systems as most likely the biggest infrastructure cost t0o swallow.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

rodbac said:


> It wasn't me you were speaking to when you said you didn't think he'd think what you had to say had merit.


That isn't what I said, and the fact that you misread what I wrote really highlights your problem.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Still if that is your only specific then it does not seem much of a reason to keep the waiver.


And just because consumers prefer to have their perspective favored over that of business doesn't seem to be much of a reason to remove the waiver. Stalemate. To break the logjam, it is necessary to show that the change would benefit the market in its entirety, and both the Republicans and Democrats have been trending pro-business over the last thirty years, so figure that they would both figure that granting the waiver to all suppliers would be better than taking the waiver away from any. The country has changed quite a bit since 1980, and even since 1996.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> And just because consumers prefer to have their perspective favored over that of business doesn't seem to be much of a reason to remove the waiver. Stalemate. To break the logjam, it is necessary to show that the change would benefit the market in its entirety, and both the Republicans and Democrats have been trending pro-business over the last thirty years, so figure that they would both figure that granting the waiver to all suppliers would be better than taking the waiver away from any. The country has changed quite a bit since 1980, and even since 1996.


the change seems to have been very good for Cable Industry. They now have a standards body in place at Cable Labs and talk of tru2way s shoring up the standards in OCAP so all the cable companies end up working the same way which only makes it easier to build new/better hardware and cheaper in volume to produce.

Now Cable Card is becoming a way to reduce churn in the cable industry as people that buy into it typically are making purchases that would disuade them from switching to DBS

Frankly I think DBS hurt themselves far more than helped themselves by using the waiver on common access.


----------



## rodbac (Aug 16, 2005)

bicker said:


> That isn't what I said, and the fact that you misread what I wrote really highlights your problem.


LOL. Yeah, bicker. Just stick to what you know.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Now Cable Card is becoming a way to reduce churn in the cable industry as people that buy into it typically are making purchases that would disuade them from switching to DBS


I'm not sure I see that much reduction in churn. I don't see any increase in churn either.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

rodbac said:


> LOL. Yeah, bicker. Just stick to what you know.


That's what I've *been* doing. Hopefully some of it will sink in, eventually.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Frankly I think DBS hurt themselves far more than helped themselves by using the waiver on common access.


D* currently has four companies making DVRs and even more making receivers. During this time they have grown -- in fact, that's the main argument everone is making as to why the waiver should be lifted. E* doesn't even have that and they are still successful.

You can be successful with a closed or open standard -- it just depends how much of the R&D burden your company wants to shoulder. D* is keeping the software in house and contracting out the hardware. E* is keeping both in house. Both are successful.

Having said that, it will be interesting to see if any other company besides Tivo makes a cable DVR and if they can make money on it. No one has yet. You can force open the access, but what if no one wants to use it?


----------



## rodbac (Aug 16, 2005)

> That's what I've been doing. Hopefully some of it will sink in, eventually.


We'll all keep our fingers crossed for you.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

More so, for _you_. >I< already understand this stuff.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

BobCamp1 said:


> E* is keeping both in house.


Completely off point, but it according to the courts, they did outsource their R&D to Tivo for a long time - they just forgot to give them and credit or compensation for it.  (sorry, can't help getting the dig in on those bastards)


> You can force open the access, but what if no one wants to use it?


This is something that's I'd prefer the market to decide - if no one else wants to build, that's their business, but they should at least be given the chance.


----------



## rodbac (Aug 16, 2005)

bicker said:


> More so, for _you_. >I< already understand this stuff.


Of course you do. It's pretty tough material for the rest of us, too.

[edit]

Here's a typical exchange from this thread chosen almost at random that really showcases your "understanding":



bicker said:


> but as we've apparently agreed, more providers requires customers to be willing to pay more.





rodbac said:


> More providers providing a service does *not* require customers to pay more





bicker said:


> I didn't say that it did.


Let me know if you want more.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

And you conveniently left out the exchange where I noted how you took that statement out of context and out of context it makes no logical sense:


bicker said:


> Service won't improve, and extra competitors won't enter the market, unless there was enough money to be made. That's not the words I used in that one case you quoted out of context, but that was the point I was making.


So, that statement has already been dispensed with, way back in message #64, yet here you are trying to make a point about it *again*. Deceitful.

You see, I think *that's* my biggest problem with you. You're not really here to have a discussion. Your intention is simply to find opportunities to engage in malicious deception.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

emandbri said:


> "I'm the queen you are the worker bee, your job is to feed me, do me, and die."


This is *WAY* off topic, but the workers do not mate with the queen, and they have many duties throughout their lives other than feeding the queen. All worker bees are sterile females. It's drones which mate with a queen, but not with the queen of the hive in which they were hatched, unless she is replaced by a new queen. Drones never feed the queen. Their only function is to mate with a queen from another hive and then die, or else die trying to find a queen with which to mate.


----------



## rodbac (Aug 16, 2005)

> You see, I think that's my biggest problem with you. You're not really here to have a discussion. Your intention is simply to find opportunities to engage in malicious deception.


That's rich. Don't pretend you've been able to carry on a conversation about the subject we were discussing, bicker. Everyone who's been reading this thread can go back and see very well there was nothing whatsoever taken out of context in that quote.

In your defense, you admitted you were wrong and tried to clarify, but I posted it because it speaks to your habit of simply trying to blurt out dismissals and nonsense whether you have a leg to stand on or not.

Stick to discussing where current legislation may lead and such, as I think you may have interesting takes on it with your biases. On the subject you were attempting to refute, however, you're off-base, a fact made painfully obvious by _your own_ statements throughout the thread. There's no shame in admitting it.

[edit]

I'm going to stop crapping on the thread now. Enjoy.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

I just don't care.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

rodbac said:


> Everyone who's been reading this thread can go back and see very well there was nothing whatsoever taken out of context in that quote.


sorry, but I think you simply misunderstood what Bicker was saying there, no matter if quote were out of context or not.

He was not trying to say that more companies would raise the cost of service

he was trying to say that the cost of services would have to rise for a company to see a good business case in entering the broadcast market.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

BobCamp1 said:


> D* currently has four companies making DVRs and even more making receivers. During this time they have grown -- in fact, that's the main argument everone is making as to why the waiver should be lifted. E* doesn't even have that and they are still successful.
> 
> You can be successful with a closed or open standard -- it just depends how much of the R&D burden your company wants to shoulder. D* is keeping the software in house and contracting out the hardware. E* is keeping both in house. Both are successful.
> 
> Having said that, it will be interesting to see if any other company besides Tivo makes a cable DVR and if they can make money on it. No one has yet. You can force open the access, but what if no one wants to use it?


I do not disagree that the DBS companies are doing alright still and in fact come down on the side of they do not need the waiver anymore. My point was more one of with common access they could have let outside companies shoulder more of the R&D costs as in place DVR companies could think of making design references on the open access without a specific DBS company agreement. The DVR market is a tough one to enter, I would not expect a brand new company to come along but established DVR makers (E* included) would look seriously at open standard DVRs - indeed E* is getting out an OTA only DVR to grab some market when OTA goes digital. The interest is there but the common access needs to be moved forward in order to mature it to the point that it is just a samll part of the process and innovation is the main part of the process. That is my main reason for wanting the waiver dropped soon - it will take years to work out DBS in the common access mix. FCC should get those discussions started now versus later. The FCC certainly showed they can extend any deadline they set and keep working with the industry to make sure the goal of innovating and creating more business oppurtunities is met.

That is what they did with cable and despite all the BS and issues and contentions we are seeing results now.
Cable Cards are out and everyone is getting used to how to deal with them. Comcast is using Cable Labs to create an OCAP standard that ALL cable companie will use to make things easier and TiVo has a partnership with Comcast that advances both businesses while consumers are getting more choices.

So why is dropping the DBS waiver on common access going to result in something different happening? I have not seen anyone come up with anything to show there would be bad results different from the cable company experience.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> This is *WAY* off topic, but the workers do not mate with the queen,


Yeah, that bugged me, too. It's a quote from Joy, though; and you can't expect _her_ to be accurate.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> Again: It is competition. You may want more competition, but the market isn't lucrative enough.


You're going to have to go a very long way indeed to convince me of that. (In fact, you can't.) I know the financials for one of my two local CATV providers, at least, and lucrative is far too pale a word for their operation. The local CATV provider is pulling down more than $30 million a month in gross revenue with fewer than 3000 employees, and they enjoy a whopping big chunk of levered free cash flow. They had to spend an ungodly amount of cash to get there, and they still have a really big chunk of cash yet to spend, but no industry which is able to spend more than $10 billion in less than 3 years on upgrades can claim it is in a martket which is anything but lucrative.


----------



## CrashHD (Nov 10, 2006)

wmcbrine said:


> Yeah, that bugged me, too. It's a quote from Joy, though; and you can't expect _her_ to be accurate.


I thought that fact that it's something wrong that sounds almost right makes it a more in-character thing for Joy to say.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> So why is dropping the DBS waiver on common access going to result in something different happening? I have not seen anyone come up with anything to show there would be bad results different from the cable company experience.


On the technical side:
A: The standards are partly/mostly there. In fact all there for Dishnetwork, since they use DVB, they simply need offer CAM modules that can be used in existing DVB receivers with CI slots. Now, if they (either provider) want some semblance of content security, they will have some work to do, but could leverage what Cablelabs has accomplished, by working a deal with them.

B: Satellite TV is inherently a one-way service, thereby eliminating a lot of holdup that exists in the 3rd party Cablecard box business.

C: for their MPEG4 channels, my understanding is all providers are using DVB S-2. Just saying . It might mean something. It might not.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

classicsat said:


> On the technical side:
> A: The standards are partly/mostly there. In fact all there for Dishnetwork, since they use DVB, they simply need offer CAM modules that can be used in existing DVB receivers with CI slots. Now, if they (either provider) want some semblance of content security, they will have some work to do, but could leverage what Cablelabs has accomplished, by working a deal with them.
> 
> B: Satellite TV is inherently a one-way service, thereby eliminating a lot of holdup that exists in the 3rd party Cablecard box business.
> ...


right - so It would be straightforwward for just DBS companies to work out a standard access method and it does not sound like they are that far apart anyhow.

and it sounds like they could work out a common secuirty acces method with cable as well.

Then it leaves 3rd parties with the decision on whether naking one DVR device with enough hardware to acccess either cable or DBS has a sellable market or not but it owuld be based on receiver/tuner issues veruss having two security methods to deal with.

the waiver should be dropped and work started on making the hardware a commodity item for Consumers so broadcasters can get back to their core business of well - broadcasting content.


----------

