# Petition to Congress/FCC to Force SAT to do Tivo



## Bonanzaair (Aug 26, 2006)

Ebonovic was right! Nothing from DirecTV about Tivo. I have waited long enough to put up with this situation. I have started a petition over at iPetition.com to have Congress and the FCC review the status of the satellite companies forcing it's customers to use in-house DVR boxes. The FCC forced cable to use the cablecard, maybe the same like thing should happen with satellite.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/satellitefreedom/

Bonanza


----------



## TonyTheTiger (Dec 22, 2006)

OK, I'll go first.

Yeah, that'll fly!

Might as well petition Microsoft to develop software based on Intuit's TurboTax.

Ain't gonna happen.

Apart from the fact that the FCC or Congress have absolutely no control over what software a company uses to provide DVR service (nor would they care).


----------



## RS4 (Sep 2, 2001)

TonyTheTiger said:


> OK, I'll go first.
> 
> Yeah, that'll fly!
> 
> ...


Yeah, I'm sure there will be lots of you guys coming in here pouncing on his idea. But perhaps, you ought to read his petition before commenting. He says nothing about what software the companies offer - only that they allow competitive offerings such as Tivo - as the FCC mandated with the cable industry. And as we all know, there is nothing wrong with competition


----------



## Bonanzaair (Aug 26, 2006)

RS4 said:


> And as we all know, there is nothing wrong with competition


Yeah! Competition - novel thought! Just the signal that's all I'm asking for. Let me the consumer decide how they are going to use it.

Bonanza


----------



## TonyTheTiger (Dec 22, 2006)

Who said anything about not allowing competition?

IIRC, it was TiVo that made a box that wouldn't record from satellite, NOT the other way round.

So should the government impose a law that states who TiVo can support and who it can't?

...and I repeat, it's nothing to do with the FCC or Congress anyway.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

Because the cable card system has worked so well at generating competition in the cable dvr market? There is one player and they have all but admitted they don't see standalone sales as their bright future anymore. Trying to force a market where one does not naturally exist doesn't always work.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

I actually think it&#8217;s a good idea but did you need to post the same thread in every forum????

hopefully a mod can merge the 12 differnt threads....


----------



## Bonanzaair (Aug 26, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> I actually think its a good idea but did you need to post the same thread in every forum????
> 
> hopefully a mod can merge the 12 differnt threads....


I only posted in three sub-boards. Wrong probably- but I wanted to get all readers. I usually don't visit the DTivo subboards as their is nothing there for me to care about since I had to move to Comast and a Series 3.

I wanted wide readership.

Bonanza


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

Yea, Tivo is pretty much giving up on their stand alone products anyway. Sure they will still produce some (for now) but the CEO said in their last conference call that doing software, not hardware, was their future. In other words doing what they are doing with Comcast and Cox, getting the Tivo software on the existing hardware.

Besides, cable cards will soon be dead anyway. Thus the "mandate" of cable cards dies with it.

But hey, rock on with the petition. I would sure hope my congresscritters have better things to worry about then if someone can get Tivo on DirecTV or not.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

shibby191 said:


> But hey, rock on with the petition. I would sure hope my congresscritters have better things to worry about then if someone can get Tivo on DirecTV or not.


Most days I would prefer they wasted their time on this instead of screwing up something really important.


----------



## RS4 (Sep 2, 2001)

TonyTheTiger said:


> Who said anything about not allowing competition?
> 
> IIRC, it was TiVo that made a box that wouldn't record from satellite, NOT the other way round.
> 
> ...


Quite the contrary... who do you think ordered the cable companies to open up to standards and competition? It was the FCC!! As much as I hate government intervention, sometimes it becomes a necessary evil.

On the other point... Tivo had a box prior to working with D* - and it was D* who restricted the features that were available for the DTivos.


----------



## TonyTheTiger (Dec 22, 2006)

If you say so.

I refuse to feed trolls, so I'll just back out gracefully. Carry on being wrong.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

TonyTheTiger said:


> Who said anything about not allowing competition?
> 
> IIRC, it was TiVo that made a box that wouldn't record from satellite, NOT the other way round.
> 
> ...


1) It was DirecTV that wouldn't permit TiVo to make a HD MPEG-4 unit; DirecTV uses proprietary technology and without their permission the best you could do is a make a box they'll never authorize and could never actually tune and decode programming.

2) The FCC's licensing of the DBS broadcasters specifically waives the requirement for the satellite providers to adhere to the CableCARD/POD requirements that cable companies must follow; that can be changed by the FCC at their whim... and at some point should be as technologically there's no reason why there can't be a common device interface anymore.

So you're wrong on both counts.


----------



## TonyTheTiger (Dec 22, 2006)

I'll concede the first point, I obviously don't remember correctly.

However, I'd love to argue the second point with you, Doug, but I've already backed out of the thread. It's ridiculous anyway, so we'll have this discussion another time. Maybe when the trolls are gone.

...but thanks for feeding them!


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Bonanzaair said:


> Ebonovic was right! Nothing from DirecTV about Tivo. I have waited long enough to put up with this situation. I have started a petition over at iPetition.com to have Congress and the FCC review the status of the satellite companies forcing it's customers to use in-house DVR boxes. The FCC forced cable to use the cablecard, maybe the same like thing should happen with satellite.
> 
> http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/satellitefreedom/
> 
> Bonanza


How are the satellite companies forcing you to use their DVRs? Is there a terrorist from DirecTV holding a gun to your head? The idea that you can get the government to force DirecTV to get back with Tivo is idiotic at best. FYI - DirecTV hired a contractor to develop DVRs for their service. They did the same thing with Tivo but found that paying royalties for the Tivo software cut into their profit margin. Good luck getting Congress to suppress capitalism at its finest! On second thought, I'll have what you're smoking. Perhaps it will finally make reality TV realistic and I'll start to like "professional" wrestling.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

mr.unnatural said:


> How are the satellite companies forcing you to use their DVRs? Is there a terrorist from DirecTV holding a gun to your head? The idea that you can get the government to force DirecTV to get back with Tivo is idiotic at best.


I beleive DirecTV has stated that their long term goal is to have a DVR in every subscriber household.

The idea isn't "forcing DirecTV to get back with TiVo" but instead to force DirecTV (and Dish) to develop a system whereby third-party manufacturers could build receivers that would function with their respective authorization systems, much like cable was forced to come up with a way to do the same.


----------



## RS4 (Sep 2, 2001)

TonyTheTiger said:


> If you say so.
> 
> I refuse to feed trolls, so I'll just back out gracefully. Carry on being wrong.


You backed out because you had the wrong arguments and you realized it. All this petition does is ask the FCC to open up the access to competition for the satellite markets the way it did for cable markets. It in no way forces D* or E* to use or endorse Tivo products or change their own dvrs with Tivo software.

Making excuses and calling us names doesn't help your arguments any - they just show that you are on this forum to bad mouth Tivo whenever you can.

There is nothing wrong with competition - the capitalistic society depends on it.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

dswallow said:


> The idea isn't "forcing DirecTV to get back with TiVo" but instead to force DirecTV (and Dish) to develop a system whereby third-party manufacturers could build receivers that would function with their respective authorization systems, much like cable was forced to come up with a way to do the same.


What makes you think any third party manufacturer would want to produce DirecTV proprietary hardware that has to compete with subsidized hr20's? Tivo doesn't even want to compete with cable dvr's anymore.

Unless the FCC can force Directv to let Tivo download software to the hardware Directv made and sold I don't see this going anywhere.


----------



## TonyTheTiger (Dec 22, 2006)

RS4 said:


> You backed out because you had the wrong arguments and you realized it. All this petition does is ask the FCC to open up the access to competition for the satellite markets the way it did for cable markets. It in no way forces D* or E* to use or endorse Tivo products or change their own dvrs with Tivo software.
> 
> Making excuses and calling us names doesn't help your arguments any - they just show that you are on this forum to bad mouth Tivo whenever you can.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with competition - the capitalistic society depends on it.


BS! Totally BS.

I love TiVo and would go back to it in a heartbeat, in fact, I still have one operational DTiVo, so don't try to put words into peoples' mouths in typical troll fashion.

I happen to be a realist and I don't respond to every post with propaganda like others do. In fact, if I had a dollar for every time I started to post a response to dictatorial propaganda, I'd be quite wealthy!

As for competition, I believe I already stated that I'm all for it. The OP was specifically trying to get the satellite companies to be forced to use TiVo software (AIUI), which ain't going to happen. Opening up access to competition is a totally different argument and one I'd support.

I make mistakes and I admit them, too (unlike some). What I DON'T do is try to ram my opinions down other peoples' throats whether it's relevant to the thread or not.


----------



## madbeachcat (Jan 31, 2002)

Personally, I do not want DirecTv to be forced into something as idiotic as cable cards are. I do not agre with the cables companies having been forced to adopt them. It hasn't fostered competition, since Tivo seems to be the only one in the market with the cable cqard DVR's.

Seems to me like the only real reason you guys want this, is to force Tivo down DirecTv's throat so you can keep Tivo. I don't want DirecTv to be forced to spend money on this instead of development of their boxes.


----------



## RS4 (Sep 2, 2001)

TonyTheTiger said:


> BS! Totally BS.
> 
> I love TiVo and would go back to it in a heartbeat, in fact, I still have one operational DTiVo, so don't try to put words into peoples' mouths in typical troll fashion.
> 
> ...


I would like you to point out in the OP's comments or in the petition where he says anything regarding the forcing the satellite companies to use the Tivo software. All he says is that they have closed systems and he is looking for consumer choice - that is exactly what the FCC forced cable to do - open its closed systems up to consumer choice. Jeesh I suggest you read his petition one more time with an open mind - instead of what you think he's got in there.


----------



## RS4 (Sep 2, 2001)

HiDefGator said:


> What makes you think any third party manufacturer would want to produce DirecTV proprietary hardware that has to compete with subsidized hr20's? Tivo doesn't even want to compete with cable dvr's anymore.
> 
> Unless the FCC can force Directv to let Tivo download software to the hardware Directv made and sold I don't see this going anywhere.


In case you guys haven't noticed, the stand-alone Tivos continue to grow. What does that say - there are still guys like me willing to pay a premium for a quality product. And apparently, as others find out about how good the Tivo is, they are willing to sign on as well, because these numbers grow each quarter.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

HiDefGator said:


> What makes you think any third party manufacturer would want to produce DirecTV proprietary hardware that has to compete with subsidized hr20's? Tivo doesn't even want to compete with cable dvr's anymore.


The ideal device would be one that can handle cable, digital cable, either satellite provider, and/or over-the-air broadcasts.

And it's technologically feasible today to do so in a mass market device. All that's really needed is to develop an accepted method for third party devices to be authorized on the satellite systems, probably through a CableCARD-like device that each satellite provider would ultimately control.

Then you'd be able to buy a single receiver that would always be usable, whether you chose to subscribe to cable, satellite or just use over-the-air signals.


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

RS4 said:


> In case you guys haven't noticed, the stand-alone Tivos continue to grow. What does that say - there are still guys like me willing to pay a premium for a quality product. And apparently, as others find out about how good the Tivo is, they are willing to sign on as well, because these numbers grow each quarter.


Apparently you have noticed that the stand alone platform is *not* growing. Do you ever read the transcripts of the financial reports and conference calls?

Tivo *lost* over half a million customers last year and not all of them were from DirecTV. Their stand alone subscriptions have gone down every quarter for a while now. There are now under 4 million Tivo subs in total, including over 2.5 million DirecTivo subs, and shrinking every month.

The Tivo CEO also stated in the last conference call that while they aren't giving up on the stand alone platform the future of the company is obviously integrated boxes as they are trying to do with Comcast and Cox. Providing software is their future, not selling tons of stand alone boxes (which they have never done anyway). So they are moving more and more away from doing their own hardware because they just don't sell.

Look, Tivo can be awesome and many people can love it to death, but that doesn't make it popular with the public at large or a viable product long term. Tivo has finally realized what they should have a decade ago and that their future is software development. Hopefully for Tivo it's not too late.

Methinks you have a picture of Tivo the company that just isn't there.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

RS4 said:


> In case you guys haven't noticed, the stand-alone Tivos continue to grow. What does that say - there are still guys like me willing to pay a premium for a quality product. And apparently, as others find out about how good the Tivo is, they are willing to sign on as well, because these numbers grow each quarter.


Unfortunately there just aren't enough guys like you!

Yes the total number of active standalones is slowly but steadily growing. But the growth rate is steadily declining and the churn rate is increasing.

The CEO just said they will no longer allow the standalone business to suck down cash to generate growth. Suggesting even slower standalone sales in the future with no rebates. Tivo's big future is currently tied to the Comcast and Cox deals.

Someday even Tivo may stop selling Tivo's.


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

dswallow said:


> The ideal device would be one that can handle cable, digital cable, either satellite provider, and/or over-the-air broadcasts.
> 
> And it's technologically feasible today to do so in a mass market device. All that's really needed is to develop an accepted method for third party devices to be authorized on the satellite systems, probably through a CableCARD-like device that each satellite provider would ultimately control.
> 
> Then you'd be able to buy a single receiver that would always be usable, whether you chose to subscribe to cable, satellite or just use over-the-air signals.


The problem, as Earl pointed out in another version of this thread, is that both Dish and DirecTV use totally different transmission methods. And that doesn't even count both different encryption schemes. And we won't even talk about the many other DBS services out there like XtreamHD, Glorystar, the soon to be defunct Sky Angel and all the FTA services. It's just too much of a mess and would cost billions to swap out 100 million plus receivers to a common transmission and encryption scheme all so 3rd party vendors could develop a receiver? It's just never going to happen. It's not as "simple" as cable was. And cable is killing off cable cards as it is and moving on to the next big thing. Technology changes so fast the FCC can't keep up with it with proding regulations like this and they have hopefully learned their lesson with the cable card failure.


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

HiDefGator said:


> Unfortunately there just aren't enough guys like you!
> 
> Yes the total number of active standalones is slowly but steadily growing. But the growth rate is steadily declining and the churn rate is increasing.
> 
> ...


Actually the stand alone business is shrinking. But everything else you said is spot on.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

shibby191 said:


> The problem, as Earl pointed out in another version of this thread, is that both Dish and DirecTV use totally different transmission methods. And that doesn't even count both different encryption schemes. And we won't even talk about the many other DBS services out there like XtreamHD, Glorystar, the soon to be defunct Sky Angel and all the FTA services. It's just too much of a mess and would cost billions to swap out 100 million plus receivers to a common transmission and encryption scheme all so 3rd party vendors could develop a receiver?


and yet cable companies have not swapped out millions of cable boxes nor changed things up much beyond using the cable card in new boxes that do everything else the same.

The idea is to not go in and change everything that exists - the idea is to evolve a standard over time that works for everyone. Small cable companies could apply for exceptions so the same happens for DBS as well.

In short, all of your argument was used by the cable company but when forced to it they managed to come up with something that is working, it just took time.

Taking time is the reason they should be told to get started now instead of later.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

shibby191 said:


> The problem, as Earl pointed out in another version of this thread, is that both Dish and DirecTV use totally different transmission methods. And that doesn't even count both different encryption schemes.


Actually most of the more current BroadCom chipsets are capable of receiving and, with proper additional hardware for the security card, decrypting, both DirecTV and Dish Network data streams. They support all the necessary modulation schemes and understand both providers data stream formats. The only real differences not handled by that chipset are how the single wire multiswitch systems are controlled, since there's generally only one RF path through teh CableCARD device, the only way to handle multiple tuners with satellite is to be able to use a single cable. But both Dish and DirecTV now have such solutions, so, as I said, it's now technically feasible, and likely even affordable to mass produce.


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

ZeoTiVo said:


> and yet cable companies have not swapped out millions of cable boxes nor changed things up much beyond using the cable card in new boxes that do everything else the same.
> 
> The idea is to not go in and change everything that exists - the idea is to evolve a standard over time that works for everyone. Small cable companies could apply for exceptions so the same happens for DBS as well.
> 
> ...


Apples and oranges. DBS companies would have to both change their encryption to work with the new standard. And thus a complete receiver swapout for both. It's different then what cable had to do.

Anyway, it's not worth arguing over.


----------



## tucsonbill (Aug 11, 2004)

Bonanzaair said:


> Ebonovic was right! Nothing from DirecTV about Tivo. I have waited long enough to put up with this situation. I have started a petition over at iPetition.com to have Congress and the FCC review the status of the satellite companies forcing it's customers to use in-house DVR boxes. The FCC forced cable to use the cablecard, maybe the same like thing should happen with satellite.
> 
> http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/satellitefreedom/
> 
> Bonanza


So after reading the thread, I finally went and looked at the "petition" and I wouldn't sign it if for no other reason that I can't figure out what you're petitioning for:



> Request the FCC and Congress to review decision to exempt satellite programming providers from offering the consumer a plug and play option to purchasing home theater electronic equipment, like Tivo.


 So what specific FCC Rule, or act of Congress is it that you want reviewed? Heck I'm so ignorant that I don't even know that the decision your protesting has been made.


> Currently both Dish and DirecTV limit consumers choice by only offering in-house DVR equipment often with a commitment period attached.


So you think the commitment requirement would go away because they don't own the equipment?


----------



## Bonanzaair (Aug 26, 2006)

tucsonbill said:


> So after reading the thread, I finally went and looked at the "petition" and I wouldn't sign it if for no other reason that I can't figure out what you're petitioning for:
> 
> So what specific FCC Rule, or act of Congress is it that you want reviewed? Heck I'm so ignorant that I don't even know that the decision your protesting has been made. So you think the commitment requirement would go away because they don't own the equipment?


I'm sure Earl will correct me, but the commitment was to get return on the equipment investment made by DirecTV. Not providing a $200 DVR should lower the commitment time.

Bonanza


----------



## RS4 (Sep 2, 2001)

shibby191 said:


> Apparently you have noticed that the stand alone platform is *not* growing. Do you ever read the transcripts of the financial reports and conference calls?
> 
> Tivo *lost* over half a million customers last year and not all of them were from DirecTV. Their stand alone subscriptions have gone down every quarter for a while now. There are now under 4 million Tivo subs in total, including over 2.5 million DirecTivo subs, and shrinking every month.
> 
> ...


He he he - you better look again at the numbers my friend before you speak about all of the doom and gloom for standalone units - they may not be growing fast, but they are growing. In fact, they have only had one quarter where they did not grow in the last 8 quarters.

Of course they would like to be in the software part - that's the easiest profits, because they don't have to mess with hardware, subsidies, and all of that stuff.

Keep up the doom and gloom all you want - but do it with the correct facts


----------



## RS4 (Sep 2, 2001)

madbeachcat said:


> Personally, I do not want DirecTv to be forced into something as idiotic as cable cards are. I do not agre with the cables companies having been forced to adopt them. It hasn't fostered competition, since Tivo seems to be the only one in the market with the cable cqard DVR's.
> 
> Seems to me like the only real reason you guys want this, is to force Tivo down DirecTv's throat so you can keep Tivo. I don't want DirecTv to be forced to spend money on this instead of development of their boxes.


What's the matter - afraid of a little competition? This is similar to the MAC / IBM PC days. IBM opened the specs on their computer while Apple did not. Look at what happened to the pc industry. The IBM and compatibles ended up with 90% of the market and technology took off like wildfire.

I sure don't understand why anyone is against competition


----------



## RS4 (Sep 2, 2001)

shibby191 said:


> Apples and oranges. DBS companies would have to both change their encryption to work with the new standard. And thus a complete receiver swapout for both. It's different then what cable had to do.
> 
> Anyway, it's not worth arguing over.


You guys really have closed minds - his arguments are right on. If I recall correctly, D* has already announced a device for the pc.

The cable industry was forced to open up a standard, but they continued using their existing equipment for years. It was only last year that they had to start using cablecards for new customers. Where there is a will, there is a way.

This is no different than the EU telling Microsoft to open up there specs - we all benefit from competition. Look at Microsoft - they hadn't bother to upgrade IE for years until they finally decided that they were having some competition from Firefox. BTW, I would suggest that some of the posters consider using it as it has a built-in spell checker - marvelous invention for guys like me.


----------



## RS4 (Sep 2, 2001)

tucsonbill said:


> So after reading the thread, I finally went and looked at the "petition" and I wouldn't sign it if for no other reason that I can't figure out what you're petitioning for:
> 
> So what specific FCC Rule, or act of Congress is it that you want reviewed? Heck I'm so ignorant that I don't even know that the decision your protesting has been made. So you think the commitment requirement would go away because they don't own the equipment?


At least you admit your knowledge about the status of the industry. Several years ago the FCC ordered the cable industry to standardize their interfaces in order to allow competition. They told the cable industry that they had to allow the client to be able to add their own box.

This is exactly the same kind of thing they did with the telephone industry several years before. The phone companies used to own all of the equipment (including the telephone in the house) and the customer paid a rental charge.

His petition is essentially asking the FCC to take the next step in the evolution of opening up these closed systems. And of course, the result for D*, E*, and the others would be the same thing - if they get competition, then you can bet they are going to pay more attention to their own products. And yes, I believe that one item that might disappear is that stupid commitment.


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

RS4 said:


> He he he - you better look again at the numbers my friend before you speak about all of the doom and gloom for standalone units - they may not be growing fast, but they are growing. In fact, they have only had one quarter where they did not grow in the last 8 quarters.
> 
> Of course they would like to be in the software part - that's the easiest profits, because they don't have to mess with hardware, subsidies, and all of that stuff.
> 
> Keep up the doom and gloom all you want - but do it with the correct facts


Ummm, why don't you listen to the Tivo CEO's recent presentations about the stand alone hardware business. Maybe, just maybe you'll actually learn something. They are really scaling back on it and offer no subsidies now. They aren't interested in growing the stand alone market because it's just not profitable. If someone is willing to plop down $299+ for a Tivo then they will take it, but he admits that is a hard thing for the general public to swallow when you can get a DVR free or nearly free from most cable and sat companies. Even DirecTV's DVR is cheaper to get. So getting on someone elses hardware platform is the future of the company. Period. No matter if you like it or not. Listen and get the real facts. 

And the *fact* is that in 2007 Tivo lost 500,000 customers and now sit at under 4 million total (1.75 million are Tivo stand alone subs). Meanwhile in total there are close to 30million people with DVRs in the country. So Tivo has about 13% of the market and shrinking. I'm not making a comment about if that is good or bad, but it's the facts. I apologize if I mispoke.


----------



## RS4 (Sep 2, 2001)

shibby191 said:


> Ummm, why don't you listen to the Tivo CEO's recent presentations about the stand alone hardware business. Maybe, just maybe you'll actually learn something. They are really scaling back on it and offer no subsidies now. They aren't interested in growing the stand alone market because it's just not profitable. If someone is willing to plop down $299+ for a Tivo then they will take it, but he admits that is a hard thing for the general public to swallow when you can get a DVR free or nearly free from most cable and sat companies. Even DirecTV's DVR is cheaper to get. So getting on someone elses hardware platform is the future of the company. Period. No matter if you like it or not. Listen and get the real facts.
> 
> And the *fact* is that in 2007 Tivo lost 500,000 customers and now sit at under 4 million total (1.75 million are Tivo stand alone subs). Meanwhile in total there are close to 30million people with DVRs in the country. So Tivo has about 13% of the market and shrinking. I'm not making a comment about if that is good or bad, but it's the facts. I apologize if I mispoke.


You obviously are not reading the posts, nor are you paying attention to the facts. The numbers show that the stand-alone Tivos are growing (net 33k last quarter).

It only makes sense that at this stage of the game, it is best for Tivo to sell software vs the additional costs that hardware and customer support require. But as Tivo starts picking up Cox and Comcast, along with some of the foreign customers, they may re-visit how much effort they put into the stand alone boxes.

My guess is that both cable and satellite will yield customers in the upcoming years as internet speeds increase along with new video offerings from the internet, so I could see Tivo maintaining an interest in a stand-alone dvr as the new markets shape up. I think the future of a stand-alone box depends on what happens with the internet offerings. In the mean time, Tivo can grow its business from the software side.


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

RS4 said:


> You obviously are not reading the posts, nor are you paying attention to the facts. The numbers show that the stand-alone Tivos are growing (net 33k last quarter).
> 
> It only makes sense that at this stage of the game, it is best for Tivo to sell software vs the additional costs that hardware and customer support require. But as Tivo starts picking up Cox and Comcast, along with some of the foreign customers, they may re-visit how much effort they put into the stand alone boxes.
> 
> My guess is that both cable and satellite will yield customers in the upcoming years as internet speeds increase along with new video offerings from the internet, so I could see Tivo maintaining an interest in a stand-alone dvr as the new markets shape up. I think the future of a stand-alone box depends on what happens with the internet offerings. In the mean time, Tivo can grow its business from the software side.


RS4, I think we both agree.  I was mearly pointing out to the person I responded to that seemed to think that the stand alone business was widely sucessfull and growing a lot. It's not and it's actually hurting and causing Tivo to lose money like crazy. I admit, I was wrong about it shinking every quarter but overall they are are shrinking and only adding 33K stand alones last quarter isn't exactly a barn burner. It's kind of like how they lost 6 million bucks and that was viewed as "positive". Success is all relative I guess. 

Thus why they are going to focus on software instead, which we both agree they need to do.


----------



## RS4 (Sep 2, 2001)

shibby191 said:


> RS4, I think we both agree.  I was mearly pointing out to the person I responded to that seemed to think that the stand alone business was widely sucessfull and growing a lot. It's not and it's actually hurting and causing Tivo to lose money like crazy. I admit, I was wrong about it shinking every quarter but overall they are are shrinking and only adding 33K stand alones last quarter isn't exactly a barn burner. It's kind of like how they lost 6 million bucks and that was viewed as "positive". Success is all relative I guess.
> 
> Thus why they are going to focus on software instead, which we both agree they need to do.


I agree with you on one point - Tivo is focusing on the software side of things at the moment.

They added 109k new stand-alone users last quarter (2 of 'em are mine) with a SAC of only $138.00 per box. That is the largest stand alone growth (positive - despite what you say) in 2 years while at the same time being the lowest SAC in 2 years.

Tivo may not want to compete with the cable dvr boxes, but I'm guessing they want to compete for the internet video business and hence the need for their own boxes. I think they will continue their stand-alone business and eventually ramp it up (or find a partner) as the internet business increases.


----------



## jimb726 (Jan 4, 2007)

Curiously, and I mean this, has TiVo ever come out and say as a corporation that they would want to do what is being asked? I am serious, I dont follow closely as I no longer have an HD Tivo and for the kids tv I really dont care what type of DVR they use. But what I am wondering is, has TiVo came out and said that they would be willing to spend the millions required to produce the box for what is largely an unknown market? I mean seriously, other than a small group of people who absolutely have to have TiVo as their DVR and choose that regardless of the provider, how big of a market is really there? I am sure that 18 to 24 months ago the people making the switch would jump back to TiVo in a heartbeat, but there are many threads now where staunch TiVo proponants are now saying that they like or even prefer (gasp) the HR2X. How many of them would now switch back after spending 12 to 24 months on the HR2X? I know I would not and thats me, but I suspect that a lot of people would not either. ANyway this was more of a question simply because I dont know the answer.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Some half facts going on here.

First who knows what they plan to do in regards to stand alones.
- tivo for as long as I can recall has been saying they only want to sell software and not be in the hardware business. Thats nothing new. 
- Over the years tivos subsidies for hardware have gone up and done - sometimes from quarter to quarter. One quarter they say they need to subsidize like mad to get into homes , the next quarter they refuse to subsidize anything because they want to become profitable, then 6 months later they start the subsidies/rebates all over.

About the law that OP is talking about:
The telecommunications Act of 1996 is the reason for cablecard. That is a LAW passed by congress and signed by the president. It is not a regulation, which is a rule promulgated by the FCC.

The LAW mandated the fcc to promulgate regulations to ensure people could find their own boxes at retail to buy. Specifically:



> The Commission shall, in consultation with appropriate industry
> standard-setting organizations, adopt regulations to assure the
> commercial availability, to consumers of multichannel video
> programming and other services offered over multichannel video
> ...


The law can be found here:
http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.txt

The LAW says this should apply to multichannel providers- of which the DBS companys are (dont have that reference in front of me but theres a legal definition either in that act or in an FCC regulation.

The law specifically tells the FCC not to screw up anyones security systems and also I believe gives the FCC the ability to exempt particular companys from any specific regulations for good reasons. (sorry no time to read up).

When the FCC starting making the rules for cablecard- the DBS companys complained that the rules shouldnt apply to them. If I recall correctly- MUCH if NOT THEIR ENTIRE argument was based on the fact that you could walk into a retail store and have a choice of brands of DBS boxes to buy (at the time directv probably had 5 or so brands and I think dish always had at least 2)- and that a consumer could BUY their own box and use it to get that particular provider (DISH or DirecTV) at any location in the us with that box so long as they could aim at the birds. The FCC bought the logic and issued the exemption.

Again IIRC Cable then said to the FCC  well if DBS doesnt have to play and were the only other significant player then we want cablelabs (actually its predecessor if I remember correctly) to develop the standard. I believe DBS (at least Directv) complained at the time that a third party like ANSI should develop any open standard so that if a competitor wanted to use it later (like DBS or the new telco entrants today) that they could use it too  so consumers buying these new boxes werent still locked to cable. The FCC relented and cablelabs got put in charge (even though they clearly are screwing FIOS and the other Telcos like Directv warned- FIOS has to comply with cablelab standards (either to become competitive or as a reulst of regualtion) even though they are not permitted to join cablelabs and have ZERO say in the development of those standards).

Well fast forward 12 years and both Directv and Dish have thrown out the 3rd party manufacturers. They both went in house for boe. You have essentially NO CHOICE of boxes. And you cant BUY them at retail (maybe with Dish you can?).

If I remembering all this correctly- DBS no longer has aleg to stand on that they dont need to create an open standard yet for whatever reason the FCC hasnt acted- which isnt a surprise.

What is surprising is that the cable people havent complained to the FCC about that. IF (big IF) they truly believe that a universal open standard is bad and costing them too much to implement then one would think they would want to drag DBS under the same bus that they are getting ran over with. I guess if I had to speculate, cable either wants to get to their end game (true2way?) and then complain so dbs has no say in shaping cables future open standard. Or perhaps long term cable thinks its beneficial to have one universal standard for all the cable systems to use- many have speculated that they would like that so that they arent tied to cisco/SA or moto or anyone else in the future- that their equipment would become a commodity so their costs would drop.

Sorry I dont have time to research and post 15 related links- but you can start by chewing on the law that set this all in motion above.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

jimb726 said:


> Curiously, and I mean this, has TiVo ever come out and say as a corporation that they would want to do what is being asked? I am serious, I dont follow closely as I no longer have an HD Tivo and for the kids tv I really dont care what type of DVR they use. But what I am wondering is, has TiVo came out and said that they would be willing to spend the millions required to produce the box for what is largely an unknown market? I mean seriously, other than a small group of people who absolutely have to have TiVo as their DVR and choose that regardless of the provider, how big of a market is really there? I am sure that 18 to 24 months ago the people making the switch would jump back to TiVo in a heartbeat, but there are many threads now where staunch TiVo proponants are now saying that they like or even prefer (gasp) the HR2X. How many of them would now switch back after spending 12 to 24 months on the HR2X? I know I would not and thats me, but I suspect that a lot of people would not either. ANyway this was more of a question simply because I dont know the answer.


personally- I think tivo might not want to be bothered. But in my mind that's not the point. The law is the law- and if for whatever reason (tons of speculation- for consumers, for ce company's, someone in a blog someplace even noticed that some big retailer like best buy had a large presence in one of the authoring congress persons' district or something like that)- congress intended people to be able to buy tuners from other places BESIDES places affiliated with the cable or DBS company's.

Now if that's no longer a good idea then the law should get revisited. But as long as it's the law, dbs should have to comply.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

here's a link to the regulation that DBS used to get the exemption - it's found in 47 C.F.R. § 76.1204(a)(2).

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/....gpo.gov/cfr_2006/octqtr/pdf/47cfr76.1204.pdf



> The foregoing requirement shall
> not apply to a multichannel video programming
> distributor that supports
> the active use by subscribers of navigation
> ...


I guess maybe dbs (at least directv) would argue that you can still walk into a bestbuy and lease a box from there.

But I don't see how that fits all the angles that the law says- specifically from manufacturers not affiliated with the vendor. maybe they argue that thomson and LG actually manufacture the boxes so that's still fine?

I'm not honestly sure of the intent or 'spirit' of the 1996 law but to me DBS seems not to be following the spirit.

(this is a regulation- NOT a law. A regulation is a rule created by a regulatory agency. The agency must have been given the power to create any particular regulation through a law passed by congress- so the FCC made it up- at the time i think it was reasonable- now I dont)


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

MichaelK said:


> What is surprising is that the cable people havent complained to the FCC about that. IF (big IF) they truly believe that a universal open standard is bad and costing them too much to implement then one would think they would want to drag DBS under the same bus that they are getting ran over with.


Cable isn't going to say a word because with switched video and other advanced technologies like IPTV they are getting out from under the Cable card which they never wanted in the first place and still to this day fight tooth and nail. If they complain now to the FCC that will just cause the FCC to shine the light back on them and force them into something again that they don't want.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

shibby191 said:


> Cable isn't going to say a word because with switched video and other advanced technologies like IPTV they are getting out from under the Cable card which they never wanted in the first place and still to this day fight tooth and nail. If they complain now to the FCC that will just cause the FCC to shine the light back on them and force them into something again that they don't want.


killing off cablecard (or more likely udcp's) doesn't change the Law or the earlier fcc rulings that they need to open their networks.

Unless the law changes, eventually there will be a national standard for 3rd party cable devices. I'd guess that will be OCAP/Tru2way with either downloadable security or cablecards. But in the end it will be cable as a whole through the NCTA and/or cablelabs that decides what the end game will be.


----------



## Mark Lopez (Jan 1, 2000)

Bonanzaair said:


> I have started a petition over at iPetition.com to have Congress and the FCC review the status of the satellite companies forcing it's customers to use in-house DVR boxes.


Wow, a whopping 55 signatures, up from 47 the first day. Yeah, this is going to go far.


----------



## RS4 (Sep 2, 2001)

Mark Lopez said:


> Wow, a whopping 55 signatures, up from 47 the first day. Yeah, this is going to go far.


As usual, we can always count on a positivedown... umm comment from Mark. Nice to have your support, Mark

BTW, in case you didn't notice, you have to give a donation to sign that petition, so these people have 'put their money where their mouth is'


----------



## Mark Lopez (Jan 1, 2000)

RS4 said:


> BTW, in case you didn't notice, you have to give a donation to sign that petition, so these people have 'put their money where their mouth is'


You do? Where does it say that? Sorry, but I'm not going to fall for any trick to sign it to see where it 'might' say that after I fill in the info.

In any case even if they do want a donation, it just goes to show people really don't care enough about 'saving Tivo', to fork over anything. <shrug>


----------



## sluciani (Apr 21, 2003)

HiDefGator said:


> What makes you think any third party manufacturer would want to produce DirecTV proprietary hardware that has to compete with subsidized hr20's? Tivo doesn't even want to compete with cable dvr's anymore.
> 
> Unless the FCC can force Directv to let Tivo download software to the hardware Directv made and sold I don't see this going anywhere.


Exactly. You hit the nail squarely on the head, IMO.  /steve


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

one bit about a third party manufacturer not wanting to try to compete with directv or dish-

if the FCC decided to actually enforce the law against the DBS companies their current regulations for cable prohibit cable from subsidizing boxes to avoid just such disencentives to 3rd parties. So presumably if they were to bother they would enforce that rule against dbs also. 

The fcc felt at the time that dbs's exemption was written into their regulations that the dbs stb purchase market was competitive and healthy-there were like 10 brands of dbs equipment all with varied features and price points and at the time unlike cable the vast majority of dbs subs owned rather then leased their equipment. 

so currently no one rational would try to compete with dbs's in house brands but if the same rules applied to dbs as cable then it would be a completely different ballgame.


----------



## Cudahy (Mar 21, 2001)

I still haven't heard any ratinal reason why Directv would be against allowing a Tivo interface on the DirectvHDdvr which would charge 3 or 4 dollars a more month so that Tivo could make money and Directv would keep more customers and lose absolutely nothing. The extra amount would depend on what the percentage of subscribers upgrading from the HD250 or SDtivos would be willing to pay. I'm sure they've done research on that. It's a win-win situation for both sides, though it would force Tivo to accept a small part of the DirectvDVR market. 
Murdoch didn't care about losing a few hundred thousand subscribers to cable over time, but Malone might feel differently about it.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

there's a few theories all over the net- the one's I've seen:

1) directv got nervous that people were beginning to like tivo better than directv. 
2) directv wanted more control then tivo would give- speicially they wanted the ability to do some ugly- not consumer friendly things like block commerical skipping or fast forward if advertisers paid extra
3) the relationship got poisened by directv's then sister company NDS.
4) until the comcast deal tivo hadn't made any such optional deals and it might have been that the original guy in charge (help me with the name...) wouldn't permit it- now that train has left the station.
5) directv has spouted some bunk that users expect the same user interface no matter what box.
6) it's cheaper to support just one box/user interface.
7) directv feels there is no need to offer tivo as their dvr is good enough to keep people from bailing.

anyone else have others?

Good point that all this happened under Ruppert- Malone MIGHT change things up some.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

And in the end Murdock bailed because he wanted more control over other stuff and feels DirectTV does not have a scaleable future


----------

