# Series 3 Tivo vs HR10-250



## kturcotte (Dec 9, 2002)

I know, there really isn't anything concrete about the Series 3 units, but I am considering switching to cable once they are released. Are they pretty much going to work just like thed HD DirecTivo (Though with all the cool Tivo features enabled)?


----------



## aztivo (Feb 23, 2005)

kturcotte said:


> I know, there really isn't anything concrete about the Series 3 units, but I am considering switching to cable once they are released. Are they pretty much going to work just like thed HD DirecTivo (Though with all the cool Tivo features enabled)?


what is not concrete about the series 3 
http://www.tivolovers.com/252572.html ?


----------



## AbMagFab (Feb 5, 2001)

The main issues are:
1) Cable sucks in many areas, with even less reliable signals that Satellite
2) CableCards have a notrious history of being really unreliable, thanks to cable companies not caring about them, thanks to the FCC forcing them to charge <$2 per card, but no limit on a set top box.

So, even if the Tivo is awesome, there's a high risk that the cable card could be so unreliable that it's a junk box. 

I'm super excited about the prospects of the S3, but very concerned with the reliabilty of the cable cards, and the total lack of attention by cable companies.


----------



## aztivo (Feb 23, 2005)

AbMagFab said:


> The main issues are:
> 1) Cable sucks in many areas, with even less reliable signals that Satellite
> 2) CableCards have a notrious history of being really unreliable, thanks to cable companies not caring about them, thanks to the FCC forcing them to charge <$2 per card, but no limit on a set top box.
> 
> ...


I have had a cable card in one of my tv's for over a year now and have had no problems at all


----------



## PRMan (Jul 26, 2000)

And the question of whether they will even give you 2 cablecards at all. Many people have reported that the cable companies won't do it.


----------



## AbMagFab (Feb 5, 2001)

> I have had a cable card in one of my tv's for over a year now and have had no problems at all


That's good to hear, and I hope that's true in my area, as I'll likely be dumping DirecTV when the S3 comes out (assuming it does MRV/TTG for a least SD programming).


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

PRMan said:


> And the question of whether they will even give you 2 cablecards at all. Many people have reported that the cable companies won't do it.


I've heard that too in a few threads, but i'm pretty sure a quick call to your congresspersons office gets them to call the cable company and they would quickly cough up a second card.

They have staffs of people to do stupid crap like that in the hopes that you vote for them later becasue they got you a cable card....

even asking to speak to a manager and threatening a call to the FCC and your congressperson would likely get you a card pretty fast.

That said- last i read (back at the beginnign of the year so it might have slipped) cablelabs said they expected m-cards to be distributed around now so presumably some of the larger systems can get you an m-card and you'll just need that one.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

AbMagFab said:


> That's good to hear, and I hope that's true in my area, as I'll likely be dumping DirecTV when the S3 comes out (assuming it does MRV/TTG for a least SD programming).


It sure seems to vary wildly. Just read all the threads at avs for nightmares.

I seem to be lucky- even though the cable company here is a dink they seem to be on the ball. They even maintain a database of previous installs and issues and when you call in they ask for model numbers. My friend called and they told him his panny plasma needed a firmware revision and even gave him the number to call Panasonic and told him what to say. Panny overnighted an SD card with the update and the cableguy helped him flash his tv when he installed the cablecard.

So it seems them CAN make cablecard work easily if they WANT to be bothered. Thats the 64,000 dollar question.


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

MichaelK said:


> That said- last i read (back at the beginnign of the year so it might have slipped) cablelabs said they expected m-cards to be distributed around now so presumably some of the larger systems can get you an m-card and you'll just need that one.


I didn't think the S3 was going to support multistream cards.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

yes it WILL support the multi stream cards.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

I'd like to see a breakdown of equivalent fees for say 4 Tivos with TotalChoice Premier against the equivalent on Cable.


----------



## BillyT2002 (Oct 19, 2002)

It might suppot the multistream cable cards, but unfortunately where I live is about to become Time-Warner cable company. Once TWC makes all of their digital programming available on SDV (switched digital video) bandwidth the TIVO series 3 will have nothing to record from the cablecards as the cablecards will not see SDV programming - God frikken help us all.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

zalusky said:


> I'd like to see a breakdown of equivalent fees for say 4 Tivos with TotalChoice Premier against the equivalent on Cable.


Problem with that... it is different for every Cable Company, and even different within the same company, but in a different area.


----------



## bsnelson (Oct 30, 1999)

zalusky said:


> I'd like to see a breakdown of equivalent fees for say 4 Tivos with TotalChoice Premier against the equivalent on Cable.


Indeed, or in my case *eight*. I just don't think I'll ever be a viable cable customer in my current config. I have to have access to NHL Center Ice, and I have to have 15 tuners to record all the games. I have that today (and surprisingly, acquired most of it very inexpensively), but I'd bet that there's no way I could even get that from cable ("Hello, cable company? Can you please send me eight multistream CableCards? Thanks!"), to say nothing of having to buy eight Series 3 boxes.

Having said this, I know I'm in a minority of about 5 people in the entire country on this, so I'm sure the cable company doesn't even care. 

Brad


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

BillyT2002 said:


> It might suppot the multistream cable cards, but unfortunately where I live is about to become Time-Warner cable company. Once TWC makes all of their digital programming available on SDV (switched digital video) bandwidth the TIVO series 3 will have nothing to record from the cablecards as the cablecards will not see SDV programming - God frikken help us all.


Don't panic yet! SDV is currently only being used by TWC and only in 3 markets. (Parts of TX, SC and San Diego, CA) Most other cable operators are evaluating the technology and have no plans to deploy it in the immediate future. Also TiVo recently sent a letter to the FCC which raised the concern of SDV being used to cripple CableCARD 1.0 devices, so it's possible the FCC could step in and put a stop to the adoption of SDV before it gets deployed to any other markets.

Dan


----------



## slimoli (Jul 30, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> Don't panic yet! SDV is currently only being used by TWC and only in 3 markets. (Parts of TX, SC and San Diego, CA) Most other cable operators are evaluating the technology and have no plans to deploy it in the immediate future. Also TiVo recently sent a letter to the FCC which raised the concern of SDV being used to cripple CableCARD 1.0 devices, so it's possible the FCC could step in and put a stop to the adoption of SDV before it gets deployed to any other markets.
> 
> Dan


I can't imagine the FCC ruling in favor of TIVO in this case: Cable companies need to expand in order to compete with satellites. If D* or E* come with 30-40 HD channels (I'm not considering the 150 new HD channels promised by D* because I don't believe in Santa ) there is no way the cablecos can match it without something like SDV. Who do you think has more bargain power?


----------



## slimoli (Jul 30, 2005)

There are many people happy and many upset with cablecards. In my case , it is not working as it should and I had the cableguys 4 times and the card replaced twice to no avail. My Mitsubishi can record from the cablecard but several channels show big horizontal tiles when recorded (some copy protection on some channels? ). I have a strong feeling that this is holdng the release of the S3.


----------



## AbMagFab (Feb 5, 2001)

bsnelson said:


> Indeed, or in my case *eight*. I just don't think I'll ever be a viable cable customer in my current config. I have to have access to NHL Center Ice, and I have to have 15 tuners to record all the games. I have that today (and surprisingly, acquired most of it very inexpensively), but I'd bet that there's no way I could even get that from cable ("Hello, cable company? Can you please send me eight multistream CableCards? Thanks!"), to say nothing of having to buy eight Series 3 boxes.
> 
> Having said this, I know I'm in a minority of about 5 people in the entire country on this, so I'm sure the cable company doesn't even care.
> 
> Brad


They don't all need to be S3 Tivo's. Unless you have 8 HD DirecTivo's. Regular S2 SA Tivo's work just fine, and they have dual-tuner models now for around $100 after rebates and such.

Plus, you can use the S2 Tivo's to act as clients to your S3 Tivo's, and treat the S3's, and your PC, as Tivo Servers.

I have 8 Tivo's in my house. I could actually cut at least 2 or 3 of them, since the S3 supports MRV, and I have a couple of S2 DirecTivo's (with modded 6.2) so I can get MRV of SD content on my HD TV's.

It's a beautiful thing, if it even comes out. And hopefully FiOS will support cablecard as well.


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

slimoli said:


> I can't imagine the FCC ruling in favor of TIVO in this case: Cable companies need to expand in order to compete with satellites.


Not just satellites. IMO the big threat will be IPTV, and it will be soon.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

slimoli said:


> I can't imagine the FCC ruling in favor of TIVO in this case: Cable companies need to expand in order to compete with satellites. If D* or E* come with 30-40 HD channels (I'm not considering the 150 new HD channels promised by D* because I don't believe in Santa ) there is no way the cablecos can match it without something like SDV. Who do you think has more bargain power?


The thing is that SDV is NOT their only option. Eliminating just a single analog channel frees up enough bandwidth to support 3 HDTV channels or as many as 10 SD digital channels. Most cable providers carry a lineup of 50-70 analog channels, so they could easily move a few of those over to digital and free up enough bandwidth to compete with the DSS providers, without breaking CableCARD.

I could see the FCC stepping in and stopping deployment of SDV until the CableCARD 2.0 standard was finished and deployed. Once that happens there will be a viable way for 3rd parties to produce SDV compatible equipment, so SDV will no longer be a threat to the OpenCable initiative.

Dan


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

I have a real problem with halting new technologies by governmental fiat. Meanwhile, eliminating analog channels disenfranchises those who still use analog-only service, and I promise you, that's a much larger population than the one made up of people who want cablecard devices.

I wonder how IPTV providers will fit in to this. As far as I know there's no cablecard-type requirement for them.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I'm not purposing "halting" the technology. I'm saying they should put it on hold until there is a viable way for 3rd party companies to produce compatible devices. That means the cable companies have to get off their collective asses and get CableCARD 2.0 out the door. Once that happens then they can put every channel on SDV for all I care. But as it is right now the ONLY way to tune SDV channels is using a box which you must lease from the cable company for $10+ per month. The purpose of CableCARD was to get us away from that monopolistic behavior, and now just a couple years later they come up with a new technology that forces everyone back to the old ways.

Dan


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

Well except they aren't monopolies anymore. Between satellite and telco-provided offerings, the days of cable's monopoly are over.

Would you impose a similar type of thing on satellite providers? What about IPTV providers like AT&T?


----------



## rminsk (Jun 4, 2002)

cheer said:


> Well except they aren't monopolies anymore. Between satellite and telco-provided offerings, the days of cable's monopoly are over.
> 
> Would you impose a similar type of thing on satellite providers? What about IPTV providers like AT&T?


Yes it would be nice if there were standards for satellite providers and IPTV. Then I would not be tied to their hardware and would allow me choice.


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

IMO there's a big difference between "it would be nice" and "the Federal Government should intervene and force things." But maybe it's just me.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

cheer said:


> Well except they aren't monopolies anymore. Between satellite and telco-provided offerings, the days of cable's monopoly are over.


Well they don't offer IPTV in my area, and I don't have a clear view of the sky needed for DSS, so for me they are a monopoly. Especially since they have a government contract that guarantees that they will be the only cable provider in the region for at least 10 more years.

And it's not like this is something new. The government already stepped in and told them that they had to support CableCARD. Now just two years later they've found a new technology that beaks CableCARD and forces people back over to using their equipment or nothing at all.

And believe me this has nothing to do with my loyalty to TiVo. The S3 unit is NOT CableCARD 2.0 compatible, so getting CC2.0 buttoned up sooner will do TiVo absolutely no good. However I'm a strong proponent to having some sort of viable alternative to leasing equipment from the cable company. This is no different then when the government stepped in and said that 3rd parties were allowed to make telephones. If they hadn't of done that you'd be paying $5/mo to your phone company to lease some crappy corded phone.

Dan


----------



## jfh3 (Apr 15, 2004)

cheer said:


> I didn't think the S3 was going to support multistream cards.


The Series 3 will support multi-stream cards, just not two-way (CC 2.0) cards.


----------



## BillyT2002 (Oct 19, 2002)

I wholeheartedly think that in this case the government should firectly intervene. Why? The government set down the original mandate telling TWC that they needed to embrace cable card technology in the first place. TWC is directly defying the FCC on this. Therefore the FCC needs to step in on this issue and prove that when they mandate something like this, they will back it up and enforce it or at least attempt to.

I think the FCC should step up to the plate and inform TWC that they either need to work with TIVO in order to quickly allow TIVO to record SDV streams, or they need to limit SDV streams to time-shifted programming only, or abandon it altogether.

Then they need to reassert that cable companies have X number (yes they need to pick a number) of years to get their own STB(s) working with cablecard technology as the underlying foundation.

Then, yes, cheer, I believe the FCC should also tell the dbs companies that they have until maybe a year after the cable companies to get their own receivers working with cable card technology as the foundation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then they should close the Comcast Philadelphia RSN loophole and tell all programming providers including the NFL that there will be no more exclusive contracts for any programming. Perhaps the NFL should just reimburse DirecTV for a pro-rated part of the exclusivity that they paid for and only charge them for access to the NFL ST (and I don't even like sports).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then they should eliminate the whole franchise area system altogether within the cable world (or terrestrial delivery world) and there should just be a federal mandate saying that any entertainment company can petition the FCC to lay new infrastructure within any state in order to provide new entertainment options and in doing so will assume 100% liability if they inadvertantly damage anyone else's infrastructure while doing so.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you level the playing field in this way - you will see very aggresive competition heat up and the results would be great for all entertainment consumers in a lot of places.


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> Well they don't offer IPTV in my area, and I don't have a clear view of the sky needed for DSS, so for me they are a monopoly. Especially since they have a government contract that guarantees that they will be the only cable provider in the region for at least 10 more years.


IPTV will be available sooner or later, I would think...but the real injustice there is the government contract that guarantees the cable monopoly. That's bad, but you don't fix goverment screwups with more government intervention.


> And it's not like this is something new. The government already stepped in and told them that they had to support CableCARD.


And as much as I personally would benefit from this type of thing, I think this was the wrong thing to do. It's just not (IMO) the government's job to mandate this sort of thing. This may be a philosophical difference, here -- I don't see government's role as forcing industries to add features or technologies that we want.


> Now just two years later they've found a new technology that beaks CableCARD and forces people back over to using their equipment or nothing at all.


Which makes them exactly like DBS and IPTV providers. Why are cable companies being singled out, anyway?


> And believe me this has nothing to do with my loyalty to TiVo. The S3 unit is NOT CableCARD 2.0 compatible, so getting CC2.0 buttoned up sooner will do TiVo absolutely no good. However I'm a strong proponent to having some sort of viable alternative to leasing equipment from the cable company. This is no different then when the government stepped in and said that 3rd parties were allowed to make telephones. If they hadn't of done that you'd be paying $5/mo to your phone company to lease some crappy corded phone.


Well...yes and no. There you had a real, national, federally-enforced monopoly which, incidentally, was the manufacturer of the equipment as well as the service provider. The government did intervene, which fixed a few things (purchasing of phones, competition of a sort in long distance) but left a lot broken (local monopolies).

The government historically cannot fix things and often makes things worse. The real fix is to allow true competition and let the market sort out things like features, pricing, and the like. That may mean you don't get what you want. But it always means quicker innovation at a lower cost to consumers.

You want to see competition? Strike down the goofy franchising requirements and tear up local monopolistic agreements. The telcos will accelerate IPTV or cable-esque video deployments so fast you'll get a nosebleed, and other alternatives will pop up too. Your local cable company will have to make things better and cheaper or lose business.


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

BillyT2002 said:


> I wholeheartedly think that in this case the government should firectly intervene. Why? The government set down the original mandate telling TWC that they needed to embrace cable card technology in the first place.


Two wrongs do not make a right.


> I think the FCC should step up to the plate and inform TWC that they either need to work with TIVO in order to quickly allow TIVO to record SDV streams, or they need to limit SDV streams to time-shifted programming only, or abandon it altogether.


It's not in the FCC's charter to make sure Tivo can stay in business.


> Then, yes, cheer, I believe the FCC should also tell the dbs companie that they have until maybe a year after the cable companies to get their own receivers working with cable card technology as the foundation.


IPTV providers too? Where does this end? What about Internet-based content providers using DRM? Should they all be forced to use the same DRM technology so everything is compatible? Should they force Apple to open up their FairPlay DRM so that any MP3 player can play a song from iTunes?

Just wondering where we draw the line at government interference.


> Then they should close the Comcast Philadelphia RSN loophole and tell all programming providers including the NFL that there will be no more exclusive contracts for any programming. Perhaps the NFL should just reimburse DirecTV for a prorated part of the exclusivity that they paid for and only charge them for access to the NFL ST (and I don't even like sports).


Wow. Just...wow. Now the government needs to make sure we can watch all the football games with any provider?

I'm speechless.


> Then they should eliminate the whole franchise area system altogether within the cacle world (or terrestrial delivery world) and there should just be a federal mandate saying that any entertainment company can petition the FCC to lay new infrastructure within any state in order to provide new entertainment options and in doing so will assume 100% liability if they inadvertantly damage anyone else's infrastructure while doing so.


With some minor modifications, I support this whole-heartedly.


> If you level the playing field in this way - you will see very agressive competition heat up and the results would be great for all entertainment consumers in a lot of places.


Government cannot level the playing field unless they do so by stepping out of the picture. I can think of exactly zero examples of an aggressively competitive industry where the rules are set up by governmental fiat.


----------



## BillyT2002 (Oct 19, 2002)

cheer said:


> IPTV providers too? Where does this end?


Yes, if a cablecard is the standard accepted by the FCC, then it should also apply to the IPTV (or any other conceivable television provider too), in my opinion.



cheer said:


> What about Internet-based content providers using DRM? Should they all be forced to use the same DRM technology so everything is compatible? Should they force Apple to open up their FairPlay DRM so that any MP3 player can play a song from iTunes?


Yes DRM should be standardized as well and all content providers should have to abide by said standard.

In general cheer, though I respect what you have to say, we see some things very differently. I'm all for letting the government work out the details to force better competition and faster however they see fit - provided that they are actually looking out for the consumer and not for private interests.


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

BillyT2002 said:


> In general cheer, though I respect what you have to say, we see some things very differently. I'm all for letting the government work out the details to force better competition and faster however they see fit - provided that they are actually looking out for the consumer and not for private interests.


I respect what you're saying as well, and I think our differences are probably philosophical (and thus likely won't change). 

My issue is...I'm not all for letting the government work out details to force better competition because, IMO, they can't do it. They never have. They never will. And this doesn't address cost, either. The vast majority of folks out there (as opposed to a majority of us enthusiast-types) don't care at all, don't know the difference between a cable-provided DVR and a Tivo, and shouldn't (again, IMO) be paying taxes to support an agency engaged in this sort of activity. Might be a little, or it might be a lot, but you know Washington -- a hundred million here, a hundred million there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money.

And the DRM thing is even worse -- there is no regulatory agency set up to enforce things like DRM standards.

Like I said...a philosophy thing.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

BillyT2002 said:


> Yes, if a cablecard is the standard accepted by the FCC, then it should also apply to the IPTV (or any other conceivable television provider too), in my opinion..


Cable card is only designed to work with CABLE. Iptv is not cable.. it shouldn't have to be made to work with something not designed for it..


----------



## vstone (May 11, 2002)

Just to stir the pot, our city wants to buy our local cable franchise to make money and lower taxes. I have informed the City Manager that Sprint is likely to roll out FIOS here someday, so the local high cable rates will not be sustainable. He says that our power poles, which are owned by the City, have no more room for additional cables. What will the city do when it needs to run more fiber optic to support IPTV, etc.?


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

FIOS is a Verizon product; did you mean Verizon?

Your city is insane. Cable companies are money pits; the cable industry is one of the most debt-laden there is.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

slimoli said:


> I can't imagine the FCC ruling in favor of TIVO in this case: Cable companies need to expand in order to compete with satellites. If D* or E* come with 30-40 HD channels (I'm not considering the 150 new HD channels promised by D* because I don't believe in Santa ) there is no way the cablecos can match it without something like SDV. Who do you think has more bargain power?


I think tivo likely is fighting an uphill battle for 1-way cable card boxes (unidirectional I think is the fancy FCC term).

But hopefully the FCC forcfes cable to include SDV compatibility into the CC2 spec and tivo can quickly adapt the series 3 to that once it become final.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

cheer said:


> I have a real problem with halting new technologies by governmental fiat. Meanwhile, eliminating analog channels disenfranchises those who still use analog-only service, and I promise you, that's a much larger population than the one made up of people who want cablecard devices.
> 
> I wonder how IPTV providers will fit in to this. As far as I know there's no cablecard-type requirement for them.


I dont like the givernment getting involved eitehr to slow anythign down, but the reality is the scummy cable companies have stalled cablecard sooo long that there still isn't a viable 2-way spec. Although at this point 2-way devices were likely envisioned to be deployed.

If the government has to foot drag technology to compensate for cables anticompetive foot dragging then -IN MY OPINION- let the government drag feet.

I dont know how IPTV providers fit in, but I know verizon told the FCC they plan to play nice with cablecard. I would suspect that ATT will also. So reality is all the big players (for now) will be on board.

EDIT: (read some more of your posts)
I too agree that in generall government involvment is evil. To tell you the truth I think breaking up ATT was S T U P I D. Up untill recently the cost of telephone calls dropped in a linear fashion for like 100 years. The breakup changed nothing by way of the price of a phone call. All it managed to do was cause some great upheavel to ATT and the people that worked there. They destroyed one of the last great american manufacturing and researtch companys. Att had a monolopy and it was regulated so the government should have just updated the stupid regulations to stop anything ATT did that the government didn't want.

I actually have no problem with a monopoly- sometimes it just makes the most sense. Look at most utilities- electricity, gas, etc. Competition just doesn't seem to work very well. Just leave the monopolies and regulate them so they dont abuse the customers.

The problem I have with cable is it's half a monopoly. It gets all the good stuff of being a monopoly- government granted franchises which create defacto monopolies. But there is no government regulation to go along with the monopolyu to control them. Satellite is hardly a viable competitor at this point- they just cant offer the triple and quadruble play offerings that cable and telco's are moving too that the general public seems to like. So the only real competition is local telco's and thet ARE regulated. Verizon has had scores and scores of towns wired with fiber ready to go video accross the country, yet due to local franchise and regulation bs they only have video in a few states and only in a large scale accross texeas with it's statewide franchise.

Cable has a government mandated monopoly and they need to be controlled to level the playing field.

Some of the ideas above to get rid of their local monopolies would work fine in my head, but the real world is TODAY in the majority of the country they have an advantage over any one else. Sat has no broadband, and telco's cant sell video.


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> The thing is that SDV is NOT their only option. Eliminating just a single analog channel frees up enough bandwidth to support 3 HDTV channels or as many as 10 SD digital channels. Most cable providers carry a lineup of 50-70 analog channels, so they could easily move a few of those over to digital and free up enough bandwidth to compete with the DSS providers, without breaking CableCARD.


My cable co (Cablevsion) recently moved SpeedVision and SoapNet to the Digital Tier, and a week later we had TNT-HD. (This was about two months after DirecTV introduced TNT-HD, so I'll be interested to see if Cablevision makes any more moves the next time DirecTV introduces a new HD network.)


----------



## jeffrypennock (May 18, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> Don't panic yet! SDV is currently only being used by TWC and only in 3 markets. (Parts of TX, SC and San Diego, CA) Most other cable operators are evaluating the technology and have no plans to deploy it in the immediate future. Also TiVo recently sent a letter to the FCC which raised the concern of SDV being used to cripple CableCARD 1.0 devices, so it's possible the FCC could step in and put a stop to the adoption of SDV before it gets deployed to any other markets.
> 
> Dan


A few days before TiVo sent _the letter_ to the FCC and Cable companies regarding the S3 being released "soon" and their expectation that it be supported in compliance with federal regulations, I was on the phone with a TWC Houston service tech and I liked what she had to say. She said that the implementation of switched digital in the Houston market was well underway and nearing 75% completion. She also said that ALL the HD channels and and almost all (I'll clear this up in a second) SD channels are NOT switched and are NOT going to be. She said that the only content that was switched was the on-demand content and the sports league subscription packages (i.e., the NFL, NHL, NBA and my beloved MLS season packages). When I pressed further about Premiums (like HBO, Showtime, etc), local HD channels, other HD channels, etc., currently being switched, she said no; when I asked about them being moved over to switched in the future, she kind of scoffed at the idea, saying they definitely didn't. When I asked her about cable card functionality in our market, she said you get "all the channels" with a cable card (except the league passes as mentioned above) and that that was precisely why it was unlikely that they would move channels over to the switched digital in the future. She also said they had no problem selling me multiple cable cards but advised me that I'd loose access to the programming guide and their DVR service (as if I'd miss that!).
OF COURSE, all of this has to be taken with a grain of salt. It's possible that we were talking about two totally different things or that we were talking about the same thing but she was just wrong or that what she was saying was correct but won't be so as far in to the future as she was confident it would be. She was just a higher level service tech working the phones for people with rather complicated tech support issues in the middle of the night...not a CEO or decision-maker for anything. Nonetheless, she's certainly more in-touch with what's coming down the pipeline than I am AND I really like what she had to say AND it seems to be the most compliant with federal regs and the intent of the legislature than anything we've heard out of cable companies lately AND she said all this even before TiVo sent _the letter_ giving notice to the FCC that TiVo intends for the regs to be enforced and the cable companies that TiVo has its ear to the ground and is unlikely to be a passive player in the market.
I just thought I'd share that with the group since this thread has turned into S3 speculation (of which I CANNOT get enough). On that note, I've not asked this since TiVo sent _the letter_; what do we think "soon" means regarding when I get to have an S3? I know the speculation was something between October and Christmas before _the letter_ but I was wondering if anyone has heard anything since the last time I asked or if we have any insight into what "soon" means?


----------

