# Tivo Requests FCC Waiver: New Devices!



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017161971

In a nutshell, they want to remove analog for the next generation, top to bottom. Unlike how they specifically named the Elite for the waiver last time, this time they are not indicating exactly what the devices are, but rather requesting a waiver for "upcoming DVR models."

They are retaining the Premiere brand and will have one model with OTA.

No release timeline is given.

===

Some snippets....

"In 2011, the Commission granted TiVo a waiver of the digital cable ready certification ... to permit TiVo to bring all-digital cable-only DVRs to the retail market for the first time. This petition requests an extension of that waiver to several new all-digital cable only devices and a slight extension of that waiver to cover devices that permit reception of digital broadcast ("DTV") signals."

"TiVo ... has two years of consumer data showing that its audience no longer needs or wants analog tuning functionality in TiVo DVRs. Following the Commission's previous waiver, TiVo ... found that only 0.2% of customers commented about the absence of analog tuning capability and only 0.05% of customers ceased subscribing to TiVo service as a result. TiVo's technologically savvy customer base simply no longer has any use for analog television service and saddling them with the cost ($100 to $150 per device) of analog equipment they do not need and will never use serves no rational policy goal."

" TiVo Inc. ... hereby petitions the Media Bureau for waiver. ... The waiver would permit TiVo to manufacture and sell new models of its innovative digital video recorders ("DVRs") without including vestigial analog tuners that increase costs and power consumption without providing any useful functionality for consumers."

"*The devices subject to the requested waivers are part of the next generation of TiVo's all-digital "Premiere" line,* for which the Commission previously granted TiVo waivers..."

"*One model of TiVo' s new all-digital DVRs would include ATSC over-the-air reception capability*"

"... the costs of including now unnecessary analog functionality in TiVo DVRs have only increased. TiVo's base cost is approximately $10 for each analog tuner included in each device... When design and production costs are factored in, including this analog functionality increases the retail price of each device by between $100 and $150 depending on the model."


----------



## tatergator1 (Mar 27, 2008)

Tivo still plans to provide support for the OTA cord cutters:

_One model of TiVo' s new all-digital DVRs would include ATSC over-the-air reception capability; this model, therefore, requires waiver of both the DCR Rules and Section 15.117(b)'s dual analog/digital tuner requirement._

No indication of number of tuners, but OTA support will be maintained.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Good to hear they're not abandoning ATSC. Analog can go as far as I'm concerned.

Interesting accounting, $10 becomes $150.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

We still have some analog only stations here.  However I'm more mad at Charter for not simulcasting them, or better yet providing HD versions, then I am at TiVo for dumping analog support. It's about time analog went away completely.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

Apparently there is a hard deadline of September 1, 2015 for terminating all remaining analog. Still a ways away, but it sucks that anybody would still be stuck with analog-only for some channels like Dan is.

Won't miss analog in the slightest here.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Is the cost of the analog tuner that big of an expense or space taker? Is it a separate module?


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

wmcbrine said:


> Good to hear they're not abandoning ATSC. Analog can go as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> Interesting accounting, $10 becomes $150.


I wonder if they are including all customers still using analog equipment. I'm still using analog since it provides me with the most freedom with my shows.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

netringer said:


> Is the cost of the analog tuner that big of an expense or space taker? Is it a separate module?


They're claiming an expense of $10 per analog tuner and that the cost has actually risen over time. With the analog tuners would also come mpeg2 encoding and memory chips. So I suppose it adds up some in cost, PCB space, and power consumption.


----------



## csell (Apr 16, 2007)

BigJimOutlaw said:


> Apparently there is a hard deadline of September 1, 2015 for terminating all remaining analog. Still a ways away, but it sucks that anybody would still be stuck with analog-only for some channels like Dan is.
> 
> Won't miss analog in the slightest here.


My cable company also has a handful of channels still only available in analog.


----------



## jtrain (Jan 17, 2006)

This has been my biggest hangup in jumping to Premiere 4 or XL4 (cable only devices). 

Some time ago i had cut the cord for about two years and watched strictly off a homemade HD antenna on my S3 OLED (lifetime'd). About a year and a half ago, i went back to cable (Comcast) and currently have two 2-tuner Premieres and my S3 OLED still going strong (the S3 is still on the HD antenna (only) and is not connected to cable at all, but I can transfer shows from each of the Premieres to it and from it as needed). 

In the future, I may again cut the cord, but don't want to lose the flexibility of having TiVo for OTA (and availability to their latest boxes). While all 3 of my current boxes will accept OTA, it'd be nice to keep up (to some degree) with newer hardware as it comes out, that still has OTA capability.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

csell said:


> My cable company also has a handful of channels still only available in analog.


We actually have about 30, but only a few that I actually watch. (i.e. Comedy Central, A&E, FX & MSNBC) However if I had kids it would be a bigger issue as all of the kids channels, like Nick, Disney, Cartoon Network, ABC Family, etc..., are still analog only. What's really weird is that there are like 3 channels that are simulcast. I can tune them on both my Premiere Elite and my wife's S2. So why they can't just do that with the rest I don't know. If they could then I could get rid of my 2 tuner Premiere and use my Elite for everything.


----------



## Loach (Jan 11, 2013)

Dan203 said:


> We still have some analog only stations here.  However I'm more mad at Charter for not simulcasting them, or better yet providing HD versions, then I am at TiVo for dumping analog support. It's about time analog went away completely.


When I bought my Premiere 4 last month I was thinking I would lose the handful of Cox analog stations in my area that did not have an equivalent HD channel. I even gave some thought to just getting the 2-tuner Premiere but realized the only analog channel I had ever recorded from that group was TVLand and was willing to lose that. Then when I completed the initial setup, I was surprised to see all the SD channels still there - didn't realize Cox was simulcasting them in digital. Too bad Charter is not doing the same for you.

What happens when a cable company goes all digital? Do you have to have a STB or cable card at each TV then to get the basic package or do they just start providing more channels in clear QAM?


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

90 days would put it in May. I forget how far after we saw the Elite. I believe it was released in September, but forget when TiVo filed the original waiver request. 

This would put them May-July depending on the FCC. With the Mini not out yet, I could almost see them now waiting to release the Mini until the new boxes were announced. 

3 days from now, 2/11, is 3 years since TiVo sent out the invitations to their event on March 2nd to announce the Premiere.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

Loach said:


> What happens when a cable company goes all digital? Do you have to have a STB or cable card at each TV then to get the basic package or do they just start providing more channels in clear QAM?


Depends on the cableco. Most deliver the local channels in clear QAM and encrypt the national channels. So you would at the very least need a digital-capable TV to see the locals, but you need some type of STB/cablecard to view the rest.

I believe cablecos are now allowed to encrypt the locals too if they wish, but I don't think most do at this point.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Loach said:


> What happens when a cable company goes all digital? Do you have to have a STB or cable card at each TV then to get the basic package or do they just start providing more channels in clear QAM?


Actually the FCC just granted the cable cos permission to encrypt all QAM channels, even locals, if they switch to all digital. So for the ones that do that you'll need a box or CableCARD for every TV.


----------



## tatergator1 (Mar 27, 2008)

Loach said:


> What happens when a cable company goes all digital? Do you have to have a STB or cable card at each TV then to get the basic package or do they just start providing more channels in clear QAM?


A box at each TV, often referred to as DTA's (Digital Transport Adapter). I know Comcast began the switch to all digital at least a year ago. They offered the DTA's free initially, but are now charging for each one. Video quality may be better, but the conversion is actually more beneficial for the provider since they save a lot of the bandwidth that used to carry the analog signal. They also get to charge you per TV connected (via the box) again as it was back in the 70's and 80's. The only caveat to the cable company is dealing with their legacy customers who have been running analog without any boxes in the home for the last 10+ years and having to send techs out to install DTA's in those homes.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> We still have some analog only stations here.  However I'm more mad at Charter for not simulcasting them, or better yet providing HD versions, then I am at TiVo for dumping analog support. It's about time analog went away completely.


Charter has been simulcasting 2-99 for us since last year. I don't know how long they have been doing it with cable box users, but they finally started mapping 2-99 to digital on my cablecard TiVos.


----------



## Loach (Jan 11, 2013)

BigJimOutlaw said:


> Depends on the cableco. Most broadcast the local channels in clean QAM and encrypt the national channels. So you would at the very least need a digital-capable TV to see the locals, but you need some type of STB/cablecard to view the rest.


That's what I was afraid of. Currently in my bedroom I have an HDTV with no STB. I get all the local channels from Cox in HD via clear QAM. But I also get the national channels 2 through 70 in analog and it sounds like I would lose those without a STB if Cox went all-digital.

Of course, I'd like to put a Tivo Mini on that TV anyway and I've heard nothing of Cox threatening to go all-digital yet in my area. Hopefully the Mini will be out before Cox would ever go all-digital....


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

Probably related to the recent TiVo survey which mentioned a 300 HD hour 4 tuner device with OTA support. And to set the stage for a Premiere replacement towards the end of the year or early next year.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

innocentfreak said:


> 90 days would put it in May. I forget how far after we saw the Elite. I believe it was released in September, but forget when TiVo filed the original waiver request.
> 
> This would put them May-July depending on the FCC. With the Mini not out yet, I could almost see them now waiting to release the Mini until the new boxes were announced.


The 2011 petition was submitted on June 7. They got the approval exactly 90 days later in September during CEDIA. Then released it in October. Is 90 days automatic? In the original petition they said their request met certain requirements to be considered within 90 days, but they're not giving it any mention this time.


----------



## Philmatic (Sep 17, 2003)

It seems silly to have OTA and non OTA hardware, they need to just figure out how to have 2/2 QAM/OTA, 4/4 QAM/OTA or 6/6 QAM/OTA tuner sets and be able to dynamically allocate any combination of tuners up to the total number of tuners that box supports.

I agree that Analog needs to go... removal of NTSC and MPEG 2 encoders should free up quite a bit of room on a redesigned motherboard, not to mention costs.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

The current box has the MPEG-2 encoders built into the Broadcom chipset. They're not separate chips. However the Brodadcom chipset used in the current Premiere platform only supports encoding 2 streams at once, which is why they disabled analog for the 4 tuner box in the first place.

With this new generation they may be looking at a chipset that doesn't do encoding at all, or they could be looking at one that does encoding but then to use those capabilities for built in Stream capabilities rather then to record analog video.

Either way with such a small percentage of cable companies still using analog it makes sense. Plus if it makes room for a 4/4 QAM/ATSC configuration that will make a lot of people happy.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

I'm wondering if they should even bother with a 2-tuner model of anything going forward. They just had a sale on 4-tuner boxes for $200. If they're going to (rightly) drop analog, maybe they should reuse the resources for OTA tuners.

I don't know what the tuner threshold of the Broadcom BCM7425 is, but that chip is being used in the Hopper with Sling and the 6-tuner Tivo/Pace XG1.

If Tivo were to be aggressive for the next-gen, we do know that the beefier BCM7435 could potentially support 8 tuners (making 4/4 or 6/2 or 6/0 possible) and has QUAD transcode streaming. If we go by Tivo's typical 2-year development cycle, the earliest this theoretical BCM7435 box would likely come out would be early next year. But... Tivo doesn't have a history of being too aggressive on their hardware, so it might be hoping for too much.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

BigJimOutlaw said:


> The 2011 petition was submitted on June 7. They got the approval exactly 90 days later in September during CEDIA. Then released it in October. Is 90 days automatic? In the original petition they said their request met certain requirements to be considered within 90 days, but they're not giving it any mention this time.


I assumed it was, but you are probably right. I forgot about the expedited request last time.


----------



## Philmatic (Sep 17, 2003)

I wish they'd move to an architecture that puts MPEG 4 encoders between the Tuner and the Hard Drive. That way they can save space by encoding the incoming MPEG 2 streams to MPEG 4 at a much lower bitrate and remove the need for the stream at all.

Transcoding existing recordings and live tv to MPEG 4 every time seems to be a waste, do it once when it comes in and be done with it.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

BigJimOutlaw said:


> I'm wondering if they should even bother with a 2-tuner model of anything going forward. They just had a sale on 4-tuner boxes for $200. If they're going to (rightly) drop analog, maybe they should reuse the resources for OTA tuners.
> 
> I don't know what the tuner threshold of the Broadcom BCM7425 is, but that chip is being used in the Hopper with Sling and the 6-tuner Tivo/Pace XG1.
> 
> If Tivo were to be aggressive for the next-gen, we do know that the beefier BCM7435 could potentially support 8 tuners (making 4/4 or 6/2 or 6/0 possible) and has QUAD transcode streaming. If we go by Tivo's typical 2-year development cycle, the earliest this theoretical BCM7435 box would likely come out would be early next year. But... Tivo doesn't have a history of being too aggressive on their hardware, so it might be hoping for too much.


Are there any Broadcom chips that support just 6 tuners? If so maybe they'll use that and do a 3/3 setup for cable and OTA and a 6/0 setup for cable only. They don't really need quad encoding capabilities. A dual encode H.264 chip would be plenty to offer built in Stream functionality.



Philmatic said:


> I wish they'd move to an architecture that puts MPEG 4 encoders between the Tuner and the Hard Drive. That way they can save space by encoding the incoming MPEG 2 streams to MPEG 4 at a much lower bitrate and remove the need for the stream at all.
> 
> Transcoding existing recordings and live tv to MPEG 4 every time seems to be a waste, do it once when it comes in and be done with it.


Most shows aren't encoded at all. They are simply recorded as-is from the data stream coming from your cable company. If your cable company starts to use MPEG-4 then TiVo will work just fine, just as it does now with MPEG-2. (there are a few places that are already starting to do this)

The only time an encoder comes into play is if the stream is analog or if you're streaming to a portable device like an iPad. This whole thread is about how TiVo is petitioning the FCC to allow them to produce boxes that don't do analog so that part is moot. So the only place an encoder would be needed is for streaming to a portable device. It makes much more sense for them to encode data on the fly for that purpose then it does to encode everything, reducing quality, just for the off chance that the user might want to stream to a portable device.


----------



## Philmatic (Sep 17, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> Most shows aren't encoded at all. They are simply recorded as-is from the data stream coming from your cable company. If your cable company starts to use MPEG-4 then TiVo will work just fine, just as it does now with MPEG-2. (there are a few places that are already starting to do this)
> 
> The only time an encoder comes into play is if the stream is analog or if you're streaming to a portable device like an iPad. This whole thread is about how TiVo is petitioning the FCC to allow them to produce boxes that don't do analog so that part is moot. So the only place an encoder would be needed is for streaming to a portable device. It makes much more sense for them to encode data on the fly for that purpose then it does to encode everything, reducing quality, just for the off chance that the user might want to stream to a portable device.


I know, but what I'm suggesting would bring the benefits of MPEG 4 to everyone regardless of when their Cable Company decides to introduce it. It would also bring back the quality selector, retro anyone?










Encoding everything to MPEG 4 also brings the benefit of using much much MUCH less space on the hard drive. You can use 1/3rd the bit rate and still offer similar quality, that would translate to a tripling of the HD Hours stat (300 HD hours would be 900).


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> Are there any Broadcom chips that support just 6 tuners? If so maybe they'll use that and do a 3/3 setup for cable and OTA and a 6/0 setup for cable only. They don't really need quad encoding capabilities. A dual encode H.264 chip would be plenty to offer built in Stream functionality.


I was wondering about them doing 3/3 as well. That'd make the cheaper 2-stream transcoder chip fit nicely. And a 3/3 and 6/0 setup is just plain cleaner than manufacturing 3 or more models with varying 2/2, 4/0, and 6/0 tuner setups.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Philmatic said:


> I know, but what I'm suggesting would bring the benefits of MPEG 4 to everyone regardless of when their Cable Company decides to introduce it. It would also bring back the quality selector, retro anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Never going to happen. Disk space is cheap, transcoding is not. Plus there are too many usability concerns when it comes to allowing the user to select a quality when you have the possibility of 3 different levels of incoming video. (i.e. SD, 720p and 1080i) If this waiver is granted then that quality selection screen is going to be gone for good from all future TiVo models.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

While it might not make sense from an economy of scale, maybe they use the beefier chip for the 4 hopefully 6 tuner model and then can use a lesser model in the base model.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

tatergator1 said:


> They also get to charge you per TV connected (via the box) again as it was back in the 70's and 80's.


OK, I guess it was actually in the 90s when I started with cable (not counting at college), but as I've said before, we got ALL of our cable, INCLUDING at least some premium channels (HBO) with NO BOXES.

I think that was glorious, and definitely miss the "just split the cable with a $2 splitter from Fry's" But when they FINALLY turned off all of the analog (for quite a while, it was basically broadcast stations + discovery + cspan as the only ones I cared about that were still in analog) I went and got my Premiere 4 within a day or two, because being down to "only" 2 tuners was a big step down! (I had my non-Tivo XS32, and a S1 to use mostly as "backup/more tuners needed" recordings as well as my TivoHD.)


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Dan203 said:


> Never going to happen. Disk space is cheap,


Disk space is sort of cheap(*), but how are they going to redesign the Tivo filesystem to allow > 2 TB drives? If they did this, they could "get more recording space" without having to actually use bigger drives. BTW, I too think it'll never happen, but heck, I record a lot of stuff onto my non-HD XS32 (mostly to watch faster than realtime), so I'd be perfectly fine with the *option* of reencoding things to NTSC-like quality. (It would still look better if there are no glitches, just like when I was using composite cables to watch my TivoHD.. heck now I'm usually going through component through my XS32 as the switcher.)

(*) 3 TB drives around $130 at Fry's. I'm eyeing one to use as (more) external storage for my Tivos.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I don't know enough about their file system to know for sure how hard that would be. But it's still more likely then transcoding everything to H.264. From a usability standpoint it's so much easier to record everything in it's original broadcast format.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

If you re-encode, you're going to lose quality. Other than FIOS, pretty much all cable providers re-encode, so you don't want to re-encode AGAIN.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

Bigg said:


> If you re-encode, you're going to lose quality. Other than FIOS, pretty much all cable providers re-encode, so you don't want to re-encode AGAIN.


True. And TiVo would never do this as there is no point in transcoding 24/7 (which would require some additional hardware expense) when they can just store the recordings in their original digital format.


----------



## P42 (Jan 7, 2003)

Encoding would also increase the 24/7 power consumption. If the goal is more recording space, then supporting 3TB or 4TB drives (which apparently requires an MFS change, or also an updated BIOS), or support two drives like the pre-SATA units did.

I'm glad to see continued support for OTA, which indicates to me Tivo has not abandoned the stand alone market, as much attention as they are giving the cable-co partnerships.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

One general observation I find interesting about this waiver request is how Tivo is testing the FCC's boundaries a little more this time around.

In the 2011 analog waiver, Tivo specifically named the Elite and its 4 digital tuners and requested waivers for that device alone. They also made a commitment to continue producing DVRs that did support analog. Support for the waiver was unanimous among all commenters, with the NCTA (Big Cable's lobby) being the only pill in the group supporting it conditionally by demanding the creation of pre-sale education materials and such. Another commenter said not only should the waiver be approved but it should be waived permanently for everybody.

The final word from the FCC on the matter was that the waivers are approved but, "this waiver extends only to that specific set-top box. ... Any device manufacturer that seeks to offer at retail a device similar to the Premiere Elite must petition for ... a waiver from the Commission based on the specific facts and circumstances surrounding its proposed retail offering."

The FCC also approved the waivers on the condition of ample pre-sale materials as the NCTA lobbied for.

The FCC also relied on Tivo's continued sale of analog-supported DVRs, stating "we rely on the fact that TiVo still intends to manufacture and sell set-top boxes that are compatible with analog cable service...".

This waiver request pushes the boundaries a little further. First, despite the FCC wanting specific facts surrounding an offering to receive a waiver, this time Tivo has not named specific products. Instead they're using the 2 years of strength and experience with the Elite/XL4/P4 to request a relatively blanket waiver for "the next generation of TiVo's all-digital 'Premiere' line" without any particular details.

Secondly, unlike their previous request, and despite the FCC's reliance on Tivo's continued sale of analog-supported DVRs, Tivo is no longer making any such guarantee this time around. Citing the rapid reduction in analog usage and availability, absent from their request this time is any language making a continued commitment to analog.

We're probably virtually unanimous in supporting the waiver, but my point in discussing all this is, because Tivo is testing the FCC boundaries a little more with this request we may see some more product details over the next few months. Depending on how "the pill in the group" (NCTA) reacts, they may want more information or put conditions on it that twists Tivo's hand a little bit into giving up more details, such as showing sample education materials and product documentation as they did with the Elite. It'll be interesting to watch the different bodies and companies weigh in on this... at least it's interesting to a wonk like me that nerdishly wants product details.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

Part of me hopes they are required to show more details, but the other part just wants it approved quickly. I also suspect it will be what we expect when it comes to new boxes since TiVo rarely if ever surprises us. 

As you said though it will be interesting to see how the NCTA reacts to a general request. Of course at the same time any analog stations left falls in part on the NCTA since some of their cable companies have not made the full transition.


----------



## andrew1883 (Apr 26, 2008)

> I know Comcast began the switch to all digital at least a year ago.


At the family's winter place in FL, last year only 2-25 were available directly off the coax. I got the Comcast HD box working on the LCD TV in the living room but it was a struggle getting anything to work in the bedroom, and even then important stations were missing (i.e. TCM -- and I do mean "i.e." not "e.g." ). So we just left it at 2-25 and hooked up a S2 TiVo on a splitter (2-25 was essentially the basic local stations plus a few other things).

This season the situation was the same, with warnings from Comcast that analogue (well, analog) would be completely gone as of Jan 29/13. I have no idea if that actually happened; ironically this year the bedroom TV hasn't been on, it's easier to watch stuff on a smartphone in bed, the screen is small but without the danger of falling asleep with a notebook on your stomach, and both offer a more TiVo-like experience than Comcast 2-25 with no recorder. 

Before I leave I'll have to get a STB (DTA) hooked up and working on the bedroom TV, and reconnect the Comcast HD box in the living room. Comcast provides two HD boxes and two SD DTAs, I think that's their contract with the condo. I was able to trade in one of the HD boxes for a CableCard and installed it in the TiVo Premiere I brought this year, otherwise it would have cost $10/mo or so.

I'll take it back with the CC intact (though it won't work in Canada); am I right the OTA tuner will still work if there's a non-connected CC installed? It would be great not to touch the CC and just bring the TiVo back next year and hook it up without messing around.

_[edit: I started writing this post to report another data point on lack of use for analogue and got a bit off-topic. I can start another thread to ask my questions if that's better. =aw]_

Thanks!
=aw


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

You can afford a spare house but not a spare TiVo?

Anyway, I don't think the CableCard will have any effect if you rerun guided setup and change it to OTA-only.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

rainwater said:


> True. And TiVo would never do this as there is no point in transcoding 24/7 (which would require some additional hardware expense) when they can just store the recordings in their original digital format.


Yup.



P42 said:


> Encoding would also increase the 24/7 power consumption. If the goal is more recording space, then supporting 3TB or 4TB drives (which apparently requires an MFS change, or also an updated BIOS), or support two drives like the pre-SATA units did.
> 
> I'm glad to see continued support for OTA, which indicates to me Tivo has not abandoned the stand alone market, as much attention as they are giving the cable-co partnerships.


Yup.

The only reason to do real-time re-encoding would be on the playback end, basically to put TiVo Stream into the box, and then support wireless TiVo Minis with the transcoded video.


----------



## NotNowChief (Mar 29, 2012)

Oh joy! TiVo filed a waiver! YAAAAAAAAAY!

Given TiVo's current rate of development, whatever they recently filed for we won't see brought to market for 5 years.

They'll show it off at CES in 2 or 3 years, get everyone anxious about it, then take another 2 or 3 years until it's actually for sale.

FACEPALM. FACEPALM. FACEPALM.


----------



## P42 (Jan 7, 2003)

@NotNowChief Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa 

Clearly you missed what happened the last time they filed a waiver


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

NotNowChief said:


> Oh joy! TiVo filed a waiver! YAAAAAAAAAY!
> 
> Given TiVo's current rate of development, whatever they recently filed for we won't see brought to market for 5 years.


The last time they filed for a waiver, we had the Elite a few months later.


----------



## gonzotek (Sep 24, 2004)

NotNowChief said:


> Oh joy! TiVo filed a waiver! YAAAAAAAAAY!
> 
> Given TiVo's current rate of development, whatever they recently filed for we won't see brought to market for 5 years.
> 
> ...


TiVo's Elite waiver filing suggests otherwise:
TiVo files for waiver for Premiere Elite, June 7 2011.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021689302

TiVo announces availability October 10th, 2011.
http://techcrunch.com/2011/10/10/the-tivo-premiere-elite-4-tuners-2-tb-available-today-for-499/

That time frame, coupled with the discounts TiVo has been offering on the existing products as of late, strongly suggests they intend to have new products available by holiday shopping time this year.

Also, the face-palm joke was stale two years ago and it does not get any better with repetition. I suggest working in some new material. Perhaps some 'TiVo's so slow' jokes could tide you over until they've released something new for you to pick apart.

e.g.
"TiVo's so slow, it takes 2 hours to record 60 minutes."


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

gonzotek said:


> That time frame, coupled with the discounts TiVo has been offering on the existing products as of late, strongly suggests they intend to have new products available by holiday shopping time this year.


I think this year is on the table. But I think it's also possible it could be missed, or something could launch this year and something more next year. Their first waiver for the Q/Elite was submitted with an expedited 90 day timeframe. I don't believe similar language was used this time.


----------



## NotNowChief (Mar 29, 2012)

gonzotek said:


> TiVo's Elite waiver filing suggests otherwise:
> TiVo files for waiver for Premiere Elite, June 7 2011.
> http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021689302
> 
> ...


No, the truth doesn't get old. You really believe these clowns will get anything to market this year? I have a bridge to sell you.

We'll get these boxes in the same manner with which I watch my TiVo content on my Android.

Come on man, Holiday this year? Impossible. You know that's gonna get delayed AT LEAST until next spring.

P.S.: TiVo's so slow my Credit Card expired while waiting for them to sell a new product.


----------



## NotNowChief (Mar 29, 2012)

P42 said:


> @NotNowChief Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> Clearly you missed what happened the last time they filed a waiver


Not crying, just laughing at them. I gave up on "hoping" with them a loooong time ago.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

gonzotek said:


> "TiVo's so slow, it takes 2 hours to record 60 minutes."


That made me chuckle.


----------



## NotNowChief (Mar 29, 2012)

TiVo's so slow my Credit Card expired while waiting for them to sell a new product.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

NotNowChief said:


> Come on man, Holiday this year? Impossible. You know that's gonna get delayed AT LEAST until next spring.


We're not talking about a major product change. We're talking about a minor hardware refresh. Kind of like the change from S3 OLED to the TiVo HD. TiVo has released hardware refreshes like this in the past with little to no warning. I think you might end up eating a little crow on the above statement.


----------



## NotNowChief (Mar 29, 2012)

Dan203 said:


> We're not talking about a major product change. We're talking about a minor hardware refresh. Kind of like the change from S3 OLED to the TiVo HD. TiVo has released hardware refreshes like this in the past with little to no warning. I think you might end up eating a little crow on the above statement.


Dan, I hope your right. I do love their product, but their implementation is just terrible.

As much as I kid about them, and some take it personally, I sincerely hope that it is, at a minimum, fully functional.


----------



## Gromit (Nov 4, 1999)

I'm trying to decide if I want to go ahead and order an XL4 or just wait it out with a Comcast DVR until the new products are available. I need something by 2/26.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> We're not talking about a major product change. We're talking about a minor hardware refresh. Kind of like the change from S3 OLED to the TiVo HD. TiVo has released hardware refreshes like this in the past with little to no warning. I think you might end up eating a little crow on the above statement.


A minor refresh? Man that would be disappointing after 3.5 years by then.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

If you think this is going to be a Series 5 then you're going to be very disappointed. TiVo has invested a lot into the Premiere brand and the new HDUI. Best case scenario is we get a new chipset which can run the UI faster and has built in Stream style transcoding. And maybe, just maybe, we'll see a 6 tuner unit. All the other changes are going to be on the software side and should also run on the older Premiere units. (maybe a new remote with location feature)

If there are going to be any delays I think they will be on the software side. The new hardware will run the same UI we have now so there is nothing that should prevent them from releasing that regardless of the state of any planned future features.


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> If you think this is going to be a Series 5 then you're going to be very disappointed. TiVo has invested a lot into the Premiere brand and the new HDUI.


Series 4 and Series 5 are just branding. Series 2 and Series 3 ran the same UI. Obviously HD and CableCARD was a big shift. I'd say integrated Stream and finally a robust app platform would be equally big.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

davezatz said:


> Series 4 and Series 5 are just branding. Series 2 and Series 3 ran the same UI. Obviously HD and CableCARD was a big shift. I'd say integrated Stream and finally a robust app platform would be equally big.


It should probably be considered a 4.5 similar to how the TiVo HD was essentially a 3.5.

I think the series 5 will still be when we see what happens after the 18 month delay from the FCC. Assuming they are still doing retail at that point.

Other than the transcoding assuming it makes it in there it will just be a faster chip. I wouldn't expect any other exclusive features unless it is something that the older Premiere won't be able to handle due to processing power.

I know I am not getting my hopes up that a new box will bring anything groundbreaking, but for some people having the UI as fast as the SDUI would be enough.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

It depends how you define "minor". They can continue to use the same HDUI and Premiere name. But if getting a new architecture powerful enough to handle 6 tuners and integrated Streaming is minor, what counts as significant? The primary candidate for such a platform has 3x the Premiere's performance. They can call it the Series 5 Premiere with Stream.  (Thank you, Hopper.)

In my mind a minor refresh is more like just a box using a Premiere-grade chip, adding MoCA, and 86'ing the analog.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I don't know how they're going to brand it either, but I'd be really surprised if it were called a Series 5.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Probably will continue the Premiere brand. They need to actually release the TiVo Mini first (other than to cable customers on Suddenlink).


----------



## P42 (Jan 7, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> If you think this is going to be a Series 5 then you're going to be very disappointed.


My vote is for a TiVo 4S


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

I think they should get rid of the Premiere name (because half the people who own one can't spell it) and get rid of the Series 4 model (because people can't keep Series 4 and Premiere 4 differentiated.)

Come up with a new name, label the boxes for what they actually do (Tivo 2, Tivo 4, Tivo 6) and add a number at the end that shows how many hours it records (Tivo 2 75, Tivo 4 150, Tivo 6 300.)


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

P42 said:


> My vote is for a TiVo 4S


If they steal Apple product names, then they would have to issue bug fixes in less than 18 months, unlike now.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

wmcbrine said:


> Good to hear they're not abandoning ATSC. Analog can go as far as I'm concerned.


It's definitely on its last gasp. OTOH, my roommate does feed the antenna input of the Series III in her room with the NTSC output of a DVD player so she can watch DVDs.


----------



## Philmatic (Sep 17, 2003)

davezatz said:


> Series 4 and Series 5 are just branding. Series 2 and Series 3 ran the same UI. Obviously HD and CableCARD was a big shift. I'd say integrated Stream and finally a robust app platform would be equally big.


I don't know if it was as minor as you are suggesting, in addition to HD and CableCard, it also introduced QAM, ATSC and integrated Ethernet as standard (I know some S2's included ethernet, but it became standard across all models). Those are huge by any measure, but when you include HD and CableCard, I would say it was the single largest evolution in TiVo's history.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

lrhorer said:


> It's definitely on its last gasp. OTOH, my roommate does feed the antenna input of the Series III in her room with the NTSC output of a DVD player so she can watch DVDs.


If they get rid of analog that wont work. AFAIK there are no RF modulators that generate an ATSC signal.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Philmatic said:


> I don't know if it was as minor as you are suggesting, in addition to HD and CableCard, it also introduced QAM, ATSC and integrated Ethernet as standard (I know some S2's included ethernet, but it became standard across all models). Those are huge by any measure, but when you include HD and CableCard, I would say it was the single largest evolution in TiVo's history.


All of the steps where pretty major. The smallest was probably S3 to S4. Hardware wise all that really changed was the chipset. The barely even usable initial release of the HDUI was really the only reason they even called it a S4.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

Arcady said:


> I think they should get rid of the Premiere name (because half the people who own one can't spell it) and get rid of the Series 4 model (because people can't keep Series 4 and Premiere 4 differentiated.)
> 
> Come up with a new name, label the boxes for what they actually do (Tivo 2, Tivo 4, Tivo 6) and add a number at the end that shows how many hours it records (Tivo 2 75, Tivo 4 150, Tivo 6 300.)


Huh? That makes no sense. The Premiere branding is here to stay for at least another generation whether they move to a Series5 or not.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

P42 said:


> My vote is for a TiVo 4S


The 'S' stands for (built in) streaming; no of course we didn't rip off the iPhone model number. 
But that _is_ an interesting coincidence now that you point it out.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Are there 6-tuner setups that can do ATSC-8VSB and ATSC-QAM? I feel like everything over 2 is QAM-only, which is weird, since ATSC-8VSB signals are the exact same, just modulated differently.

6 tuners, a built-in Stream, and support for up to 5 Minis with dynamic tuner allocation would be killer.

Auto commercial skip would be amazing, but I feel like they can already do that, they just don't have any way to enable it, as it would be lawsuit city. Maybe they will flip the switch when Charlie Ergen clears the legal path for them (wouldn't that be ironic, after they patent trolled him hardcore).

There is a market that still needs analog, although it may very well be shrinking faster than the market of used dual-tuner Premieres and S3s is popping up on Ebay, so maybe it's just time to let analog die off.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> Are there 6-tuner setups that can do ATSC-8VSB and ATSC-QAM? I feel like everything over 2 is QAM-only, which is weird, since ATSC-8VSB signals are the exact same, just modulated differently.


Jafa, a member here who invented the HDHomerun, commented on this once. He said that for QAM there are chips with 4 or 6 "tuners" built in but for ATSC you can still only get chips with 2 "tuners". So to make a 4 or 6 tuner ATSC device you have to use multiple chips which gets complicated and expensive.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

Is there an assigned proceeding number yet for the TiVo waiver? I see it under MB 12-1 but that seems to be general filings. I am guessing the FCC has not put it up for comments yet. I just want to make sure I have a RSS feed in case anyone replies since I find them fun to read.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

innocentfreak said:


> Is there an assigned proceeding number yet for the TiVo waiver? I see it under MB 12-1 but that seems to be general filings. I am guessing the FCC has not put it up for comments yet. I just want to make sure I have a RSS feed in case anyone replies since I find them fun to read.


that sounds cool- can you post a link when you figure it out?


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

MichaelK said:


> that sounds cool- can you post a link when you figure it out?


Yeah I will do it once I find it.

Here are the ones I check now. 
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment_search/execute?proceeding=97-80&sortColumn=dateDisseminated&sortDirection=DESC

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment_search/execute?proceeding=00-67&sortColumn=dateDisseminated&sortDirection=DESC


----------



## ghiggz (Jan 27, 2013)

Does this mean I should return the entry-level Premiere I just bought?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

We have no idea when the devices they're trying to cover with this waiver will be released or how long the waiver process will take. So unless you want to be without a TiVo for however long that takes you should probably hold on to that Premiere.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> Jafa, a member here who invented the HDHomerun, commented on this once. He said that for QAM there are chips with 4 or 6 "tuners" built in but for ATSC you can still only get chips with 2 "tuners". So to make a 4 or 6 tuner ATSC device you have to use multiple chips which gets complicated and expensive.


Gotcha. So nobody made the chips. Ironic. They should do like a 10-tuner chip with either 10 ATSC tuners (overkill), or 6 CableCard, and 4 ClearQAM. That would be a killer DVR.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I think explained that QAM is used all over the world, but ATSC is only used here in the US, and is not even very popular here, so there is no real incentive for them to create more then a 2x ATSC chip but there is lots of incentive for bigger QAM chips.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> I think explained that QAM is used all over the world, but ATSC is only used here in the US, and is not even very popular here, so there is no real incentive for them to create more then a 2x ATSC chip but there is lots of incentive for bigger QAM chips.


Don't the Canadians use ATSC-8VSB as well? Can the same chips handle ATSC-QAM, and 8mhz QAM channels over in Europe?


----------



## andrew1883 (Apr 26, 2008)

> You can afford a spare house but not a spare TiVo?


I probably could afford another TiVo (though it's not _my_ house in FL) but I would prefer not to.

I'm happy to take the TiVo where I am, when the only cost is to re-run Guided Setup. A couple of years ago, I actually re-ran it on the S2 before leaving home, and updated program info, so that when I plugged it in again it was ready to start recording at the new location, even before the internet was working. Not a big deal but I was happy when some minor cleverness actually worked out as expected. 

Thanks for the info on the CC, I don't want to lose that association and deal with kabletown again next fall. Their CS get worse every year. 

=aw


----------



## CoxInPHX (Jan 14, 2011)

andrew1883 said:


> I probably could afford another TiVo (though it's not _my_ house in FL) but I would prefer not to.
> 
> I'm happy to take the TiVo where I am, when the only cost is to re-run Guided Setup. A couple of years ago, I actually re-ran it on the S2 before leaving home, and updated program info, so that when I plugged it in again it was ready to start recording at the new location, even before the internet was working. Not a big deal but I was happy when some minor cleverness actually worked out as expected.
> 
> ...


Are you paying for the Cable service in FL while you are in Canada? If not Comcast will require you to return the CableCARD.


----------



## andrew1883 (Apr 26, 2008)

Good point, actually it's included in the condo fees (including 2xHD and 2xDTA) and I traded in a Comcast HD box for the CableCard. So I'm hoping I can keep the CC the same way the HD boxes sat in the house. I'll hook up the other HD box in the LR for any relatives who drop by in the summer (there's only one flatscreen TV, the other is a CRT).

Thanks for flagging that though.

=aw


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

Jonathan_S said:


> The 'S' stands for (built in) streaming; no of course we didn't rip off the iPhone model number.
> But that _is_ an interesting coincidence now that you point it out.


Just remember it won't work if you're holding it wrong.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> Don't the Canadians use ATSC-8VSB as well? Can the same chips handle ATSC-QAM, and 8mhz QAM channels over in Europe?


I don't know. I'm paraphrasing something I read posted by jafa. I wish I could find the post, but I can't seem to track it down.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

From a Media Center thread.



jafa said:


> QAM for digital cable is almost the same world wide vs 8VSB which is a small market.
> 
> As a result the chip companies are doing interesting things with QAM, nothing with 8VSB.
> 
> ...


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

The problem with ATSC/8VSB isn't that the market is small, every new TV sold in the US has a ATSC tuner. The problem is there is very very small market for multi tuner devices all we have are multi tuner OTA DVRs or a TV still offering picture in a picture via a dual tuner which I am not even sure exists anymore. 

Hopefully some of the development done for QAM is easily portable to ATSC and we will get a 4 tuner QAM/ATSC DVR that doesn't cost an arm and a leg.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

innocentfreak said:


> From a Media Center thread.


That's the one I was looking for. :up:


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

innocentfreak said:


> From a Media Center thread.


WHOA!



atmuscarella said:


> The problem with ATSC/8VSB isn't that the market is small, every new TV sold in the US has a ATSC tuner. The problem is there is very very small market for multi tuner devices all we have are multi tuner OTA DVRs or a TV still offering picture in a picture via a dual tuner which I am not even sure exists anymore.
> 
> Hopefully some of the development done for QAM is easily portable to ATSC and we will get a 4 tuner QAM/ATSC DVR that doesn't cost an arm and a leg.


Yeah, I can get dropping analog, but you'd think they'd go to ATSC-8VSB and ATSC-QAM supported on a single chip, as it would give product makers a lot more flexibility.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Looks like the FCC has opened this up for comment...

http://www.fcc.gov/document/media-bureau-seeks-comment-tivos-waiver-request


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

Looks like they just reused the old # from the previous waiver request.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=11-105


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

Nice. Thanks for the heads up.


----------



## ShayL (Jul 18, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> Looks like the FCC has opened this up for comment...
> 
> http://www.fcc.gov/document/media-bureau-seeks-comment-tivos-waiver-request


I wonder who would comment or object.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

ShayL said:


> I wonder who would comment or object.


If you look through the old comments, you will see it is everything from consumers to cable companies. Last time most of them had no real issues with the request, but it wasn't as open as this request.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I doubt anyone is going to object. TiVo has precedent now. If anyone was going to object they would have done it the first time through. TiVo has proven that they can sell a digital only box without much consumer confusion and their data shows that a good percentage of their customers don't even use the analog hardware in the devices that have it.

That being said the FCC might still require them to submit specific hardware model numbers so that it's not completely open ended like TiVo wants.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

I think last time they only objected over the wording on some of the advertising materials. The NCTA and cable companies might have commented with regards they didn't support a rule change but since TiVo wasn't asking for it they saw no issue with the request from TiVo.

They are an interesting read if you haven't read them since it just gives you a little insight into the positioning one has to do.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

It's kind of sad that because TiVo is the only mass-market CableCard product out there, the FCC has to make an individual decision for them. It's pretty clear on the Ceton/ SiliconDust side that the geeks who use those setups are well aware of what they need.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

Bigg said:


> It's kind of sad that because TiVo is the only mass-market CableCard product out there, the FCC has to make an individual decision for them. It's pretty clear on the Ceton/ SiliconDust side that the geeks who use those setups are well aware of what they need.


This isn't really a TiVo thing though. It is a consumer TV device requirement. The one group that has a flat exemption is the cable operators since they only have to support their network so if they don't offer analog they don't have to include the tuners. This is the same reason TVs still have the tuners they do otherwise they have to market it as a monitor.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

If I still had usable analog channels, I'd probably object.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

mattack said:


> If I still had usable analog channels, I'd probably object.


I still have analog channels and I don't care. At this point it's the cable companies fault for still using antiquated technology not TiVo's. You can't hold back progress just because a few cable companies are still using analog.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

innocentfreak said:


> This isn't really a TiVo thing though. It is a consumer TV device requirement. The one group that has a flat exemption is the cable operators since they only have to support their network so if they don't offer analog they don't have to include the tuners. This is the same reason TVs still have the tuners they do otherwise they have to market it as a monitor.


It shouldn't be a TiVo thing, but it is, as it's the only product that this sort of thing applies to. There are no other mass-market CableCard devices, other than SiliconDust and Ceton, which have a totally different audience that is much more likely to know their ATSC-QAM from their NTSC from their ATSC-8VSB. It also really doesn't affect WMC users, as they can throw a couple of old NTSC tuners cards in to run along side their Ceton and SiliconDust tuners if need be.



Dan203 said:


> I still have analog channels and I don't care. At this point it's the cable companies fault for still using antiquated technology not TiVo's. You can't hold back progress just because a few cable companies are still using analog.


Yup. Very few have channels that are only analog. A fair number still seem to be wasting bandwidth on simulcast digital/analog channels. Do you have analog channels that aren't available in any digital format, even HD? I could see not simulcasting analog channels that are available in HD, as then TiVo users would just not have an SD version (big loss there), but not having a digital version at all is nuts. That, and the quality must really suck. Well, really, having analog at all is flat out nuts, as it is so inefficient. That's one thing Comcast is doing right, they finally said enough is enough and moved on.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> Do you have analog channels that aren't available in any digital format, even HD?


Yup. There are about 30 stations in my lineup that are analog only. Only a few I actually watch, but it still sucks. I'd be happy with SD simulcast just so I could use my Elite for everything rather then having to keep a 2 tuner unit around just for the analog stuff.

Edit: What's really silly is that they switched us to SDV a few years ago but didn't change the lineup at all. They moved most of the digital channels to SDV, requiring the TA to get, but I have no idea what they did with the extra bandwidth. They must have dedicated it to VOD or internet because we haven't got a lineup change since 2009.


----------



## ncbill (Sep 1, 2007)

I'd love for analog cable to magically convert to digital, but it's all that's available up in our cabin the mountains (Charter).

We pay $30/month for 20 channels that look like a 2nd-generation VHS copy.

AFAIK there is no FCC time-table to force a sunset of analog cable.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

ncbill said:


> AFAIK there is no FCC time-table to force a sunset of analog cable.


Actually there was a mandate forcing them to do the opposite. Until Dec 12th, 2012 they were required to have analog versions of all "must carry" channels. Now that the mandate has ended they can begin the transition to digital.

Why some cable companies, like ours, continue to broadcast more then just "must carry" channels in analog is beyond me. Seems like a waste of bandwidth. Plus if they can force everyone to rent a box then they're essentially getting an outlet fee for each TV and preventing signal theft. Seems like a win all around for them.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Dan203 said:


> I still have analog channels and I don't care. At this point it's the cable companies fault for still using antiquated technology not TiVo's. You can't hold back progress just because a few cable companies are still using analog.


By that argument, we shouldn't have CableCards, since *maybe* the cable companies would've invented magic TVs that pop in front of our eyes wherever we are, instead of having to be saddled with supporting CableCards.

Yes, I'm being ridiculous on purpose.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Dan203 said:


> Why some cable companies, like ours, continue to broadcast more then just "must carry" channels in analog is beyond me.


Hey, I completely agree that *when it works*, digital looks far better than analog. But digital compression artifacts still bug me WAY more than analog artifacts, and it's much easier to "just split the signal" to more TVs with analog since you just get a slightly worse picture, not as quickly to the so bad it's unusable picture. (Though as a counterexample to myself, due to water intrusion, one of our cable channels got SO bad so slowly years ago it's amazing how unusable it was before I complained.)


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Apples and oranges. Without CableCARDs there would be no consumer choice. You'd be stuck rent a box from the cable company for every TV in the house.

Analog tuners on the other hand are only required by a tiny fraction of potential TiVo customers and adding them to support that group would raise the costs, and complexity, of the device significantly. 

Plus converting to all digital is in the best interest of the cable companies. They can fit 10-12 SD and 2-3 HD channels into the same bandwidth used for a single analog channel. Plus with an all digital lineup they can charge for a box at every TV and essentially stop signal theft. The fact that any MSOs still broadcast in analog is just silly.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> Yup. There are about 30 stations in my lineup that are analog only.


Wow, that is back-asswards.



Dan203 said:


> Actually there was a mandate forcing them to do the opposite. Until Dec 12th, 2012 they were required to have analog versions of all "must carry" channels. Now that the mandate has ended they can begin the transition to digital.


Sort of. Some companies got around it somehow, with DTAs or clear QAM maybe? TWC in NYC was one of the early companies to go all-digital, well before that time. That was a really dumb requirement, as the cable companies' boxes can connect to TVs through RF or composite, for those people living back in the '90s.



mattack said:


> Hey, I completely agree that *when it works*, digital looks far better than analog. But digital compression artifacts still bug me WAY more than analog artifacts, and it's much easier to "just split the signal" to more TVs with analog since you just get a slightly worse picture, not as quickly to the so bad it's unusable picture. (Though as a counterexample to myself, due to water intrusion, one of our cable channels got SO bad so slowly years ago it's amazing how unusable it was before I complained.)


Analog is a mess. Why would they want you to be able to split when they get a fee for each box you have?



Dan203 said:


> Plus converting to all digital is in the best interest of the cable companies. They can fit 10-12 SD and 2-3 HD channels into the same bandwidth used for a single analog channel. Plus with an all digital lineup they can charge for a box at every TV and essentially stop signal theft. The fact that any MSOs still broadcast in analog is just silly.


Exactly. It's incredible the bandwidth savings. Analog is so antiquated, it's amazing cable companies are still using it.


----------



## tivogurl (Dec 16, 2004)

innocentfreak said:


> I wouldn't expect any other exclusive features unless it is something that the older Premiere won't be able to handle due to processing power.


Features? I'd be happy if they fixed bugs they've been ignoring half a decade or more.


----------



## grey ghost (Feb 2, 2010)

How long does the "comment" phase last?


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

All told, 1 month from the date they officially sought comment - April 18th.

As of yet, no replies (if any were filed) have been posted.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

According to the link the public has until 4/8 to file comments and then TiVo has until 4/18 to reply to those comments. After that the commission reads the comments and replies and makes a decision. Last time it took 90 days start to finish. However TiVo put a special rush on the request. They did not add the rush this time so the commission may or may not take longer to make their ruling.

Either way I'm still betting it's late August or early September before anything hits the streets. Although we might get a sneak peak at what they're working on at the cable show next month. (that's where they showed the Stream and Mini last year)


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

I forgot about the cable show next month. We should see the 6 tuner if they plan on pushing it to MSOs. 

I would hope for an August September release, but I would say probably more mid-late October. I think it will be out in time for the holidays unless some major issue pops up.


----------



## grey ghost (Feb 2, 2010)

If Tivo was smart, they would have their new machines out in June or July before the start of the TV season, not in mid-fall. This is the kind of thing you buy for yourself, not necessarily a gift type item. You want it, you're tired of conflicts, so you go buy it.


----------



## NotNowChief (Mar 29, 2012)

I can't wait until we start having "BIGFOOT" sightings.

The Mini was a Unicorn.
The Series 5 is Bigfoot.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

innocentfreak said:


> I forgot about the cable show next month. We should see the 6 tuner if they plan on pushing it to MSOs.
> 
> I would hope for an August September release, but I would say probably more mid-late October. I think it will be out in time for the holidays unless some major issue pops up.


Holidays of what year?


----------



## NotNowChief (Mar 29, 2012)

Bigg said:


> Holidays of what year?


LOL

The truth hurts, but sometimes you just have to laugh at it.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

Dan203 said:


> We still have some analog only stations here.  However I'm more mad at Charter for not simulcasting them, or better yet providing HD versions, then I am at TiVo for dumping analog support. It's about time analog went away completely.


Yeah, the cruel irony of the FCC allowing low powered with the digital conversion. There should have been support for the low powered channels to migrate to a main digital mux like a .2 or etc. Of course manufactures want to cut analog support. Bad news for low powered analogs. However, I would support TiVo dropping analog as cable is ditching it for their TV service, anyway, but I totally disagreed with the FCC's decision to allow TiVo to dump digital OTA from its "4" models. We taxpayers paid for that big conversion and there are quite a few who do watch OTA, not just TiVo subs. Shame on the FCC on that one.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

I applaud the FCC for that decision.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

I don't believe there are laws mandating digital OTA support other than for televisions. So that was Tivo's choice. The waivers were/are just for analog specifically.


----------



## TiVo'Brien (Feb 8, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> ..........Either way I'm still betting it's late August or early September before anything hits the streets. Although we might get a sneak peak at what they're working on at the cable show next month. (that's where they showed the Stream and Mini last year)


Hope so! :up:

My lifetimed Series 3 died last week, so now I'm renting a crappy Cisco DVR from Brighthouse until I see what TiVo is going to offer. I miss Mr. T already.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

I could see an OTA only user needing more tuners recording concurrently to aggregate enough shows to watch


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Series3Sub said:


> Yeah, the cruel irony of the FCC allowing low powered with the digital conversion. There should have been support for the low powered channels to migrate to a main digital mux like a .2 or etc. Of course manufactures want to cut analog support. Bad news for low powered analogs. However, I would support TiVo dropping analog as cable is ditching it for their TV service, anyway, but I totally disagreed with the FCC's decision to allow TiVo to dump digital OTA from its "4" models. We taxpayers paid for that big conversion and there are quite a few who do watch OTA, not just TiVo subs. Shame on the FCC on that one.


If the FCC hadn't waivered OTA out from the 4-tuner boxes, we wouldn't have them at all.



shwru980r said:


> I could see an OTA only user needing more tuners recording concurrently to aggregate enough shows to watch


Seriously? Recording 4 of the 5 OTA channels at once? I guess it could happen, but it is FAR more likely to happen when you're rocking 70 HD's on a cable system like I am, and even more likely on some cable systems that are north of 100 HD's.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Bigg said:


> If the FCC hadn't waivered OTA out from the 4-tuner boxes, we wouldn't have them at all.


As noted, analog required waivers; OTA did not. There's no mandate to build OTA functionality into devices that can tune cable. (See the late-model Series 2's that are supposedly "cable-only", for example.)



> _Seriously? Recording 4 of the 5 OTA channels at once? I guess it could happen, but it is FAR more likely to happen when you're rocking 70 HD's on a cable system like I am, and even more likely on some cable systems that are north of 100 HD's._


No, think about it -- the broadcast channels stuff most of their best programming into a few hours of prime time, and don't repeat it (except maybe months later). In the cable model, the best programming is often repeated throughout the week in different time slots. So a tuner conflict is actually more likely with OTA.

BTW, I get _way_ more than 5 OTA channels.


----------



## jmr50 (Dec 27, 2003)

wmcbrine said:


> As noted, analog required waivers; OTA did not. There's no mandate to build OTA functionality into devices that can tune cable. (See the late-model Series 2's that are supposedly "cable-only", for example.)
> 
> No, think about it -- the broadcast channels stuff most of their best programming into a few hours of prime time, and don't repeat it (except maybe months later). In the cable model, the best programming is often repeated throughout the week in different time slots. So a tuner conflict is actually more likely with OTA.
> 
> BTW, I get _way_ more than 5 OTA channels.


Real channels, for fluff? ABC, CBS, NBC have 3 hours of original programming in prime time, Fox and CW have 2. You might have a few other stations, but unless you're recording in another language, original programming won't be on the menu.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

jmr50 said:


> Real channels, for fluff? ABC, CBS, NBC have 3 hours of original programming in prime time, Fox and CW have 2.


Don't forget PBS. (I have three HD PBS channels alone -- and, PBS being how it is, they _don't_ all run the same content.) There are also the local ION and MyTV affiliates. And so many subchannels (which count as separate channels for TiVo's purposes)... Plus, I'm in the admittedly unusual situation of picking up two DMAs, so I also have two ABCs, two NBCs, etc.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

wmcbrine said:


> As noted, analog required waivers; OTA did not. There's no mandate to build OTA functionality into devices that can tune cable. (See the late-model Series 2's that are supposedly "cable-only", for example.)
> 
> No, think about it -- the broadcast channels stuff most of their best programming into a few hours of prime time, and don't repeat it (except maybe months later). In the cable model, the best programming is often repeated throughout the week in different time slots. So a tuner conflict is actually more likely with OTA.
> 
> BTW, I get _way_ more than 5 OTA channels.


The same would have happened for analog. There wouldn't be a 4-tuner box. I can sort of see the whole "bottleneck" argument, if they actually put out much decent content. However, you're still going to hit way more conflicts with 100 channels than with 5 channels.

Yes, you can take an engineering count, just like cable has several hundred by an engineering count, the problem is, that has little bearing on reality, as in most markets there are 5 actual channels, and many channels of garbage, one poster mentioned Al Jazeera English, which gets you to 6, although I'm not sure it would conflict with prime time anyways. The PBS2 subchannel actually has some decent content on it, but it looks so bad that it's unwatchable, so we're back to having 5 channels.

CBS, FOX, ABC, NBC, PBS, and a lot of garbage channels.



wmcbrine said:


> Don't forget PBS. (I have three HD PBS channels alone -- and, PBS being how it is, they _don't_ all run the same content.) There are also the local ION and MyTV affiliates. And so many subchannels (which count as separate channels for TiVo's purposes)... Plus, I'm in the admittedly unusual situation of picking up two DMAs, so I also have two ABCs, two NBCs, etc.


Yeah, jmr50 somehow lost PBS, which is probably the best channel in all of TV, and somehow got CW out of the dumpster.

Duplicate channels, other than PBS, don't really get you anything, as they run the same content, and even PBS doesn't usually have similar content that's different on at the same time (although sometimes This Old House will be like that). FRONTLINE, NOVA, and their other big shows are usually in sync, at least between WGBH, WNET, and WEDH (I'm Hartford-New Haven, but I was in an SV area for NYC, now I'm in an SV area for Providence-New Bedford that somehow ended up with PBS from Boston).

The other factor is that OTA-only people fundamentally aren't heavy TV users in the first place, as if they were, they would have cable. The people who have OTA tend not to watch enough TV to make a lot of conflicts, and have such a limited selection of it, that they are highly unlikely to ever have a conflict. I can't think of a time that I've ever had more than 2 tuners tied up on CLEAR QAM channels (effectively the same lineup plus one or two as OTA), and even then, it's rare that more than one is on CLEAR QAM.

It's the cable channels that can really tie up tuners like crazy.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

@Bigg the same can be said for satellite and cable. You get 200+ channels but most of them are sh***. Most people only watch about 5 to 10 of those channels anyway. So, there might be 5 to 10 channels that "might" cause conflicts but the chances are you have a better shot at getting to see your show at a different slot than OTA folks get.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

magnus said:


> @Bigg the same can be said for satellite and cable. You get 200+ channels but most of them are sh***. Most people only watch about 5 to 10 of those channels anyway. So, there might be 5 to 10 channels that "might" cause conflicts but the chances are you have a better shot at getting to see your show at a different slot than OTA folks get.


But with OTA, there are that many fewer channels to cause conflicts, and if you go by the **** logic, other than a few events here and there, there's basically one channel.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

Bigg said:


> But with OTA, there are that many fewer channels to cause conflicts, and if you go by the **** logic, other than a few events here and there, there's basically one channel.


I think the point is that they are equally the same. You have 5 Channels that you really watch on cable/satellite while maybe 3 for OTA. Believe it or not I have a lot of conflicts where I really could use 3 tuners.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

magnus said:


> I think the point is that they are equally the same. You have 5 Channels that you really watch on cable/satellite while maybe 3 for OTA. Believe it or not I have a lot of conflicts where I really could use 3 tuners.


The logic is that if you multiply your number of available channels by 20, you should have an order of magnitude more conflicts, even when accounting for twice as many tuners.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

"The logic is that if you multiply your number of available channels by 20, you should have an order of magnitude more conflicts, even when accounting for twice as many tuners."

Unfamiliar with the "50 channels and nothing on" concept, I see.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

TiVo'Brien said:


> Hope so! :up:
> 
> My lifetimed Series 3 died last week, so now I'm renting a crappy Cisco DVR from Brighthouse until I see what TiVo is going to offer. I miss Mr. T already.


Died how, exactly?


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

unitron said:


> "The logic is that if you multiply your number of available channels by 20, you should have an order of magnitude more conflicts, even when accounting for twice as many tuners."
> 
> Unfamiliar with the "50 channels and nothing on" concept, I see.


There is always something on to watch from the hundreds of channels available. I can't ever think of a time when there was never anything on to watch between the premium channels and regular channels I get on the FiOS Ultimate HD tier.

Now back when there were only 50 channels on cable and it was analog it was more likely not to find anything. But with all the channels available now, I can't see it happening.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

unitron said:


> "The logic is that if you multiply your number of available channels by 20, you should have an order of magnitude more conflicts, even when accounting for twice as many tuners."
> 
> Unfamiliar with the "50 channels and nothing on" concept, I see.


Exactly


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

Bigg said:


> The logic is that if you multiply your number of available channels by 20, you should have an order of magnitude more conflicts, even when accounting for twice as many tuners.


I think there is logic for both reasons. I can see why you might need more than two tuners for cable. I'm not sure why you don't get why folks with OTA would need more than two as well.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

magnus said:


> I think there is logic for both reasons. I can see why you might need more than two tuners for cable. I'm not sure why you don't get why folks with OTA would need more than two as well.


It's tough to see a case when an OTA user would need more than 2 tuners, as there's only 5 channels to work with. According to the "most channels are crap" logic, it's unlikely to even use 2 channels. Plus the networks are a large part of the crap problem, PBS is the only network that often has good content on, other than some live sports events that end up on the network or once in a blue moon there's a decent series on one of the networks. With cable there's a lot more good content, especially when you factor in stuff like HBO.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

Bigg said:


> It's tough to see a case when an OTA user would need more than 2 tuners, as there's only 5 channels to work with. According to the "most channels are crap" logic, it's unlikely to even use 2 channels. Plus the networks are a large part of the crap problem, PBS is the only network that often has good content on, other than some live sports events that end up on the network or once in a blue moon there's a decent series on one of the networks. With cable there's a lot more good content, especially when you factor in stuff like HBO.


Ok, then I don't see the case for having more than two tuners for cable either then. If you have 200 channels of crap then there can't be much conflict and you also have the ability for multiple slots for the same crap so then you shouldn't need to have more than two tuners. Also, you have the ability for VOD and that makes it less likely that you'll need more than two tuners.

So there you have it, neither cable or OTA needs to have more than two tuners since neither of us can see the other persons point of view. Although I did try to see your point but you guys just seem to think that anyone that does not agree with you is just plain wrong. So, I'll agree to not see your point of view either.


----------



## gonzotek (Sep 24, 2004)

Also, no one should ever need more than 640K of memory.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

magnus said:


> Ok, then I don't see the case for having more than two tuners for cable either then. If you have 200 channels of crap then there can't be much conflict and you also have the ability for multiple slots for the same crap so then you shouldn't need to have more than two tuners. Also, you have the ability for VOD and that makes it less likely that you'll need more than two tuners.
> 
> So there you have it, neither cable or OTA needs to have more than two tuners since neither of us can see the other persons point of view. Although I did try to see your point but you guys just seem to think that anyone that does not agree with you is just plain wrong. So, I'll agree to not see your point of view either.


Not all of it is crap. Most of it is, but there are still a number of good channels that can suck down tuners. The fundamental premise here is that cable needs far more tuners than OTA, as there is a lot more content, and OTA users, with 5 channels will rarely use more than 2 tuners. The same argument is true for cable, you just might need 6 or 8 or 10 or 12 tuners before you're saturated when you're on a system with 110 HD's.



gonzotek said:


> Also, no one should ever need more than 640K of memory.


That would be true if you only had 500kb of programs.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Bigg said:


> It's tough to see a case when an OTA user would need more than 2 tuners, as there's only 5 channels to work with. According to the "most channels are crap" logic, it's unlikely to even use 2 channels. Plus the networks are a large part of the crap problem, PBS is the only network that often has good content on, other than some live sports events that end up on the network or once in a blue moon there's a decent series on one of the networks. With cable there's a lot more good content, especially when you factor in stuff like HBO.


My GF is OTA only. She has two S3 boxes. She is using 3 tuners several times a week. And sometimes all four tuners. She records stuff during the day and at night and can be using three or four tuners during the day and also at night. She has no problem finding more than enough things to watch from OTA only. Although she does supplement that with the Lifetime Movie recordings I make for her from the two Lifetime channels.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

I am OTA only and have several time slots during the week that need 3 tuners and at least one that needs 4 and have needed 5 in the past. I actually have 8 tuners 3 HD TiVos and a HTPC with a silicon dust dual tuner. 

I certainly do not watch all the channels I get (about 25 if they are all coming in) but I do have 7 HD channels and watch something from all of those each week and sometimes like to watch the old SD shows on the meTV channel. Plus some people like to pad their records so that also ups the number of tuners needed for any given time slot.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

I am OTA only, and I can attest that for the "one box", it would have to have 4 OTA tuners.

Right now I have 2 TivoHDs and a Series 2 single tuner. I often need 3 tuners, with the fourth covering for overlap conflicts.
Recently, I've needed 4 tuners at least twice a week. This last Friday, I had to resort to recording one show on my S2ST because I needed a 5th tuner.

Of course you're going to have more conflicts with cable when you have that many more channels to deal with, but unlike cable shows, OTA shows have no repeats until months later which renders TiVo's conflict resolution algorithm useless.

I've come to the conclusion that Bigg doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to OTA. He's stuck in his cable world.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> My GF is OTA only. She has two S3 boxes. She is using 3 tuners several times a week. And sometimes all four tuners. She records stuff during the day and at night and can be using three or four tuners during the day and also at night. She has no problem finding more than enough things to watch from OTA only. Although she does supplement that with the Lifetime Movie recordings I make for her from the two Lifetime channels.


That is highly unusual. Most people who are OTA-only don't watch much TV in the first place, that's why they are OTA-only, and even people who do are getting most of it from other sources, as there just isn't that much on OTA. Most the good content is up in the cable channels.



steve614 said:


> I've come to the conclusion that Bigg doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to OTA. He's stuck in his cable world.


I'm "stuck" in my cable world? I like actually being able to watch everything I want to, not 10% of it, thank you very much. OTA-only is basically for people who basically don't watch TV.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

steve614 said:


> I've come to the conclusion that Bigg doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to OTA.


Or fixed vs. native mode, or whether WMC works well, or pretty much anything I've seen so far. Talks Bigg, knows Little.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

Bigg said:


> OTA-only is basically for people who basically don't watch TV think cable TV is a rip-off.


FYP. Cable is for people who like throwing their money away. Why do people put up with paying for 200 channels, when in reality they *maybe* only watch 20 of them?

OTA provides enough TV that I don't have time to watch it all. It would be stupid of me to pay money for something I wouldn't be able to utilize to the fullest extent.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

steve614 said:


> FYP. Cable is for people who like throwing their money away. Why do people put up with paying for 200 channels, when in reality they *maybe* only watch 20 of them?
> 
> OTA provides enough TV that I don't have time to watch it all. It would be stupid of me to pay money for something I wouldn't be able to utilize to the fullest extent.


You should not make a generalize statement such as *Cable is for people who like throwing their money away* For you that may be true, but I like the options I have with cable, and I don't like throwing money away, I am one of the few people I know that does not have a smart phone (I have an old Moto razor). Most people say they could not function without a smart phone, when I am out with people I don't want to spend my time looking at my smart phone, if someone needs me they call me. but I don't think people with smart phones are throwing money away, I think if *I* had a smart I would be throwing money away.


----------



## ncbill (Sep 1, 2007)

Even before the digital transition, I had switched my cable package to broadcast basic ($8/month), and used Amazon video with my S2ST to buy whatever 'cable' shows I wanted.

I was then lucky enough to win a TivoHD XL, so I bought a HDTV and dropped cable entirely.

Added another TivoHD @ $7/month so now I record all nightly news shows (PBS/CBS/ABC/NBC) plus whatever other primetime OTA I want.

And Amazon video still allows me to buy the cable shows I want in HD, commercial-free, pushed down automatically to my Tivo.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

lessd said:


> You should not make a generalize statement such as *Cable is for people who like throwing their money away* For you that may be true, but I like the options I have with cable, and I don't like throwing money away, I am one of the few people I know that does not have a smart phone (I have an old Moto razor). Most people say they could not function without a smart phone, when I am out with people I don't want to spend my time looking at my smart phone, if someone needs me they call me. but I don't think people with smart phones are throwing money away, I think if *I* had a smart I would be throwing money away.


Wasn't the statement in response to someone who said OTA is for people who don't watch TV? Both statements are general and I thought it was just a lighthearted response. I know if I did not watch content on cable, I would be watching more from OTA. And I could easily have four to six tuners recording concurrently for just OTA shows several times a week. But since I do also watch cable, I don't have time to watch as many broadcast shows as I would like to. Like I did in the 70's, 80's, and 90's.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

As a matter of general housekeeping... today is the last day the FCC has given interested parties to comment on Tivo's waiver request.

As of yet nobody has filed a comment, or at least none have been posted to the FCC site. It's possible there could be some last minute submissions. Sometimes there's a posting delay too. We'll see.

Tivo will then have until the 18th to respond to any submissions. But this is likely all a formality. It's unknown when the FCC will formally issue their decision.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

I keep thinking I am reading the wrong RSS feed since no responses. I figured at least there would be some CEA support like last time.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

steve614 said:


> FYP. Cable is for people who like throwing their money away. Why do people put up with paying for 200 channels, when in reality they *maybe* only watch 20 of them?
> 
> OTA provides enough TV that I don't have time to watch it all. It would be stupid of me to pay money for something I wouldn't be able to utilize to the fullest extent.


Because I want to watch those 20? With OTA, I'd get maybe 10% of the content. How's that a deal? Yeah, I pay less, but I get a whole lot less too.



aaronwt said:


> Wasn't the statement in response to someone who said OTA is for people who don't watch TV? Both statements are general and I thought it was just a lighthearted response. I know if I did not watch content on cable, I would be watching more from OTA. And I could easily have four to six tuners recording concurrently for just OTA shows several times a week. But since I do also watch cable, I don't have time to watch as many broadcast shows as I would like to. Like I did in the 70's, 80's, and 90's.


Except that you can't watch much TV when you only have 5 channels, and four of them are mostly junk. The good content has left the networks and moved to where the money is- cable. Or it never existed on the networks. Just look at HBO.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

Bigg said:


> Except that you can't watch much TV when you only have 5 channels, and four of them are mostly junk.


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

Zero comments were filed to the Media Bureau's request for comments on TiVo's waiver request. I inquired to a source what this portends for timing of a waiver, etc. 

The Media Bureau will still wait until the deadline for reply comments (4/18). After that the turnaround should be fairly quick but there is some flux because of the FCC Chairman departing in the coming weeks. Even though an unopposed waiver should be non-controversial, the Media Bureau will still need to run the waiver through the chain of command.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

Bet they will find time to push through the Charter waiver though.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017317153

TiVo filed a reply yesterday.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

innocentfreak said:


> http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017317153
> 
> TiVo filed a reply yesterday.


So I guess they do plan on having the next TiVo out for the 2013 holidays. Based on their response.



> .........In this case, if TiVo is to begin
> production of its proposed all-digital DVRs in time to begin delivering them for the 2013 holiday
> season, the Commission must act to grant the Petition soon. TiVo therefore requests that the
> Commission grant the Petition forthwith.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Their reply indicates that they plan to have a product to market by the 2013 holiday season.

So it appears that they are at least attempting to get a new Premiere platform out before the end of the year. I'm betting we see some sort of prototype at the cable show, although this year it's in June rather then April, so we wont know for a couple months.

Edit: Doh! Got distracted while replying and Aaron beat me to the holiday part.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

Yeah I would say putting it on your Christmas wish list wouldn't be a bad idea. Unless something delays it they seem to be aiming for October/November.


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

Zatz Not Funny: TiVo Hopes FCC Will Allow Santa To Deliver New DVRs


----------



## drebbe (Apr 11, 2012)

TiVo has been granted its waiver for its new hardware. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-13-1740A1.pdf


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

It also looks like the FCC dismissed the requirement if I skimmed the document correctly.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

The only conditions placed on the approval is their continued consumer education and point of sale materials/notices to make sure they know it's digital-only. It's not tied to any specific product, so the waiver is forever/indefinite now.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

Did they only drop it for TiVo or for all companies?


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

BigJimOutlaw said:


> The only conditions placed on the approval is their continued consumer education and point of sale materials/notices to make sure they know it's digital-only. It's not tied to any specific product, so the waiver is forever/indefinite now.


Clever how they did that. We should have written letters in opposition of a blanket waiver to get them to reveal specific products. Then again, we already got them.  And I doubt there will be any more significant units hitting the market before analog truly is dead (as far as the FCC is concerned).


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

innocentfreak said:


> Did they only drop it for TiVo or for all companies?


My non-lawyer read of the order believes it applies to TiVo only.


----------



## socrplyr (Jul 19, 2006)

sbiller said:


> My non-lawyer read of the order believes it applies to TiVo only.


I agree. I am not a lawyer either, but I didn't see a single place where they mentioned the market's products (general DVR wording). They only referenced Tivo. Although they clearly laid the groundwork for others getting waivers, with the parts that state this device connects to a TV for viewing (and all TVs have an analog tuner).


----------



## christheman (Feb 21, 2013)

Dan203 said:


> The only time an encoder comes into play is if the stream is analog or if you're streaming to a portable device like an iPad. This whole thread is about how TiVo is petitioning the FCC to allow them to produce boxes that don't do analog so that part is moot. So the only place an encoder would be needed is for streaming to a portable device. It makes much more sense for them to encode data on the fly for that purpose then it does to encode everything, reducing quality, just for the off chance that the user might want to stream to a portable device.


Agreed 100%. (VideoRedo user)


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

sbiller said:


> My non-lawyer read of the order believes it applies to TiVo only.





socrplyr said:


> I agree. I am not a lawyer either, but I didn't see a single place where they mentioned the market's products (general DVR wording). They only referenced Tivo. Although they clearly laid the groundwork for others getting waivers, with the parts that state this device connects to a TV for viewing (and all TVs have an analog tuner).


I know Samsung has that device waiting for a similar waiver which is why I was wondering.


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

innocentfreak said:


> I know Samsung has that device waiting for a similar waiver which is why I was wondering.


As does EchoStar. I bet these companies could have skipped the paper drill - no one would have called them on it. Analog is dead as far as OTA broadcast content goes.


----------

