# Goodbye TiVo



## skiajl6297 (Dec 27, 2007)

Kind of a sad day here. I just got off the phone with TiVo CSR to cancel service. Been with TiVo for 9 years. I don't recall the last time that I made a decision to cancel a product I have been using and actually felt sad about it. I have loved TiVo since I was in college. I introduced it to friends and family. I bragged about it, showed it off, embraced the culture. I have viewed forums like these for years. I'm moving on to fios dvr with img1.9. I'll save money, never have to buy hardware again, and will have an innovative product that is regularly updated and attended to. Not to say it will ever be as pleasurable to use as TiVo, but I am ok with that. I want a modern, easy to use, updated, functional box that I don't have to buy on top of my cable service. TiVo just isn't there anymore. 

I want TiVo to succeed and to come out with the next big thing in TV. Sadly, I think they never quite got it, nor did they adjust to the changing times. I hope fios works out. If not, maybe, someday, I'll fire up the old tivo box. But until then, adios TiVo. You were good. Just not as good as you could have been.


----------



## Resist (Dec 21, 2003)

skiajl6297 said:


> never have to buy hardware again


That's doubtful, unless you're going to be renting hardware from now on.


----------



## skiajl6297 (Dec 27, 2007)

I will be renting my hardware from fios from now on.


----------



## Joe01880 (Feb 8, 2009)

skiajl6297 said:


> Kind of a sad day here. I just got off the phone with TiVo CSR to cancel service. Been with TiVo for 9 years. I don't recall the last time that I made a decision to cancel a product I have been using and actually felt sad about it. I have loved TiVo since I was in college. I introduced it to friends and family. I bragged about it, showed it off, embraced the culture. I have viewed forums like these for years. I'm moving on to fios dvr with img1.9. I'll save money, never have to buy hardware again, and will have an innovative product that is regularly updated and attended to. Not to say it will ever be as pleasurable to use as TiVo, but I am ok with that. I want a modern, easy to use, updated, functional box that I don't have to buy on top of my cable service. TiVo just isn't there anymore.
> 
> I want TiVo to succeed and to come out with the next big thing in TV. Sadly, I think they never quite got it, nor did they adjust to the changing times. I hope fios works out. If not, maybe, someday, I'll fire up the old tivo box. But until then, adios TiVo. You were good. Just not as good as you could have been.


I saw img 1.9 today for the first time on my mother-in-laws TV, the guide was so blury i could barely make it out. Reading on other forums the software is very buggy as is all FiOS software updates.
I have been a FiOS user for the past 6 years. I have had every DVR FiOS uses except the cisco box and thats the one my mother-law has. I currently have a Moto 7232-2. You are going to be very disapointed leaving a TiVo for a Verizon DVR.
First thing you are likely to notice, with img 1.9 is the blury guide font, next the inconsistant guide data. Next the fact the FiOS DVR's miss recordings and due to the guide data even when you set them to only record new you get new and reruns....sometimes. Next will be video stuttuers and audio drops but dont take my word on any of this, cancel TiVo, go solely with a FiOS DVR and see for yourself..you'll be back..Vaya Con Dios


----------



## Resist (Dec 21, 2003)

If it works for you, then good luck. I personally hate renting hardware and would rather own it.

Hate to see you go. Not sure I could ever leave Tivo at this time, I did it once and regretted it.


----------



## skiajl6297 (Dec 27, 2007)

I have the new cisco box, and haven't had any issues with a blurry menu. I also have a very large tv, so perhaps it is less viewable on < 50" screens. Definitely something I'll keep an eye out for though. Been using the 1.9 for about a month and haven't had any audio/video hiccups yet, but knock on wood, they won't start now that you mention it. (I will be watching closely! Thanks for making me paranoid!)

One important factor here is that I don't watch as much tv as I used to. It is important for me to get real value for my money. And TiVo has dropped to a niche add-on kind of product for me. Sure it has some perks and does things really well, but the other guys do similar things just well enough (and in some cases better) to legitimately compete. And unless you REALLY care about your DVR, I don't see any benefit to a TiVo for the majority of consumers. And at the end of the day, I'd venture to say that's why TiVo isn't exactly flourishing financially. I don't want to invest in hardware being built on a slowly sinking ship. (again, just my two cents on TiVo's future, consult your financial adviser on determining the sinking ship's status on your own).

Ultimately, I am not here to bash TiVo - I loved it, and would keep it if money were no object and I could outfit all of my tv's with TiVos, but for me, in my situation, it was sensible to move on. Just had to share with some folks that might appreciate the fact that I am actually feeling a tinge of sadness for leaving a stupid hunk of electronics behind.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

Good luck, I couldn't justify paying $200 a year for something I wasn't going to own.


----------



## Len McRiddles (Dec 21, 2002)

Best wishes, take care.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

skiajl6297 said:


> Kind of a sad day here. I just got off the phone with TiVo CSR to cancel service. Been with TiVo for 9 years. I don't recall the last time that I made a decision to cancel a product I have been using and actually felt sad about it. I have loved TiVo since I was in college. I introduced it to friends and family. I bragged about it, showed it off, embraced the culture. I have viewed forums like these for years. I'm moving on to fios dvr with img1.9. I'll save money, never have to buy hardware again, and will have an innovative product that is regularly updated and attended to. Not to say it will ever be as pleasurable to use as TiVo, but I am ok with that. I want a modern, easy to use, updated, functional box that I don't have to buy on top of my cable service. TiVo just isn't there anymore.
> 
> I want TiVo to succeed and to come out with the next big thing in TV. Sadly, I think they never quite got it, nor did they adjust to the changing times. I hope fios works out. If not, maybe, someday, I'll fire up the old tivo box. But until then, adios TiVo. You were good. Just not as good as you could have been.


Didn't you at least try to get the $99 lifetime deal on whatever you were cancelling to increase its resale value?


----------



## Resist (Dec 21, 2003)

innocentfreak said:


> Good luck, I couldn't justify paying $200 a year for something I wasn't going to own.


I'm with you on this, even though I know it makes more financial sense to lease depreciating assets and own appreciating assets.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

innocentfreak said:


> Good luck, I couldn't justify paying $200 a year for something I wasn't going to own.


It' hard for me to justify using anything (for personal purposes) I don't own. I don't even have a screwdriver or wrench in my toolbox that I have not modified for superior performance and to better meet my needs. I refuse to run an OS on a computer (or a DVR) that I cannot easily modify. Why on Earth would I ever pay a large sum of money for a device that only meets the needs someone who will never even meet me thinks I should have, rather than the ones I do have?

Absolute deal killers:


No way to replace the hard drive with a larger drive.
No way to backup the hard drive in case the internal drive fails.
No way to replace the OS Kernel or any of its applications.
No way to add 3rd party applications.
No ftp or telet access.
No pyTivo (an inferior app does not count).
No TiVoWebPlus (again, an inferior app does not count).
No kmttg (again, well, you know...).
No vidmgr (again... yeah).
No Galleon (again... ahem).
Does it support uploading to an external device in any form or format?
Does it support downloading from a local device in any format (this I think maybe it does)?
No wishlists.
No Suggestions.
There are also a lot of other features that are not deal killers, but the lack of even one of the above is unacceptable.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Resist said:


> I'm with you on this, even though I know it makes more financial sense to lease depreciating assets and own appreciating assets.


It makes the most financial sense not to have a DVR, CableTV, or a TV at all. If money were the only consideration, I would own nothing but a 1 room shack with a stove, a refrigerator, and a bicycle parked out front. It's also not true leasing depreciating assets makes more sense. It is only true if the cost of leasing is less than the average cost of the life of the purchased asset. We have a pickup truck that is over 40 years old with more than 500,000 miles on it. Leasing pickups for 43 years would have cost vastly more than the $5000 purchase price plus the relatively modest maintenance costs on the vehicle. The personal vehicle I drive every day (a Camaro convertible) would have cost much more than the $14,000 I paid for it in 2005.


----------



## MeInDallas (Jul 31, 2011)

You may even decide you want to use the Tivo to get the off air stations at some point. I'm using Time Warners DVR's because like you I had decided the same thing a couple of years ago, but since then I have been getting free DVR service from them so I hooked the Tivo's back up to get the off air programs I want to watch, and use the TWC DVR's to record the cable shows. Who says you cant have 4 tuners without buying an Elite!  Also I like to transfer stuff to the Tivo's with pyTivo so that was something else I missed.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

skiajl6297 said:


> Kind of a sad day here. I just got off the phone with TiVo CSR to cancel service. Been with TiVo for 9 years. I don't recall the last time that I made a decision to cancel a product I have been using and actually felt sad about it.


You've been paying monthly for 9 years? Should have gotten lifetime!

(or even if you had 2-3 Tivos in that time, should have gotten lifetime!)


----------



## Soapm (May 9, 2007)

Any bets when he'll be back?


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

Resist said:


> If it works for you, then good luck. I personally hate renting hardware and would rather own it.
> 
> Hate to see you go. Not sure I could ever leave Tivo at this time, I did it once and regretted it.


If the cable companies offer the Tivo Q I will rent it.


----------



## Joe01880 (Feb 8, 2009)

Johncv said:


> If the cable companies offer the Tivo Q I will rent it.


Verizon isnt going to do that..


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

skiajl6297 said:


> I'll save money, never have to buy hardware again, ...


While you may never have to buy hardware again, it's doubtful that you'll ever save money renting a cableco's DVR. Depending on which Tivo you have, your monthly fees may be lower than the DVR you're renting. Also, with a Tivo, you can at least get something back by selling it when you're done using it. You have zero equity in the box you rent.

There are other options to both Tivo and the cableco DVR that won't cost you anything in monthly fees other than the TV package, although there can be a sizable initial investment and it's not a plug and play solution. Some level of technical expertise is required, but you don't have to be a guru either. I'll just leave it at that rather than get on my soapbox again.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

skiajl6297 said:


> Kind of a sad day here. I just got off the phone with TiVo CSR to cancel service. Been with TiVo for 9 years. I don't recall the last time that I made a decision to cancel a product I have been using and actually felt sad about it. I have loved TiVo since I was in college. I introduced it to friends and family. I bragged about it, showed it off, embraced the culture. I have viewed forums like these for years. I'm moving on to fios dvr with img1.9. I'll save money, never have to buy hardware again, and will have an innovative product that is regularly updated and attended to. Not to say it will ever be as pleasurable to use as TiVo, but I am ok with that. I want a modern, easy to use, updated, functional box that I don't have to buy on top of my cable service. TiVo just isn't there anymore.
> 
> I want TiVo to succeed and to come out with the next big thing in TV. Sadly, I think they never quite got it, nor did they adjust to the changing times. I hope fios works out. If not, maybe, someday, I'll fire up the old tivo box. But until then, adios TiVo. You were good. Just not as good as you could have been.


I've been with FiOS 4+ years. If I had been using FiOS DVRs all that time instead of TiVos I would have paid much more money. The FiOS DVRs cost more in the long run and from what I have seen in my area with my neighbors, are not as reliable(They are always complaining about missed recordings). And of course you can't save the content like you can with TiVo Desktop either.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

Joe01880 said:


> Verizon isnt going to do that..


One would think that with success that Virgin Media is having with TiVo that it send both Verizon and AT&T running to TiVo with suitcases full of money. Can you see the number of people who drop Cox, Comcast and Time-Warner if Verizon and AT&T both change all their boxes to the TiVo-Q and advertise and supported the TiVo the way Virgin did.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

Johncv said:


> One would think that with success that Virgin Media is having with TiVo that it send both Verizon and AT&T running to TiVo with suitcases full of money. Can you see the number of people who drop Cox, Comcast and Time-Warner if Verizon and AT&T both change all their boxes to the TiVo-Q and advertise and supported the TiVo the way Virgin did.


But if you do it the way Virgin did, you have to get TiVo to kill off all of the stand alone boxes.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

unitron said:


> But if you do it the way Virgin did, you have to get TiVo to kill off all of the stand alone boxes.


Shades of gray to what we have now....


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

mattack said:


> You've been paying monthly for 9 years? Should have gotten lifetime!
> 
> (or even if you had 2-3 Tivos in that time, should have gotten lifetime!)


One box on lifetime is all you needed for 6.99 msd... payback for other boxes isn't so clear if one upgraded a couple times. Toss in the periods when lifetime wasn't available and having some boxes on month to month isn't crazy.

Also the comment about not buying is telling. Some are reluctant to fork out hundreds up front for a new box Plus lifetime because its no longer clear that TiVo will be dominant (or even in the stand alone business) for years after the purchase. Probably that explains some of the folks still not upgraded to premieres.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> One box on lifetime is all you needed for 6.99 msd... payback for other boxes isn't so clear if one upgraded a couple times. Toss in the periods when lifetime wasn't available and having some boxes on month to month isn't crazy.
> 
> Also the comment about not buying is telling. Some are reluctant to fork out hundreds up front for a new box Plus lifetime because its no longer clear that TiVo will be dominant (or even in the stand alone business) for years after the purchase. Probably that explains some of the folks still not upgraded to premieres.


One box on lifetime was previously all that was needed for $6.95 MSD, now it's $9.95, or $14.95 for S4s.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

unitron said:


> One box on lifetime was previously all that was needed for $6.95 MSD, now it's $9.95, or $14.95 for S4s.


Exactly. Hence I said "needed" and not "need". If someone had TiVo for 9 years than its not a stretch he was getting 6.95 for msd.


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

innocentfreak said:


> Good luck, I couldn't justify paying $200 a year for something I wasn't going to own.


But would you pay $48?  That'd be the CableCARD rental fee... My Verizon DVR came with 18 months free, so I've still got about 7 or 8 to go. IMG 1.9 is not as smooth as TiVo in many respects, but for most Verizon customers it's obviously sufficient. I have not found the fonts blurry, but they are probably too small and there should be more contrast. Some of the overall color choices/schemes are odd/unappealing as well. I know VZ is listening and expect we'll see some UI tweaks with the next revision in a few months. The remote is annoying as wel.

BUT in some cases, IMG is superior to TiVo - especially when it comes to a HD guide, search (for me, because it includes channels), remote access/management, and on-demand is priceless. Someone alluded to storage and third party apps... IMG 1.9 supports external drives (without marketing agreements like TiVo) and they do have apps like Pandora (although I find them slow and klugy - so TiVo and Verizon have some things in common.)

At the end of the day it's going to come down to folks preferences... assuming they're even educated on TiVo. But we TiVo owners are in the minority.


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

Johncv said:


> One would think that with success that Virgin Media is having with TiVo that it send both Verizon and AT&T running to TiVo with suitcases full of money. Can you see the number of people who drop Cox, Comcast and Time-Warner if Verizon and AT&T both change all their boxes to the TiVo-Q and advertise and supported the TiVo the way Virgin did.


TiVo is suing both of those guys (along with Motorola and Microsoft), so they burned that bridge... Besides, the US market is *much* different than the UK market.


----------



## Joe01880 (Feb 8, 2009)

unitron said:


> One box on lifetime was previously all that was needed for $6.95 MSD, now it's $9.95, or $14.95 for S4s.


My Premiere renews at $99 paid yearly, 8.25 a month. A much better deal!


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

davezatz said:


> But would you pay $48?


Lol only because they won't let me buy it. When I got my self-install sheet, they said they would charge me $100 if I lost the CableCARD. I have definitely paid over that by now in CableCARD rental fees on some of my cards.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

davezatz said:


> My Verizon DVR came with 18 months free,


Lucky you, we all know that some cable/satellite companies us DVRs as loss leaders. If you happen to be somewhere where that is happening there is nothing TiVo can do to complete and it just makes sense for you to enjoy your free ride.



davezatz said:


> TiVo is suing both of those guys (along with Motorola and Microsoft), so they burned that bridge... Besides, the US market is *much* different than the UK market.


The fact that TiVo is or isn't suing them has little or nothing to do with if they will work with TiVo or not. I always comes down to $$$s, if they can make more by buying DVRs or software from TiVo they will, if they can't they wont. Just ask Apple and Samsung how that works. They are suing each other in many places while being major partners in others, all at the same time.

The US Market maybe different than the UK market however business works the same way on both sides of the pond. Virgin Media is working with TiVo because Virgin Media believes it will be profitable for Virgin Media. The same would have to be true for Verizon and AT&T, TiVo would have to convince them that offering TiVo DVRs was more profitable for them than not offering TiVo DVRs. Success in any market will help TiVo in others.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

davezatz said:


> But would you pay $48?  That'd be the CableCARD rental fee... My Verizon DVR came with 18 months free, so I've still got about 7 or 8 to go.


After 18 months you will likely have lots of content saved on the Verizon DVR. Even if the Tivo is a better deal after the 18 months, the cost and effort of transferring that content to a Tivo might be prohibitive.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

shwru980r said:


> After 18 months you will likely have lots of content saved on the Verizon DVR. Even if the Tivo is a better deal after the 18 months, the cost and effort of transferring that content to a Tivo might be prohibitive.


Is that even possible?


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> Lucky you, we all know that some cable/satellite companies us DVRs as loss leaders. If you happen to be somewhere where that is happening there is nothing TiVo can do to complete and it just makes sense for you to enjoy your free ride.
> 
> The fact that TiVo is or isn't suing them has little or nothing to do with if they will work with TiVo or not. I always comes down to $$$s, if they can make more by buying DVRs or software from TiVo they will, if they can't they wont. Just ask Apple and Samsung how that works. They are suing each other in many places while being major partners in others, all at the same time.
> 
> The US Market maybe different than the UK market however business works the same way on both sides of the pond. Virgin Media is working with TiVo because Virgin Media believes it will be profitable for Virgin Media. The same would have to be true for Verizon and AT&T, TiVo would have to convince them that offering TiVo DVRs was more profitable for them than not offering TiVo DVRs. Success in any market will help TiVo in others.


Thank you, another person who share my view. Now if you and I can see this, why cant the Idiots In Charge of Verizon and AT&T see this, for that matter why cant Cox, Comcast, and Time-Waner also see this? Are the marketing department not aware of the success that Virgin Media is having with working with TiVo, if department is unaware then it not doing it job.


----------



## vurbano (Apr 20, 2004)

I ditto the comment about how much this is going to cost you yearly. My Fios charges would be outrageous with a 3 room streaming setup. Not gonna happen.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> ...
> The fact that TiVo is or isn't suing them has little or nothing to do with if they will work with TiVo or not. I always comes down to $$$s, if they can make more by buying DVRs or software from TiVo they will, if they can't they wont. Just ask Apple and Samsung how that works. They are suing each other in many places while being major partners in others, all at the same time.
> 
> The US Market maybe different than the UK market however business works the same way on both sides of the pond. Virgin Media is working with TiVo because Virgin Media believes it will be profitable for Virgin Media. The same would have to be true for Verizon and AT&T, TiVo would have to convince them that offering TiVo DVRs was more profitable for them than not offering TiVo DVRs. Success in any market will help TiVo in others.


good points.



Johncv said:


> Thank you, another person who share my view. Now if you and I can see this, why cant the Idiots In Charge of Verizon and AT&T see this, for that matter why cant Cox, Comcast, and Time-Waner also see this? Are the marketing department not aware of the success that Virgin Media is having with working with TiVo, if department is unaware then it not doing it job.


Sadly for tivo it looks like Directv's experience is that one can make more money without tivo. They've tried it both ways for significant periods of time. (year(s) with tivo as one of several options, years with Tivo as the "in house" brand, and now years without tivo but rather their own in house brand). Yet there's zero rush to even let tivo in the directv pool never mind promote it or go the route of even letting tivo be a legit option, Tivo becoming the in house brand is a laughable scenario. So if you are ATT or Verizon or anyone else why do you even answer tivo's calls?

Comcast's experience didn't go well either for Tivo (although i think Tivo never really got a legit chance).

So the big boys have apparently done the math and it makes no sense to play with Tivo.

So Tivo is left to pick at the edges with the smaller providers that dont have resources to customize their own platforms. No Directv, Dish, Verizon, or ATT. Seems COX is perhaps the largest that tivo has a shot at? (and that seems like it's go off the radar and they might just be the new comcast in tivo's client list...)

The way I see it is the DVR market seems to be one of "good enough" and sadly even tivo plays the "good enough" game. Cable and Verizon both think that their boxes just need to be good enough so people dont want to throw the remote at the tv and change providers. But tivo is half baked too compared to their past. Their 'one box' apps are made just 'good enough'- they built them once and then never touch them again as others improve. The HD UI is just "good enough"- they dont bother with the less used screens. The DVR functions are just "good enough' to stay ahead- they add very little even when the competition edges closer and closer with things like whole home streaming and soft padding. Sometimes in some ways it sounds like the competition even trumps tivo. So even Tivo doesn't try anymore to be stellar. They're racing to the basement with the rest.

To me, Tivo needs to give up on being "good enough" and try to be the hands down best like it felt years ago when it was just them and replay and perhaps ultimatetv and the others where clearly dogs.

Analogies are always flawed but Tivo is like Sprint- their cell network is "good enough" for many. And how's that working out for Sprint? If Tivo endeavored to be like Verizon and have the product that everyone "knows" is the best they too could charge a crazy premium like verizon does and just like them laugh all the way to the bank as all their customers complain they pay too much.

I'm not sure tivo ever gave that a legitimate try. They sort of attempt to market that way at times but they stopped years ago trying to program that way.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

I don't know about Verizon charging a premium. Their prices were in line with other carriers when I last checked for 400 to 500 minutes of talk plus text and video.


----------



## jcthorne (Jan 28, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> I don't know about Verizon charging a premium. Their prices were in line with other carriers when I last checked for 400 to 500 minutes of talk plus text and video.


As of this last weekend, neglecting hardware costs, Verizon was more than twice the cost of our 2 line plan with voice, text and data for 2 android smartphones. Verizon 260/m, Sprint 105. That was without insurance and taxes which would bring them a few $$ closer.

Then there is the hardware costs. Sprint upgrades one line to the 'latest and greatest' once a year, the other line every other year for a nominal charge, usually about $50.

I will admit Verizon's network is larger but Sprint phones roam onto Verizon for free anyway......


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

jcthorne said:


> As of this last weekend, neglecting hardware costs, Verizon was more than twice the cost of our 2 line plan with voice, text and data for 2 android smartphones. Verizon 260/m, Sprint 105. That was without insurance and taxes which would bring them a few $$ closer.
> 
> Then there is the hardware costs. Sprint upgrades one line to the 'latest and greatest' once a year, the other line every other year for a nominal charge, usually about $50.
> 
> I will admit Verizon's network is larger but Sprint phones roam onto Verizon for free anyway......


I have only priced it out for one phone. I just checked SPrint prices again and Sprint does still have unlimited data. I do still have unlimited data with Verizon, but with a similar plan from Sprint my costs would be around $10 more each month with Sprint before taxes. (Sprint $70 and Verizon $60 a month after discount) Only because I get a $10 discount off cellular from combining my TV , internet, and cellular.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

jcthorne said:


> ...
> 
> I will admit Verizon's network is larger but Sprint phones roam onto Verizon for free anyway......


I know I'm the one that "started it" and hate to drag thread off topic with a sprint vs verizon discussion- but maybe it isn't now that I think about it....

Sadly the above statement is something of a mis-truth that gets shared all over- it's sort of like how cable tells you "our DVR records shows too- just like Tivo".

What sprint and the bandwagon leave out is that you only roam where sprint has deemed the coverage to be inadequate. Sprint (like all CDMA carriers- and I assume there's some GSM equal) programs your phone with a PRL (preferred roaming list) telling the phone where it is and is not allowed to roam. They want to minimize their roaming bill so you can't just roam on any competitors tower. So in a place where the service exists but is a little spotty they might decide that's good enough and no roaming for you- if you drive another 100 ft or move closer to a window in your office you'll get a signal from sprint so why would they pay verizon for you to roam? (is how their bean counters figure it). If there's an obvious problem- like you are in the middle of a county someplace with zero coverage then they pay to let you roam. in Short- they make sure their coverage is "just good enough".

Cable does the same sort of thing. Sure the cable dvr also records shows but they apparently miss some amount (if we believe the posters here). Say they mess up 1-2 % of the time- John Q public likely doesn't notice mush of that or just shrugs his shoulders and moves along. Again it's "just good enough". He never had a tivo anyway likely so he doesn't know it's possible to get that little bit closer to perfection that tivo manages.

Apparently it's a reasonable business move- seems that only Directv and Dish think its worth trying to make a best in class DVR. Cable and Fios are happy to have crap software on many of their systems. In the case of wireless cell phones- ATT was only going to cover X percent of their footprint with LTE until they needed an excuse to try and buy T-mobile, so Sprint isn't alone. Actually mentioning Dish and Directv points to another example- Dish is generally cheaper and trys to carry "just enough" channels to keep most happy but still keep their costs down. Everytime there's a contract up they drive a hard bargain and maybe even lose the channel. Most people dont care as long as their bill is cheap as it can be.

On the flip side- some businesses take the opposite business move to try and be the best. For sports Directv pays to get "ALL" the sports and as a result they generally charge more and make a little more on the average sub. Verizon attempts to have the best network and uses it as a selling point to get more money per sub too.

It feels like Tivo is aiming for "just good enough" and high volume rather than best in class to justify their higher fee system. I guess they feel that being the best didn't pay off early on so why bother with that approach- but i think their execution was the issue not the plan.

(Ps- long time sprint and verizon customer. Trust me sprint is cheaper- at least for more complex accounts. And verizon has better coverage- at least in the north east in the former Bell atlantic nynex areas- it's not 100's of times better or anything but there's just small little dead spots where sprint drops a call where verizon wont. Like John Q public missing a show or two on cable DVR- if you never try verizon in the northeast and only every had sprint you wouldn't notice it )


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> ......... Sure the cable dvr also records shows but they apparently miss some amount (if we believe the posters here). Say they mess up 1-2 % of the time- John Q public likely doesn't notice mush of that or just shrugs his shoulders and moves along. Again it's "just good enough". He never had a tivo anyway likely so he doesn't know it's possible to get that little bit closer to perfection that tivo manages.
> .........


For me and many other posters here, TiVo doesn't manage even 98% recording reliability when using a Tuning Adapter.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

dlfl said:


> For me and many other posters here, TiVo doesn't manage even 98% recording reliability when using a Tuning Adapter.


I am very glad that I don't have to deal with one. From what I read it sounds like a PITA. Without the recording reliability that would defeat the main purpose of having a TiVo for me.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

That's completely specious. It's true the TA does lock up from time to time, and yes that's a pain. Every six weeks or so one or the other of my three TAs will quit working and I have to reboot them, or even sometimes reboot the TiVo. And yes, I have had a few programs missed here and there. The vast majority were simply recorded again after the TA was rebooted. A few were lost and may not be broadcast again for quite some time, if ever. Boo hoo. The simple fact is, however, easily more than 5 times as many programs have been recorded with the TA as would have been recorded without the TA. How can missing maybe a dozen recordings be worse than missing hundreds of them?


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

dlfl said:


> For me and many other posters here, TiVo doesn't manage even 98% recording reliability when using a Tuning Adapter.


Have you actually measured this? I know it does for me, and I suspect it does for you, as well. What frequency do you estimate the TA failures to be, and what duration? If the TA is down for 8 hours once a month, that's 99.0%reliability, and I know my TAs do better than that. What's more, the most common failure mode only causes the SDV channels to be lost, and while most of my recording is done on SDV channels, a significant fraction is not, so even when the TA is down, some shows usually get recorded.

I do wish there were an automated way to be notified the TA was down. Of course, in the best of worlds, they would be more reliable, no question.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> That's completely *specious*. It's true the TA does lock up from time to time, and yes that's a pain. Every six weeks or so one or the other of my three TAs will quit working and I have to reboot them, or even sometimes reboot the TiVo. And yes, I have had a few programs missed here and there. The vast majority were simply recorded again after the TA was rebooted. A few were lost and may not be broadcast again for quite some time, if ever. Boo hoo. The simple fact is, however, easily *more than 5 times as many programs have been recorded with the TA as would have been recorded without the TA.* How can missing maybe a dozen recordings be worse than missing hundreds of them?


Red emphasis added. Now THAT is a specious comparison!  The TA has to work reliably to get the SDV channels you're paying for, which in my case is more than half the channels I watch or record.


dlfl said:


> For me and many other posters here, TiVo doesn't manage even 98% recording reliability when using a Tuning Adapter.





lrhorer said:


> Have you actually measured this? I know it does for me, and I suspect it does for you, as well. What frequency do you estimate the TA failures to be, and what duration? If the TA is down for 8 hours once a month, that's 99.0%reliability, and I know my TAs do better than that. What's more, the most common failure mode only causes the SDV channels to be lost, and while most of my recording is done on SDV channels, a significant fraction is not, so even when the TA is down, some shows usually get recorded.
> 
> I do wish there were an automated way to be notified the TA was down. Of course, in the best of worlds, they would be more reliable, no question.


I haven't kept statistics. I wasn't even talking about how I lose all my SDV channels maybe every month or two and have to reboot everything to get them back (like you do). What I'm talking about is tuning failures that require one or more tuning retries (e.g., channel up/down) and cause you to lose a recording because TiVo software doesn't detect the failure and do retries. Again I don't have exact statistics but I lose 1 to 3 recordings each week this way. There are one or two channels that are the worst offenders -- but not the only ones. I schedule less than 40 recordings per week so even if I only lose one the reliability is down below 98%.

Also there is a difference between 99% reliability with no hassle, and 99% reliability plus having to call cable tech support and/or reboot frequently. The latter is what I had for the first year of using my TiVo HD. Time Warner was not periodically refreshing the authorization of my TA (and those of other users on the system), so about once a month the TA would go off line and blink 8-blinks-pause. TW never had a clue what was happening so each time I called in it was a new experience in clueless response. Finally, I guess their head end people got it right and this particular problem stopped.

No the TiVo-TA combination has not proved to be reliable by any reasonable standard for me and many others.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

davezatz said:


> But would you pay $48?  That'd be the CableCARD rental fee... My Verizon DVR came with 18 months free, so I've still got about 7 or 8 to go.


If you accepted this offer and chose to use a TiVo instead Verizon would be obligated to credit you the value of the DVR rental.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

nrc said:


> If you accepted this offer and chose to use a TiVo instead Verizon would be obligated to credit you the value of the DVR rental.


I know you're correct on this but I've yet to see a post from anyone who actually got a BYOB discount on these forums. The cable cos always seem to have some rationale for refusing it. The reg seems to be a paper tiger to me.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

dlfl said:


> I know you're correct on this but I've yet to see a post from anyone who actually got a BYOB discount on these forums. The cable cos always seem to have some rationale for refusing it. The reg seems to be a paper tiger to me.


Unfortunately that may be the case. It's almost impossible for an individual consumer to know whether they're entitled to a credit so very few will pursue it. Later this year if I get some time I'd like to compile some information from the forum and put together a filing.

Meanwhile, I've just discovered that WOW cable continues to impress. They described the credit in the fine print of an offer I received today and it's noted on their web site.

http://www.wowway.com/internet-cable-phone-company/terms-and-conditions/equipment-rental-fees/


----------



## jrtroo (Feb 4, 2008)

dlfl said:


> I know you're correct on this but I've yet to see a post from anyone who actually got a BYOB discount on these forums. The cable cos always seem to have some rationale for refusing it. The reg seems to be a paper tiger to me.


Let me be the first. Comcast in Chicagoland.


----------



## Torgo (Dec 31, 2001)

jrtroo said:


> Let me be the first. Comcast in Chicagoland.


Same on Comcast in Philly. Didn't need to apply, they just started applying the credit.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

dlfl said:


> I know you're correct on this but I've yet to see a post from anyone who actually got a BYOB discount on these forums. The cable cos always seem to have some rationale for refusing it. The reg seems to be a paper tiger to me.





jrtroo said:


> Let me be the first. Comcast in Chicagoland.





Torgo said:


> Same on Comcast in Philly. Didn't need to apply, they just started applying the credit.


OK, thanks. So Comcast is playing nice it seems. If we verify one from Time Warner, I'll really be amazed. They told me my bundle didn't include a STB so I wasn't entitled. Of course the consumer can't determine the terms of all the bundles they offer so there's no way I can check if I'm paying the same for "my bundle" as other bundles that DO include a STB.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

dlfl said:


> OK, thanks. So Comcast is playing nice it seems. If we verify one from Time Warner, I'll really be amazed. They told me my bundle didn't include a STB so I wasn't entitled. Of course the consumer can't determine the terms of all the bundles they offer so there's no way I can check if I'm paying the same for "my bundle" as other bundles that DO include a STB.


I would think most every package would include a set top box, except for maybe a low cost limited basic package that only includes the OTA channels. Pay per view is very profitable for the cable company and you need a set top box to order pay per view on demand without calling in to order.

Try calling the cable company and tell them you never received a set top box and see if you can get one for free. Tell them you want to watch pay per view programs. If they give you a set top box, then that will be leverage to return it and demand the credit.


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

lrhorer said:


> That's completely specious. It's true the TA does lock up from time to time, and yes that's a pain. Every six weeks or so one or the other of my three TAs will quit working and I have to reboot them, or even sometimes reboot the TiVo. And yes, I have had a few programs missed here and there. The vast majority were simply recorded again after the TA was rebooted. A few were lost and may not be broadcast again for quite some time, if ever. Boo hoo. The simple fact is, however, easily more than 5 times as many programs have been recorded with the TA as would have been recorded without the TA. How can missing maybe a dozen recordings be worse than missing hundreds of them?


Once every 6 weeks sounds great. On Cox, I'd have automatic reboots/failures and/or lost channels a few times a week. Not only might I miss whatever I was watching or recording, often the TiVo can't recover without manual intervention via remote - meaning nothing else gets recorded if not around to click OK. In addition to the frustration, I also ended up spending decent money on Amazon VOD to grab shows I'd missed due to TA reboots and TiVo's non-graceful recovery. As you mention, recovery also sometimes involved reboots of the TAs or TiVos - neither of which are quick. The issues were never satisfactorily resolved and I'd thought about dropping cable (because as bad as the TAs were, Cox DVRs are worse). Fortunately, we moved to a neighborhood that offers Verizon FiOS and it's been smooth sailing since.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

innocentfreak said:


> Good luck, I couldn't justify paying $200 a year for something I wasn't going to own.


But many are pleased to pay the $19 per year for the Premiere "service" that they never own? It all breaks down to just about the same, but with one big difference: If one is getting what they want or experiences SATISFACTION for what they may pay using FiOS equipment, then it is worth the money. A less expensive (not quite, but let's assume it is in the long run) cost but no SATISFACTION is WASTED money. Economics isn't all numbers; it is also about faith, confidence, and SATISFACTION.

Starbucks is (more) expensive, but people who pay the higher price LIKE or fully ENJOY or feel great SATISFACTION drinking that coffee as opposed to paying half the price for coffee that tastes like swill. People are willing (if they have a job) to pay more if it means SATISFACTION. This explains why there are people on this forum who have paid SEVERAL THOUSAND dollars to buy at full retail then acquire Lifetime for their 4 or 5 TiVo boxes. Some would think them FOOLS. But it really isn't for us to say because if those "fools" feel full SATISFACTION that they don't with any other arrangement, then it is worth it to them. So, the OP is making a decision that best suits him. That is good thing for any of us. For others, the rich-man's TiVo option is the best, not FiOS.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Paying less money gives me great satisfaction. It's why I dumped Tivo in favor of my HTPC.


----------



## nycityuser (Dec 30, 2004)

innocentfreak said:


> Good luck, I couldn't justify paying $200 a year for something I wasn't going to own.


The actual DVR service usually costs about $10/month from most cable providers. You pay another $10 for the equipment charge, sometimes less.

With TiVo the equipment is purchased and the monthly charge is $9.95 (MSD) or $14.95 PLUS cablecard rental. So you're really pitting a $100 or $300 purchase against a $10/month rental. But TiVo's service charges are higher, particularly given that you also have to rent a cablecard.

Based on this I find that the economical package is with the cable company. That said, I prefer and use TiVo but I'm grandfathered at $6.95/month on two of them (I have four).

To each his own. But TiVo has really priced itself out of the market for new subscribers.


----------



## jrtroo (Feb 4, 2008)

So long as your cable company is playing by the rules, your comparison should be against a $20 a month rental- the cablebox plus the DVR service, neither of which is needed with a TiVo using a cablecard.

Plus, over time, lifetime is where the value is at. Some don't see it that way, but I also don't understand those who lease cars either. I'm trying now to figure out how to avoid my Comcast modem rental by purchasing one myself.

However, choices are good.


----------



## swbail (Jan 7, 2003)

I almost started a thread called "Goodbye TiVo" and then saw this one. I will be moving on after about 8 years. Really sad, but here's why:

First, the Premier HD interface--holy cow. The TiVo is to me a network appliance, and as a result everything in their little sealed box, hardware and software, should work flawlessly coming out the door. Hardly the case here. UI issues aside, performance was abysmal, both in the menus and sometimes in playback.

I've had my Premier for a year and a half and it's dead, stuck at the welcome screen. They want $149 to fix, more than I originally paid for it. Then I call to cancel service and they knock it down to $80, and I bite. It'll be there in 2 days, says the CSR.

Well, actually they aren't sending squat until I send back my old one. At least that's the story today. 

I'm too old for this and have no time. Will the Comcast DVR be better? Of course not. Does TiVo need a lesson in product development and testing and customer service? Yes--yes they do.


----------



## Joe01880 (Feb 8, 2009)

swbail said:


> Will the Comcast DVR be better? Of course not..


C-Ya..you'll be back!


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

swbail said:


> I almost started a thread called "Goodbye TiVo" and then saw this one. I will be moving on after about 8 years. Really sad, but here's why:
> 
> First, the Premier HD interface--holy cow. The TiVo is to me a network appliance, and as a result everything in their little sealed box, hardware and software, should work flawlessly coming out the door. Hardly the case here. UI issues aside, performance was abysmal, both in the menus and sometimes in playback.
> 
> ...


Apparently, you've been around longer than I have...and this is news to you?
As long as I've been around, TiVo has never been known to have a finished product out the door. It seems it takes a while to perfect the product.
Also IIRC, a replacement through TiVo has always been dependant on the user having to send in the broken Tivo before the replacement is shipped.

What I would do is suck it up and send in the broken Tivo to get the replacement. Get it set up and get the cablecard paired. Then I would take advantage of the JMFS software to upgrade the hard drive to a larger size and keep the original in a safe place as a backup. 
That way I would never have to bother TiVo because of a hard drive failure.

You are certainly welcome to try the Comcast DVR, but I think you'll be sorely disappointed.

Good Luck.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

swbail said:


> I almost started a thread called "Goodbye TiVo" and then saw this one. I will be moving on after about 8 years. Really sad, but here's why:
> 
> First, the Premier HD interface--holy cow. The TiVo is to me a network appliance, and as a result everything in their little sealed box, hardware and software, should work flawlessly coming out the door. Hardly the case here. UI issues aside, performance was abysmal, both in the menus and sometimes in playback.
> 
> ...


I'll make 2 comments. First hard drives fail nothing anyone can do about it certainly nothing TiVo can do to prevent it. In the past if you didn't want to send your unit back first you could have agreed to "pay" full price for a new unit with a charge card and after they get your unit back they refund the charge. But honestly the only reason to send an out of warranty Premiere back is if you have lifetime on it, otherwise just get a new unit.


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

Joe01880 said:


> C-Ya..you'll be back!


Just like the other 60,000 retail customers who left TiVo this past quarter?


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

davezatz said:


> Just like the other 60,000 retail customers who left TiVo this past quarter?


Some of those are also lifetime units that would have fallen off the total retail subscription count. Don't they count them for three or four years?
so those people never left TiVo but their boxes aren't counted any more.

I don't see where those are specifically broken out. Only that at the end of 2Q they had 286K lifetime subscriptions and at the end of 3Q they had 270K lifetime subscriptions.(i added one lifetime subscription with my Elite)

I don't see it broken out by new lifetime subscriptions for the quarter and lifetime subscriptions that have fallen off the books.


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> Some of those are also lifetime units that would have fallen off the total retail subscription count. so those people never left TiVo but their boxes aren't counted any more.


Sure, and there are also people who traded in older TiVos for newer ones. Perhaps even two-for-one (Elite) in your case? But I can't imagine there were 60,000 units that fall into that category. For me, the trend is clear - TiVo continues to shed retail subscribers... and I feel compelled to point it out in regards to flippant replies.

*Update* Regarding TiVo's accounting of Lifetime, here's what the 8K says:


> Included in the 1,135,000 TiVo-Owned subscriptions are approximately 270,000 lifetime subscriptions that have reached the end of the period TiVo uses to recognize lifetime subscription revenue. These lifetime subscriptions no longer generate subscription revenue.


So if I'm understanding this right... they count the boxes even though they no longer count the revenue?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

davezatz said:


> So if I'm understanding this right... they count the boxes even though they no longer count the revenue?


I thought I read someplace that they are counted as long as the box has called in within a certain period of time, but on the other hand I maybe just dreaming that I read that. In any event I would guess the $99 lifetime offers have slowed down some sub loses.

What I have wondered is how many actual households are stand alone TiVos in? Most of us here have multiple TiVos so are stand alone TiVos even being used in 1/2 million households? That is pretty bad given that TVs are in over 100 millions households in the US.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

davezatz said:


> Sure, and there are also people who traded in older TiVos for newer ones. Perhaps even two-for-one (Elite) in your case? But I can't imagine there were 60,000 units that fall into that category. For me, the trend is clear - TiVo continues to shed retail subscribers... and I feel compelled to point it out in regards to flippant replies.
> 
> *Update* Regarding TiVo's accounting of Lifetime, here's what the 8K says:
> 
> So if I'm understanding this right... they count the boxes even though they no longer count the revenue?


Then I must have mixed it up I knew they didn't count something. And upon further thought it didn't make sense what I wrote. Not counting the revenue after a certain amount of time makes sense and continuing to count lifetime subsriptiosn makes sense.

Unfortunately that makes the numbers sound even worse since all those lost retail subscriptions must have been monthly subscriptions.

Hopefully they are able to turn the tide with the cable companies. With the projection info they posted in the third quarter they were predicting to be over 5 million subscribers(retail and MSO) by the end of 2014 in the US and over 2.5 million in the UK by the end of 2014.


----------



## meklund (Dec 10, 2002)

skiajl6297 said:


> Kind of a sad day here. I just got off the phone with TiVo CSR to cancel service. Been with TiVo for 9 years. I don't recall the last time that I made a decision to cancel a product I have been using and actually felt sad about it. I have loved TiVo since I was in college. I introduced it to friends and family. I bragged about it, showed it off, embraced the culture. I have viewed forums like these for years. I'm moving on to fios dvr with img1.9. I'll save money, never have to buy hardware again, and will have an innovative product that is regularly updated and attended to. Not to say it will ever be as pleasurable to use as TiVo, but I am ok with that. I want a modern, easy to use, updated, functional box that I don't have to buy on top of my cable service. TiVo just isn't there anymore.
> 
> I want TiVo to succeed and to come out with the next big thing in TV. Sadly, I think they never quite got it, nor did they adjust to the changing times. I hope fios works out. If not, maybe, someday, I'll fire up the old tivo box. But until then, adios TiVo. You were good. Just not as good as you could have been.


I can identify with you on this. I had the Series2, but then got rid of it for the Cox DVRs a couple of years ago. I am going to buy a couple of Premiers for my parents, because they are so simple to operate. However, for me, I'm dumping the cable DVRs, bypassing the Tivo route and going straight to a Win7 HTPC with the Ceton card and Xbox's as extenders. Add up buying 3 Tivo's with Lifetime service against building a custom HTPC with 2 xbox's and the cost is cheaper plus one gets all of the advantages of full customization (like playing BD images).


----------



## Joe01880 (Feb 8, 2009)

davezatz said:


> Just like the other 60,000 retail customers who left TiVo this past quarter?


Having once sold used cars for a living i know how much numbers can be twisted around. I thought i just read TiVo added 127,000 new customers including those from the Virgin dealings Thats not a loss. If TiVo was losing the amounts of money people want us to think they are they would not be in business much less developing new units. I have no doubt though their business plan is changing. The money they are saving from the settlement with Dish has to be figured in someplace as well and if we are to apply Voodoo economics the New Elite, or Q or whatever its called is going to be pitched and im sure picked up by small cable companies at least. Those profits should help keep TiVo afloat helping us die hard TiVo devotee's..or make them ripe for the picking for a takeover.

I firmly believe, maybe in a misguided way, once you have had TiVo, nothing else will do..although DirecTv's 5 tuner DVR looks sweet. I need to see one in real life, not just a vid demo.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

davezatz said:


> So if I'm understanding this right... they count the boxes even though they no longer count the revenue?


You've been around this long and you don't know how that works? Same 8k also states:



> We count product lifetime subscriptions in our subscription base until both of the following conditions are met: (i) the period we use to recognize product lifetime subscription revenues ends; and (ii) the related DVR has not made contact to the TiVo service within the prior six month period.


Kind of late for the "TiVo is doomed" bandwagon, aren't you? Tivo's owned subscriber losses are the lowest in years and subscription growth is now positive overall.

It's pretty clear that TiVo made a choice a while back to set their prices and policies for their retail business in a way that would reduce their losses and could eventually be profitable. They couldn't lose money on every subscription and make it up on volume.

They accepted in that decision that they might lose some costumers in the process. But what good are customers who aren't willing to pay your costs?


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

Joe01880 said:


> If TiVo was losing the amounts of money people want us to think they are the would not be in business much less developing new units.
> 
> I firrnly believe, maybe in a misguided way, was you have had TiVo, nothing else will do..


People like TiVo, Inc who reported losing $24.5 million in the last quarter? TiVo has been very frugal in regards to marketing/advertising, has had plenty of cash on hand, and is collecting a couple hundred million from EchoStar in patent litigation. So that's how they've carried on in recent years. I agree that for most, TiVo provides a superior experience - but the market shows the majority aren't willing to pay the perceived premium or don't know what we know.



nrc said:


> Kind of late for the "TiVo is doomed" bandwagon, aren't you? Tivo's owned subscriber losses are the lowest in years and subscription growth is now positive overall.


I don't think TiVo is doomed at all. I think they're going to be highly successful between Virgin's deployment and by prevailing in patent litigation. I'm merely making the point that most retail subscribers who have left TiVo haven't returned and the vast majority of DVRs in the US are something other than TiVo.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

The playing field has been leveled somewhat with the ability of cable customers to perform self installs of cable cards and monthly discounts for owning a Tivo instead of using a cable box. But the $19.99 per month subscription fee is going to be hard to overcome, especially since it's broken out to a separate bill.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

What is the difference? A separate bill or the same bill, it's the same price no matter how you look at it.

Although for me, I would be more inclined to look closer at the bill with everything combined than a bill for just one service. But also at $20 a month that is very high compared to getting lifetime service.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

aaronwt said:


> What is the difference? A separate bill or the same bill, it's the same price no matter how you look at it.
> 
> Although for me, I would be more inclined to look closer at the bill with everything combined than a bill for just one service. But also at $20 a month that is very high compared to getting lifetime service.


The difference isn't financial, it's psychological. At least for some people.

Kinda like how $9.95 sounds more like $9 when to your wallet it feels more like $10.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

unitron said:


> The difference isn't financial, it's psychological. At least for some people.
> 
> Kinda like how $9.95 sounds more like $9 when to your wallet it feels more like $10.


That stuff has never worked on me. $9.95 has always sounded 95 cents more than $9 to me(or 5 cents less than $10). And why do they keep doing that crap with gas prices?


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

aaronwt said:


> That stuff has never worked on me. $9.95 has always sounded 95 cents more than $9 to me(or 5 cents less than $10). And why do they keep doing that crap with gas prices?


You mean where the price is always $x.xx9 per gallon?

Yeah that used to alternately bug and puzzle me too.

I guess someone did it so that it could look from a distance like he was sellling a penny cheaper than the gas station across the street, and so everybody had to start to keep from being left behind, kinda like Black Friday sales are starting tonight instead of merely at Oh Dark Thirty tomorrow morning, and in a few years will probably commence as soon as the kids get home from trick or treating (during which they'll also be Christmas Caroling, no doubt).

Of course that means the Christmas parade will take place right after Columbus Day.


----------



## jpcamaro70 (Nov 23, 2011)

aaronwt said:


> What is the difference? A separate bill or the same bill, it's the same price no matter how you look at it.
> 
> Although for me, I would be more inclined to look closer at the bill with everything combined than a bill for just one service. But also at $20 a month that is very high compared to getting lifetime service.


I think $20 per month is very high, it was the one thing holding me back. But after reviewing my cable bill, I'm being charged 10.95 per month for dvr service and 6.95 for the useless 8300. So eliminate those but add 2 per month for the cable card and its not so bad.


----------



## dssxxxx (Nov 11, 2003)

mattack said:


> You've been paying monthly for 9 years? Should have gotten lifetime!
> 
> (or even if you had 2-3 Tivos in that time, should have gotten lifetime!)


Why have lifetime when you upgrade ever time TiVo comes out with a new box?

I had 3 originals (still have). I have 3 series 2 (still have). And I now have 3 HD's with ex HD. I pay $129.00 for 1, $99.00 for another (both annual charges) and $6.95 per month for the third. Just turned the $129 into $99 lifetime and ordered the Elite @ 14.99 per month. When it arrives, I will cancel the $99 per year HD.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

dssxxxx said:


> Why have lifetime when you upgrade ever time TiVo comes out with a new box?
> 
> I had 3 originals (still have). I have 3 series 2 (still have). And I now have 3 HD's with ex HD. I pay $129.00 for 1, $99.00 for another (both annual charges) and $6.95 per month for the third. Just turned the $129 into $99 lifetime and ordered the Elite @ 14.99 per month. When it arrives, I will cancel the $99 per year HD.


When you go to cancel that HD, see if you can get them to give you the $99 lifetime deal on it.

That way the dust it collects sitting there unused will be more valuable.


----------



## dssxxxx (Nov 11, 2003)

unitron said:


> When you go to cancel that HD, see if you can get them to give you the $99 lifetime deal on it.
> 
> That way the dust it collects sitting there unused will be more valuable.


I would if it would make it saleable........


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

dssxxxx said:


> I would if it would make it saleable........


Well, someone who wants to buy an HD would probably rather pay you an extra "somewhat more than $99" on top of the price for the hardware than buy it unsubbed and pay TiVo $499 for lifetime, if they want one with lifetime.

Even if they could get MSD lifetime at $399, you could charge them the $99 you paid plus another hundred and that's half of what TiVo would charge them.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

dssxxxx said:


> Why have lifetime when you upgrade ever time TiVo comes out with a new box?
> 
> I had 3 originals (still have). I have 3 series 2 (still have). And I now have 3 HD's with ex HD. I pay $129.00 for 1, $99.00 for another (both annual charges) and $6.95 per month for the third. Just turned the $129 into $99 lifetime and ordered the Elite @ 14.99 per month. When it arrives, I will cancel the $99 per year HD.


Only you can do the math but I am guessing you have paid more than $299 for service on each of your HDs which is what I paid for lifetime on mine when I bought it. Plus a used HD without lifetime is worth maybe $50 and one with it should still get $300+ so if you are inclined to sell them after your done with them, lifetime becomes fairly cheap.

Even with a new Premiere Elite I would rather pay $399 instead of $15/mo, it only takes 27 months to be ahead with lifetime even if you don't sell it when it is time to buy your next one.

Good Luck,


----------



## TheFeaz (Jan 3, 2012)

I really became a Tivo fan almost overnight after buying one second-hand, figuring I'd try anything once. Now I'm hooked. It's really kind of a sad state of affairs too, as to why I'm leaving, but I'll put it right on the line:

I've ended up stuck smack in the middle (as the "customer" usually does) over all this DRM crap foisted on us, mostly I think by the MPAA and the sports franchises. Specifically I'm referring to the CCI byte that ends up getting stuck on ALL the digital programming by many, if not most, cable operators. This removes my MRV and Tivo desktop capabilities, essentially cripping, or at least severely limiting, my Tivo DVR. The application of this isn't entirely Tivo's fault, as they are required to respect the DRM codes as part of their licensing of CableCARD software, but they could IMPLEMENT MRV as a "move" operation and not a "copy", thus still respecting the "copy once" provision of the CCI-byte. This control by Big Brother (or big cable, as it may be) over what I watch, where, how, and when I watch it, has just disgusted me with the whole thing.

Between the substandard down-converted, compressed video quality of the cable signal (Brighthouse, in this near-Orlando, central FL market), the tuning adapters, the overly LOUD commercials, the crappy DVR option from the cable company... I ended up going back to my second best choice, Dish Network, for my DVR. If Tivo could one day pair up with Dish, and still allow ME to retain the control of my programming (e.g., I can move it around to my media center, offline storage, etc., however and whenever I want), then that would be be a marriage made in Heaven, IMHO.

I think I understand part of the (failed / failing) Tivo strategy-- They have the best idea, so stand hard on your patents, and hold out for everyone else to come play ball with you. I respect that. I wish it worked out that way. Unfortunately, what's going to end up happening is that, while Tivo may have the best product in terms of its forward-facing customer presence, the cable companies and sat providers have the technology and the programming that the customers want to buy. If they simply lock Tivo out, by doing things like hamstringing key features like MRV, forcing you to rent a bunch of auxillary equipment (e.g., cabeCARDs and tuning adapters), while offering you a mediocre DVR option, then the customer is probably going to opt for the best programming they can get, and settle for the crappy DVR, as at the end of the day, the DVR and meta-content are secondary to the actual programming. Meanwhile, sat providers like Charlie and Dave at least do offer a halfway decent DVR and superb programming... So now you're even losing me, a Tivo enthusiast to them.

But don't wory Tivo.. .My equipment isn't going anywhere... and I'll be back as soon as you get behind us CUSTOMERS and stand up for our right to enjoy Tivo for the things that truly make it great. As soon as I can enjoy my Tivo (once again) the way I want to enjoy it, I'll be back to buy more... So don't you guys lose my number... But in the meantime, I'm really gonna miss you. I hope you learn this lesson before it's too late and you become irrelevant.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

TheFeaz said:


> But don't wory Tivo.. .My equipment isn't going anywhere... and I'll be back as soon as you get behind us CUSTOMERS and stand up for our right to enjoy Tivo for the things that truly make it great. As soon as I can enjoy my Tivo (once again) the way I want to enjoy it, I'll be back to buy more... So don't you guys lose my number... But in the meantime, I'm really gonna miss you. I hope you learn this lesson before it's too late and you become irrelevant.


I'm not clear on what this means. Reading through your comment it seems that you recognize that the only part of your complaints that TiVo really has control over is implementing MRV with streaming.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

TheFeaz said:


> I've ended up stuck smack in the middle (as the "customer" usually does) over all this DRM crap foisted on us, mostly I think by the MPAA and the sports franchises. Specifically I'm referring to the CCI byte that ends up getting stuck on ALL the digital programming by many, if not most, cable operators. This removes my MRV and Tivo desktop capabilities, essentially cripping, or at least severely limiting, my Tivo DVR.


You're greatly exaggerating the problem. It sounds like FOR YOU, all channels are copy protected. FOR ME, it's only the premium channels (e.g. HBO) that are copy protected. I'm on Comcast.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

"Loud", i.e., more heavily compressed, commercials are inserted into the overall progarm stream by the content providers before the signal gets to the cable or satellite companies, and it would probably be a violation of the re-transmission agreement for the latter to try to do anything to alleviate the problem.


----------



## WebHobbit (Jan 9, 2005)

I'm gone too after I don't how many years (since the 1st gen). DirecTV is coming out on Friday to install a 5 Tuner Whole Home Media Center setup for me. I'm getting the HD DVR and two HD receivers. This setup will be replacing a TiVo Premiere and a TiVo HD.

I've been a TiVo supporter and fan-boy for a looooong time. It IS kind of sad to go but I waited and waited for the new HD DirecTV TiVos to come out and now that they have they are based on OLD TiVo tech (not the Premiere+) and I think finally the DirecTV in-house boxes have surpassed TiVo in many (most?) respects.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

WebHobbit said:


> I'm gone too after I don't how many years (since the 1st gen). DirecTV is coming out on Friday to install a 5 Tuner Whole Home Media Center setup for me. I'm getting the HD DVR and two HD receivers. This setup will be replacing a TiVo Premiere and a TiVo HD.
> 
> I've been a TiVo supporter and fan-boy for a looooong time. It IS kind of sad to go but I waited and waited for the new HD DirecTV TiVos to come out and now that they have they are based on OLD TiVo tech (not the Premiere+) and I think finally the DirecTV in-house boxes have surpassed TiVo in many (most?) respects.


It was no secret that the boxes were using the older hardware. That should not have been new news.


----------



## TheFeaz (Jan 3, 2012)

nrc said:


> I'm not clear on what this means. Reading through your comment it seems that you recognize that the only part of your complaints that TiVo really has control over is implementing MRV with streaming.


Well, my essential gripe, which I admit goes beyond Tivo and the scope of this thread, is all the "Big Brother" stuff that came with DVDs (even moreso with Blur-Ray), digital TV and the like-- I don't like it when someone else has control over what I do with my stuff in my home. I'm one of these types who likes to "own things, not rent things", and it's for this very reason.

I make these statements and assertions based on the premise that the vast majority of Tivo hobbyists, enthusiasts, and hackers are well-meaning people whom, like auto enthusiasts, simply enjoy tinkering with our hadrware the way they enjoy tinkering with cars, and not with an intention to steal programming or anything else, any more than an auto enthusiast does so with the intention to steal gasoline. With that being said, there's an overly large push, it seems, by the media providers to make us perpetually rent everything, and I'm not a fan. I don't expect anything for free, but I don't want someone there with his hand out every time I want to watch an episode of "Good Eats".

In principle, I don't even have a problem with the ability to limit the use of certain programming through DRM means. For example, a PPV event is implicitly a rented event, and so I don't have a problem with restricting its life on the DVR, any more than I have a problem with the notion that it's not legal (or right) to copy DVDs you rent from the video store.

As far as my complaint being limited to MRV, you are partly correct. It's actally not so much the MRV that I have an issue with, as much it ws the loss of the Tivo desktop ability, although in terms of implementation, they're one and the same. My DVR has a finite amount of space, and I wanted to be able to offload my content to the media server so that I would not have to arbitrarily pick and choose what to keep or trash, soley based on hard drive space on the Tivo.

Whne I moved ot this house, with my Tivo, I moved from a Comcast market where I had a CableCARD installed in my Tivo. I had MRV in that market. When I moved here, we set up an outdoor theater on our pool deck, intending to use the Tivo as the means to enjoy movies out there, thanks to its MRV capabilities over the wireless network in the house (no cable outside, and no real need for it.) As soon as we fired up the system, I discovered that all my DTV programming recorded in the old Comcast market was moveable, but that recorded in this Brighthouse market was not. I contacted all sorts of entities, from Scripps Networks (the peopel who operate HGTV, Food Network, et al), the FCC, BrightHouse, and Tivo. In the end, it comes down to the fact that BrightHouse is the one putting the CCI byte on the programming (not Scripps nor any other network, although they acknowledge that they "can, but don't, and dicourage it among the cable operators"). Brighthouse can't / won't provide a reason why they arbitraily do this (probably an administrative decision by someone somewhere in the bowels of programming and engineering who didn't really know the implications of this choice on the minority of customers who'd notice it, recognize it, and care about it).

I don't like the idea (for lots of reasons) of hacking my Tivo to the extent that it would allow me to circumvent this DRM mechanism of the CableCARD, thus breaking the law (albeit a stupid one). Between the two of us (me and Tivo), Tivo is the one with the ultimate control over what the box does, and how it implements it. Now, if they want to make their platform open-source, with the caveat that "what you do with it from here is on you", then I have no issues, because I could always just modify it myself to treat MRV as a "move" and not a "copy" and still respect the true requirements of the DRM code. But., until then, Tivo and the cable company have left me hamstrung. I really don't have a choice. I can sit here and kick and scream, but no one will listen, or I can vote with my dollars elsewhere. If enough people do, then it will get some attention.

Another poster here wrote a lot about the idea of these things being "just good enough", and he made an excellent point. Companies are doing this in order to reduce our expectation of quality while maximizing their own profits. If they took all the quality away at once, you'd notice it, but if they degrae it a little at a time, you get used to it, and eventually just come to accept it. If we continue to accept this erosion of our right to expect, and our responsibility to demand, quality and value for the services we pay for, then we will surely lose both (sounds eerily reminiscent of something I think Thomas Payne or Ben Franklin said). One of these days, we're liable to find that the same power that allows them to put an inconvenient CCI byte on the programming stream to dictate when we can watch it, could also be easily made to remove your ability to say, skip commercials or fast-forward through content that is "deemed to be urgent".

Oh... and just in case you're thinking that will never happen, au contraire.. It already is happening. Ever notice how when those severe wather alerts are broadcast now on TV, the message scrolls across the sscreen for like five minutes in HUGE print and you can't tune the Tivo away from it? Sure, it's important, but shouldn't I have the right to decide for myself if it's important or relevant to me? I noticed on my Android cell phone (VZW) that they have something called a "presidential alert", some level of text-messaging that I'm apparently unable to ignore (it's one feature you cannot turn "off"). Notwithstanding the fact that I'm no fan of the President, who the heck is HE to decide what I can and cannot ignore? Sounds an awful lot like that viewscreen in "1984" that you couldn't turn off either...

And lastly... As for the excessively loud commercials, no that's not a Tivo thing, that's a cable company thing. Actualy, I think that the Tivo did a good job of limiting some of that, for whatever reason, because I never noticed that being a problem until I got rid of my Tivo + CableCARD for the Brighthouse DVR. Anyway, that was just one more gripe that finally put me over to Dish.

I'm stuck in a 2-year contract w/ Dish now, which I'm not really excited about (I don't like long, one-sided commitments like that), but that does give Tivo some time to either iron out some of these DRM issues, or just become irrelevant. Personally, I (sadly) don't expect this to change. It's only the minority of us who are true enthusiasts, and right now, at barely 1%, Tivo is a minority population among the viewers, so we're a minority within a minority. That makes our hand pretty weak, unless we stand up now and put some HEAVY pressure on politicians and the industry to protect our rights, before precdents are set that will make them virtually irreversible.


----------



## TheFeaz (Jan 3, 2012)

mattack said:


> You're greatly exaggerating the problem. It sounds like FOR YOU, all channels are copy protected. FOR ME, it's only the premium channels (e.g. HBO) that are copy protected. I'm on Comcast.


No, I'm not exaggerating the progblem at all. Yes, the problem is greater for me (and others) than it is for you, but that's only because of the marke tyou're in, and the policy of your provider, at this point in time. One flick of a pen and you'll be in the sam eboat as me. I'm not blaming Tivo for all this, but simply pointing out that the responsibility is on them to be sure they implement DRM in the best way they can, or it will become the perfect tool for the cable providers to use to make them irrelevant.

I'll grant you, had this not been on EVERY SINGLE channel I watch, this wouldn't have been as big of an issue, but it has always been a gripe with Tivo. I used to use one Tivo unit with a Season Pass to record some Internet content (a program called Film Riot) using the Tivo VOD feature. I couldn't figure out fo rth elongest time why I couldn't move that content from one box to another with MRV, since it was obviously frely available. It wasn't until I put 2 and 2 together and realized that this is how Tivo implements the "Copy once" restriction, which is really meant to keep you from copying things off onto DVD, again, a policy that I don't have an issue with, in principle, so long as I can still copy it among anything with my Media Access Key as I choose.


----------



## jrtroo (Feb 4, 2008)

Well, this too late for you now, but it is well known that new Tivos will "soon" get MRS to get around the arcane MRV rules.


----------



## TheFeaz (Jan 3, 2012)

WebHobbit said:


> I'm gone too after I don't how many years (since the 1st gen). DirecTV is coming out on Friday to install a 5 Tuner Whole Home Media Center setup for me. I'm getting the HD DVR and two HD receivers. This setup will be replacing a TiVo Premiere and a TiVo HD.
> 
> I've been a TiVo supporter and fan-boy for a looooong time. It IS kind of sad to go but I waited and waited for the new HD DirecTV TiVos to come out and now that they have they are based on OLD TiVo tech (not the Premiere+) and I think finally the DirecTV in-house boxes have surpassed TiVo in many (most?) respects.


Yeah... I hope I don't regret the move to Dish... I was kind of a cult follower of theirs in the early days... Always thought they were better than DirecTV. I had no interest in porn channels or sports, so that really was of no benefit... A five-tuner DVR does sound pretty sweet, I have to admit. I always liked Dish before, so hopeflly I'll be happy at least for two years. Well, actually the installer isn't here yet, so technically, I guess I could cancel any time before noon, but then where would I go? LOL


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

TheFeaz said:


> I've ended up stuck smack in the middle (as the "customer" usually does) over all this DRM crap foisted on us, mostly I think by the MPAA and the sports franchises.


No offense, but that's your own fault, for simply accepting it, rather than doing something about it.



TheFeaz said:


> Specifically I'm referring to the CCI byte that ends up getting stuck on ALL the digital programming by many, if not most, cable operators.


Not most. A large minority of subscribers are on systems that set the CCI byte universally.



TheFeaz said:


> This removes my MRV and Tivo desktop capabilities, essentially cripping, or at least severely limiting, my Tivo DVR.


So rather than kvetch about it, why not disable it?



TheFeaz said:


> If they simply lock Tivo out, by doing things like hamstringing key features like MRV, forcing you to rent a bunch of auxillary equipment (e.g., cabeCARDs and tuning adapters)


CableCards and the TA are a completely different situation. It is CableCards and only CableCards that allow 3rd party devices to be used at all. TAs are the result of bon-headedness on the part of the FCC and the 3rd party manufacturers.



TheFeaz said:


> As soon as I can enjoy my Tivo (once again) the way I want to enjoy it


That option has always existed, and still does. It's not anyone else's fault but yours that you have not taken advantage of it.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

nrc said:


> I'm not clear on what this means. Reading through your comment it seems that you recognize that the only part of your complaints that TiVo really has control over is implementing MRV with streaming.


Which won't help with TTG or affect it in any way. MRV is an OK feature, I guess, but I rarely use it and would certainly not miss its being gone (which it was for quite some years). TTG is essential, indeed even crucial to my needs, however, and streaming helps that not at all.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

mattack said:


> You're greatly exaggerating the problem.


He is not greatly exaggerating the problem. He is slightly overstating its scope.



mattack said:


> It sounds like FOR YOU, all channels are copy protected. FOR ME, it's only the premium channels (e.g. HBO) that are copy protected. I'm on Comcast.


And how does the fact you are somewhat luckier than he help him with his situation or make his statement innacurate WRT his own situation?

The number of CATV providers that set the CCI byte is growing daily. Your own system sets them on premium channels, and for many of us those are the ones of greatest (or even only) interest.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

unitron said:


> "Loud", i.e., more heavily compressed, commercials are inserted into the overall progarm stream by the content providers before the signal gets to the cable or satellite companies


Not necessarily. The CATV company also inserts its own commercials into many broadcasts. Most, however, do come from the content providers.



unitron said:


> , and it would probably be a violation of the re-transmission agreement for the latter to try to do anything to alleviate the problem.


No, it isn't. Indeed, audio control systems are just about ubiquitous in the CATV industry. The CATV system can take significant control of audio volume. Indeed, there are even FCC regulations requiring it, although not that I recall WRT commercials.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

WebHobbit said:


> I'm gone too after I don't how many years (since the 1st gen). DirecTV is coming out on Friday to install a 5 Tuner Whole Home Media Center setup for me. I'm getting the HD DVR and two HD receivers.


Which means the moment when the hard drive inevitably dies, you will lose every program you have saved. Perhaps you are OK with that. I would never be.



WebHobbit said:


> I've been a TiVo supporter and fan-boy for a looooong time. It IS kind of sad to go but I waited and waited for the new HD DirecTV TiVos to come out and now that they have they are based on OLD TiVo tech (not the Premiere+)


I thought this not to be the case, but if it is, it is really good news. I'll have to investigate.



WebHobbit said:


> and I think finally the DirecTV in-house boxes have surpassed TiVo in many (most?) respects.


'Not even close. 'Not by light years. Take a look at my (partial) deal-killer list posted here earlier in this very thread. How many of the items on this list, the lack of even one being a complete deal killer, does the D* line of receivers manage to meet?


----------



## TheFeaz (Jan 3, 2012)

jrtroo said:


> Well, this too late for you now, but it is well known that new Tivos will "soon" get MRS to get around the arcane MRV rules.


And what is MRS?

Just in case any newbies are here, I'll expand a few acronyms real quick:

*MRV *- Multi-room viewing - A feature of the Tivo that allows you to view content from multiple locations through Tivo boxes on the same network and registered to your account (same Media Access Key). Technically, it's not really MRV, because they don't stream the content from a central box to the satellite box locations; It simply copies the content fromone box to another, thus duplicating it, and thereby giving you access to it in more than one place (and this is why it violates the "Copy Once" restriction of the CCI code).

*CCI byte *- "Copy Control Information", and actually it's a two-byte (2 8-bit bytes = 16 bits) that is embedded in a digital media stream, allowing the provider to specify how the content may be viewed, retained, and duplicated. Since digital TV content (over cable) is scrambed, the Tivo box needs to have a mechanism to descarambe it. That's why you need a CableCARD. In order to interface with the CableCARD, Tivo has to agree to their licensing terms, which means they're contractually obligated to respect the CCI-byte in the digital stream decoded by the CableCARD, or they would not have a license and could not decode the scrambled digital content at all. Hacks are available that you can install into your Tivo unit that allow you to bypass this functionality, but they are not supported by or encouraged by Tivo, and doing so will void your warranty, potentially dmage / disrupt your unit, and place you in a very bad position should you be caught and should the content provider wish to prosecute you for stealing programming, whether you actually stole anything or not.

*DMCA *- Digital Milennium Copyright Act - The US law that provides copyright holders, content providers, the government, and others an unprecedented amount of control over what you watch, how, and when you watch it. In addition to providing standards for enforceability, the law provides the means to severely punish those found guilty of copyright infringement under its provisions. The law is large and complex, inviting the concern that it allows many innocuous activities to be construed as "copyright infringement" when a content provider or other copyright holoder merely doesn't like the way material is being used, whether it represents a copyright infringement or not. Interestingly enough, the DMCA also has provisions that explicitly allow the owner (not renter) of a DVD or other digital material to make copies for "archival and backup purposes only".

*MPAA *- Motion Picture Association of America. This private orgainzation, comprised of labor union interests and others related to movies, music, and all other things performance and media, has some VERY deep pockets, and lots of lawyers and lobbyists working hard to ensure that the interests of copyright holders, as well as actors (or at least their unions) are protected. While we're all glad to see the hard work of others being rewarded, I personally feel threatened by anyone with that many lawyers and lobbyists in Washington, whether I agree with their mission (today) or not.

*RIAA *- Recording Industry Association of America - The kissing cousin of the MPAA, predominantly interested in digital content of recorded music. These are the people who want another nickel from you (today... A dollar tomorrow... ten dollars once you're used to it and no longer know any better), every time you want to put your favorite song on your iPhone or MP3 player.

*CableCARD *- While this appears to be an acronym for something, I was never able to find a specific reference. A CableCARD is a digital device used to decode (scrabled) digital cable TV signals. Its purpose is to provide you access to the channels you pay for, while restricting access to those you do not. The FCC, under a 1996 ruling, requires cable TV providers to provide CableCARDs to customers with their own equipment. It is unclear why this does not apply to satellite providers. There are two standards in place for CableCARDs, dubbed CableCARD 1 and CableCARD 2. There are also two formats, single-stream, dubbed an S-CARD, capable of decoding a single stream or channel, and an M-CARD, capable of decoding up to six simultaneous channes of digital content. CableCARDs do not, by themselves, provide support for SDV, which is why an external Tuning Adapter is required for systems using SDV. CableCARD technology is actually being replaced by a new standard called AllVid, which is hailed as the latest technology to manage digital content and entitlement.

*SDV *- Switched Digital Video - A method being used by cable providers to provide a larger amount of content over a system not capable of carrying the full load of all content. Consider that you live in a neighborhood with 1,000 homes served by a digital cable node. Your provider offers a package of content that includes over 500 channels of HD TV programming. The physical coax cable that services the neighborhood lacks the bandwidth to carry more than 250 channels simultaneously however. The solution then, is SDV. Becaue not everyone is watching TV at the same time, and because not every available channel is being viewed at the same time, it's really only necessary for the system to carry all the channels that are being concurrently watched at any one moment. In an SDV system, if I am watching HBO in my house, and you turn on your TV and tune in to HBO, a request is sent out to the Head End saying "I want to watch HBO". A signal is sent back to your equipment indicating that HBO is currently already running on SDV Channel #60 (an arbitrary channel # that has nothing to do with the channel # you see in your porgram guide). Your equipment tunes to SDV Channel 60, and you watch TV. Later, you decide to watch HGTV. Again, your equipment sends out a request to the Head End to watch HGTV. The Head End sees that nobody else on the node is watching HGTV, but SDV Channel 43 is currently not in use, so it streams HGTV onto SDV channel #43, and sends a message back to your equipment, which again, tunes to SDV Channel 43 to view the show. As you tune away from HBO, the Head End is notified that you've left that channel. If your nieghbor later tunes his TV away from HBO, the Head End will detect that noone is any longer watching HBO, streamed onto SDV Channel #60, and the channel is marked as available for use for something else. This communication back and forth with the Head End is what the Tuning Adapter is for.

*Tuing Adapter *- A device that negotiates the switching of SDV channels on an SDV-based digital cable TV system. The Tuning Adapter and CableCARD will be manufactured by the same company (generally) that manufactures the cable boxes used by that provider. This is one reaosn why the CableCARDS and Tuning Adapters are not simply buit into the Tivo box-- They are implementation dependent.

*STB *- Set Top Box - A cable box used by those poor souls not lucky enough to know what Tivo is.

*AllVid *- A new standard being proposed by the FCC to support the streaming and management of digital content form Cable, Satellite, and other DTV sources, including Internet TV (like Hulu, et. al.) Some of the things the FCC is looking for in this standard are non-proprietary integration of the system onto networks, via 100-base TX connectivity, the ability to stream up to six channels simulatenously, with individual endpoints streaming up to 2, Service discovery via uPNP (the same technology used by many routers / Internet gateways), this one in particular I believe was proposed by Tivo themselves, and protocols for content ordering and billing, to facilitate things like VOD and PPV.

*VOD *- Video-on-demand - Events (usually PPV) that start as soon as you select them (as opposed to having to wait for their designated start times).

*PPV *- Pay-Per-View

*Head End *- A cable plant - This is the the (or one of many, depending on the size of the system) central processing point of a cable television system. From the endpoint (your house), back to the head-end, you are usually connected to a "drop", which will contain between 4 and 10 coaxial lines that service 4-10 subscriber homes. That drop is generally serviced by a high-capacity coaxial line that provides service to between 2 and 10 drops. Those high-capacity coaxial lines are serviced by a "node". A node will generally service an entire neighbohood or apartment community. The node will service up to several hundred homes over a mini network of drops as previously described. The node in most modern Cable TV systems is serviced by a digital fiber-optic line, and powered by utility power. These nodes often have backup power (i.e., a large battery-powered UPS) to provide service in the event of a commercial power failure. This helps ensure the continued availability of services, particularly telephone service, to subscribers, even in the event of a power outage. Several nodes will work together to service a small community or a secton of a large city, and are linked to a cable plant known as the "head end".

Okay... So there's my dissemintation of alphabet soup... Sorry to insult anyone's intelligence, but I've been a newbie in these places myself before and often just wanted to know out of context what stuff means.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

If TiVo were to become truly open-source, then Cable-labs would terminate their license for the models fully open-sourced. Mark my words.

And yes, TiVo is bringing streaming to the Series 4 models.

The Series 3s are practically finished for development. At best they may receive bug fixes, so if what you have are Series 3s (including TiVo HD models), then CCI byte encumbered MRV is it for you.

Lastly, it is my opinion you are just dreaming up rights just don't actually have, namely you never own content from the studios, only rent or purchase a limited license for. DRM and other measures that studios and providers implemement, enforce the rights they have, and issued to you based on the license you are granted for their product.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

MRS is Multi-Room-Streamimg. Because it is streaming, the CCI byte should not apply.


----------



## TheFeaz (Jan 3, 2012)

lrhorer said:


> No offense, but that's your own fault, for simply accepting it, rather than doing something about it.


None taken, but what, in your estimation constitutes "doing something" about it? I don't think I am accepting it, since I'e left both Tivo (for now) and Brighthouse, after numerous requests (insistent) that they resolve this amicably.



lrhorer said:


> Not most. A large minority of subscribers are on systems that set the CCI byte universally.


And I acknowledge this point, which is why I've said (in subsequent posts) that I doubt we'll ever really see this addressed, at least in its current form, because we are a minority of a minority.



lrhorer said:


> So rather than kvetch about it, why not disable it?


Well, I'm sure you can tell that a person of my aptitudes is quite capable of fixing it to do anything, but that does not mean that I wish to. I don't mind tinkering with the Tivo as a hobby and as an enthusiast, but when those acts are criminalized, that becomes a point of conern. It's not like the FBI is sitting outside my house with field glasses, watching for me to hack my Tivo, but all it takes is sometihng to draw the attention to yourself to create all sorts of problems. I should not have to choose between my freedom in society and hiding in seclusion or going "off the grid" in order to protect my rights and privacy. The two are not mutually exclusive.



lrhorer said:


> CableCards and the TA are a completely different situation. It is CableCards and only CableCards that allow 3rd party devices to be used at all. TAs are the result of bon-headedness on the part of the FCC and the 3rd party manufacturers.


TA's aren't really the result of bone-headedness so much as they are a stop-gap between older and newer technologies. It's my understanding that the CableCARD standards were implemented before the SDV standards (such as they are) were implemented. Neither the CableCARD nor the TA is, in and of themselves problematic, but it adds to the complexity of the system. My point with the statement you're quoting is that the Cable TV provider really has no motivation to make the TA / CableCARD implementation better for you. The only reason they provide it all is because they HAVE to, so it's all the better for them if you don't want it, because then, they don't have to support it. From a business perspective, I think that's kind of short-sighted of them, but that's just how business works these days I'm afraid.



lrhorer said:


> That option has always existed [making the box do what you want, how / when you want], and still does. It's not anyone else's fault but yours that you have not taken advantage of it.


Well, yes... If I'm willing to criminalize myself, potentially jeopardizing my property rights, criminal record, and career. That's no answer, let's be realistic, unless I'm missing some solution you're alluding to (in which case, by all means, point it out.)


----------



## TheFeaz (Jan 3, 2012)

lrhorer said:


> Which won't help with TTG or affect it in any way. MRV is an OK feature, I guess, but I rarely use it and would certainly not miss its being gone (which it was for quite some years). TTG is essential, indeed even crucial to my needs, however, and streaming helps that not at all.


MRV, the feature, in and of itself, is completely unrelatd to TTG, I agree with you. However, it's those CCI restrictions, which prevent MRV from working, that also prevent me from moving stuff to my Tivo Desktop, TTG, so they are inter-related. Once content is on my Tivo Desktop here in the media room, The MRV features of my various Tivo boxes in all th eother rooms would allow me to then watch anything that was stored back here to be viewed in any rrom, and THAT is the relevant application (for me).


----------



## TheFeaz (Jan 3, 2012)

lrhorer said:


> Not necessarily [Commercials come from the content providers, not the CATV company]. The CATV company also inserts its own commercials into many broadcasts. Most, however, do come from the content providers.


And to exacerbate this, the ads actually come from a variety of sources. If you're watching Hannity on Fox News, you will see ads during a break. Some of those ads will come from Fox; Some of them will come from the content broker (like Tribune Media or someone) who provides Fox content to the service provider. Still others will come down at a network level (like Comcast national), and others are inserted locally.



lrhorer said:


> No, it isn't [overriding audio levels a violation of a CATV provider's retransmission agreement]. Indeed, audio control systems are just about ubiquitous in the CATV industry. The CATV system can take significant control of audio volume. Indeed, there are even FCC regulations requiring it, although not that I recall WRT commercials.


The current rule works essentially like this: A provider (it doesn't specify who.. .The channel, the network, or the CATV provider though) must ensure that the maximum level output in an ad doesn't exceed the maximum level of the main program. Of course, this means that if I'm watching a quiet scene in a show that had a big explosion five minutes earlier, then the ad that runs now is fine as long as its MAXIMUM level isn't greater than that of the explosion, and of course it is acceptable for the ENTIRE ad to run at that maximum level.

There actually is a new rule in place by the FCC, but doesn't bcome fully effective for a year, that requires providers to set ads to AVERAGE audio levels no higher than the AVERAGE audio level of the main content. Having this rule in place will be nice, but I wonder how many teeth it really has. What do you have to do to have it enforced? Do you have to record the thing as evidence? What if your Tivo won't let you export the thing onto another medium because of DRM? Do you have to write your congressman? File a form 52557-A64-121(c) in triplicate with the FCC?


----------



## TheFeaz (Jan 3, 2012)

lrhorer said:


> ...Take a look at my (partial) deal-killer list posted here earlier in this very thread. How many of the items on this list, the lack of even one being a complete deal killer, does the D* line of receivers manage to meet?


Hey... I like your "deal killers" list. I'm not quite sure what all the apps are that you're referring to on that list, but I suspect I'd like most of them. From having read a lot of what you're written out here, we seem to shar ethe perspective that I like to own things, rather than rent them. I justify that with pretty much the same rationale as you.

I've never really gotten into hacking my Tivo.. I certainly have the requisite skills, just not the knowledge of the Tivo specifics.


----------



## TheFeaz (Jan 3, 2012)

classicsat said:


> Lastly, it is my opinion you are just dreaming up rights just don't actually have, namely you never own content from the studios, only rent or purchase a limited license for. DRM and other measures that studios and providers implemement, enforce the rights they have, and issued to you based on the license you are granted for their product.


Nah... No dreaming here, but I will clarify some things.

First, as a software developer, I understand the basic principles around licensing. Just because you buy my product on a CD, that _doesn't_ give you the right to do with it whatever you want.

When I'm speaking of my right to do with the things I "own" as I wish, I'm referring to my basic and implicit right to the reasonable use of products for reasonable, legal, and fundamentally legitimate purposes. (That's something of how I'd word if I were a lawyer, which I'm not).

For example, we all know the oringal analogy provided in most software licenses of days past. The license works "like a book", meaning that you can't read the book in more than one place at the same time, for example. It's reasonable for you to expect that I won't make copies of the book and give them to all my firends, distribute them for free, or sell them as conterfeits. It is perhaps reasonable (and maybe even permissable, depending on the circumstances) for me to want to make a copy of that book and keep the original in a safe place.

It is equally UNREASONABLE of you to say that I can read the book in the livingroom, but not in the bedroom. It is also unreasonable of you to booby-trap the book so it will self-destruct after 30 days, to force me to buy another one from you should I wish to enjoy it for longer than the arbitraily allotted period.

I realize these things call some important legal questions into mind, because on one hand, there's the scenario of renting a movie at Blockbuster, vs. the concept of "implied ownership". I say implied because again, your ownership of something doesn't in my opinion, grant you an unlimited righ tto "do whatever you want" with it, but it does grant you what I would define as "unlimited reasonable use." We don't seem to have a problem today in other legal contexts quantifying or otherwise defining what is "reasonable", so that same application of precedent should be valid here.

As a practical example of a digital application, I have a problem with the idea of making a DVD copy-protected to the extent that it becomes impractical for me to make a backup of it. However, I do not have a problem with a mechanism in place, such as Tivo's use of a Media Access Key, to ensre that copies I make are only usable by ME or in MY home. This provides me the ability for "reasonable use" of protected content, while preventing someone else from simply ripping HBO into mp4 files and sitributing them on the Internet for free.

When it comes to the matters of policy (private sector / industry) and law (government / enforcement), we have to balance property rights (intellectual property, in this case, of the copyright holders) with freedom and responsibility. In a free society, that scale needs to be weighted heavier on the side of freedom. Yes, that means that some property rights are going to be compromised, but there are mechanisms in place that can help promote responsible, legal, and legitimate use of products while still proecting copyright and providing profit to the producers. The losses to a free society at-large by the surrender of those liberties in the name of protecting property rights, IMHO, sets a very dangerous precedent for a society that is becoming increasingly integrated with, and dependent upon technologies that are quickly surpassing the average person's ability to fully grasp and understand.


----------



## TheFeaz (Jan 3, 2012)

The following is an excerpt from an industry (software) newsletter I subscribe to. The general topic of discussion here here is the newfound relevance for a fellow named Richard Stallman, a major proponent (and framer, I believe) of the GNU (e.g. "free") licensing system for open source software:

*"But here we are, at the start of 2012. Obama signed the NDAA for 2012, making it possible for American citizens to be detained indefinitely without any form of trial or due process, only because they are terrorist suspects. At the same time, we have SOPA, which, if passed, would enact a system in which websites can be taken off the web, again without any form of trial or due process, while also enabling the monitoring of internet traffic. Combine this with how the authorities labelled the Occupy movements - namely, as terrorists - and you can see where this is going.

In case all this reminds you of China and similarly totalitarian regimes, you're not alone. Even the Motion Picture Association of America, the MPAA, proudly proclaims that what works for China, Syria, Iran, and others, should work for the US. China's Great Firewall and similar filtering systems are glorified as workable solutions in what is supposed to be the free world.

The crux of the matter here is that unlike the days of yore, where repressive regimes needed elaborate networks of secret police and informants to monitor communication, all they need now is control over the software and hardware we use. Our desktops, laptops, tablets, smartphones, and all manner of devices play a role in virtually all of our communication. Think you're in the clear when communicating face-to-face? Think again. How did you arrange the meet-up? Over the phone? The web? And what do you have in your pocket or bag, always connected to the network?"*

_Source: OS News http://www.osnews.com/story/25469/Richard_Stallman_Was_Right_All_Along_

Obviously, the central focus of the discussion in this source is open-source software, but the looming point is how there are often multiple points of relevance in these types of issues. While Stallman's arguments were chiefly deemed to be relevant to the "controls" imposed by proprietary software development, his larger concern was that as technoloy becomes more tightly coupled with every aspect of our society, that it represents a fundamental threat to freedom when people, as individuals, have no control over that technology. As everything in our lives interfaces with a "black box", it ultimately ends up being those who control the black boxes who control our lives, and therefore, us.

It's gravely concerning to me when, even out of context, a group like the MPAA asserts that "whatever is good for China must be good for the rest of us." Notwithstanding the fact that I don't like a lot of what the MPAA has managed to impose on us already, I don't think I'm a big fan of anyone who even eludes to the notion that China, in nearly ANY respect, should be the model for ANYTHING in the free world, certainly not MY free world.

This should concern and even alarm (I am reluctant to use that term) any reasonable person. Whether you agree that my ability to implment MRV on my Tivo system is worthy of leaving the service or not, surely as a reasonable person I'm sure that the idea of handing over control of your environment to someone else, the government, the MPAA, the UN, or whomever, does NOT appeal to you in any way, shape, or form. Now is your chance to stand for what you believe in, in whatever capacity you feel compelled. If you don't, then don't come crying to me one day when it's YOUR rights that get trampled on, because I'm going to ask you, "Where were you when it was only MY rights that were being taken away?"


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

TheFeaz said:


> And what is MRS?
> 
> Just in case any newbies are here, I'll expand a few acronyms real quick:.


Real quick? It would've taken me longer that 30 minutes to type that up.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> Not necessarily. The CATV company also inserts its own commercials into many broadcasts. Most, however, do come from the content providers.
> 
> No, it isn't. Indeed, audio control systems are just about ubiquitous in the CATV industry. The CATV system can take significant control of audio volume. Indeed, there are even FCC regulations requiring it, although not that I recall WRT commercials.


I'm not talking about running the entire audio stream through a limiter or a compressor and limiter, I'm talking about specifically de-compressing the commercials or specifically lowering the amplitude just on the commercials.

The problem isn't that the commercials are louder, it's that they're more highly compressed.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

lrhorer said:


> And how does the fact you are somewhat luckier than he help him with his situation or make his statement innacurate WRT his own situation?


He said: that ends up getting stuck on ALL the digital programming by many, if not most, cable operators

That is HUGELY overstating the problem. It doesn't affect a large portion of Comcast customers, and from what I've seen posted here, doesn't affect any Verizon customers... It doesn't even affect every customer of other cable companies which have some installations that do have overly restricted content... and even in those cases, that is sometimes NOT wanted by the copyright holders themselves... and if one fights it, others have posted here that they have succeeded in having changes made at their individual cable provider.

So I stand by my statement that they were overstating the problem.

Do I wish nothing was copy protected? Yes. Is it a pain one has to "fight" against it? Yes. That still doesn't mean that everyone in the country or even "ALL digital programming by many if not most cable operators" is close to true.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

mattack said:


> He said: that ends up getting stuck on ALL the digital programming by many, if not most, cable operators


Which is an overstatement, not a huge exaggeration. Certainly it is true of many. I do not think it is true of most cable operators, although it is possible the majority of cable operators do just that. Several large ones do not, however, which means, for the moment at least, most subscribers do not suffer from this to the maximum extent. He did not say "Cable Subscribers", though, he said "Cable operators". If it were not for Comcast and Verizon, then it would indeed apply to most subscribers, even if not to most cable operators.



mattack said:


> That is HUGELY overstating the problem.


No, it is not. First of all, as I just pointed out it may actually be true of the majority of cable providers. Even when we speak of subscribers, however, it is not off by a factor of two.



mattack said:


> It doesn't affect a large portion of Comcast customers


What figures do you have to support this? You yourself admit it affects you, just not to quite the extent it affects those of us on TW Cable, Frontier, Bright House, Cox, Charter... shall I continue?



mattack said:


> and from what I've seen posted here, doesn't affect any Verizon customers...


It certainly affects a huge number of customers who Verizon dumped on their butts in the Northwest.



mattack said:


> It doesn't even affect every customer of other cable companies which have some installations that do have overly restricted content...


If you are saying some MSOs have policies that vary by region, then yes there are some MSOs of which it is true. That doesn't help those people who are in the areas where the company does. It is also not true of many MSOs, as many have fully national programming policies.



mattack said:


> and even in those cases, that is sometimes NOT wanted by the copyright holders themselves...


In fact it is true in almost none of the cases, Viacom and a couple of others being the exception.



mattack said:


> and if one fights it, others have posted here that they have succeeded in having changes made at their individual cable provider.


I know of one and only one case where the sub claims success. Can you name two? Certainly no one on TW Cable, Bright House, etc. has been successful.



mattack said:


> So I stand by my statement that they were overstating the problem.


There is a big difference between an overstatement and a "huge exaggeration". "Every politician is dishonest" is an overstatement. "Eighty percent of politicians are honest" is a huge exaggeration.



mattack said:


> Is it a pain one has to "fight" against it? Yes.


Not so much, really. Doing so provides a great many other terrific features.



mattack said:


> That still doesn't mean that everyone in the country or even "ALL digital programming by many if not most cable operators" is close to true.


It may in fact be true of most cable operators and it is definitely true of many cable operators. It is not (yet) true for most subscribers.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

unitron said:


> I'm not talking about running the entire audio stream through a limiter or a compressor and limiter, I'm talking about specifically de-compressing the commercials or specifically lowering the amplitude just on the commercials.
> 
> The problem isn't that the commercials are louder, it's that they're more highly compressed.


The controls are specifically designed to provide a uniform perceived audio level. For the most part this is applied WRT channels as a whole so one channel is not much louder or softer than its neighbors, but there is nothing preventing the equipment from leveling commercials, as well. It is quite capable of it.

Being compressed is not an issue unless the average level is high. The controls are capable of dynamically compressing, expanding, or leveling the audio in any case.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

TheFeaz said:


> MRV, the feature, in and of itself, is completely unrelatd to TTG, I agree with you. However, it's those CCI restrictions, which prevent MRV from working, that also prevent me from moving stuff to my Tivo Desktop, TTG, so they are inter-related.


You are missing my point. TiVo could from a "legal" standpoint get MRV to work by changing the protocol to a streaming protocol rather than a transfer protocol. Doing so would allow watching content on one TiVo from another TiVo without breaking the CableLabs certification specifications. In short, a DVR which streams copy protected content between multiple units on the LAN can still obtain a CableLabs certification. A DVR that transfers copy protected content to any external device - now matter what type of device - cannot.



TheFeaz said:


> Once content is on my Tivo Desktop here in the media room, The MRV features of my various Tivo boxes in all th eother rooms would allow me to then watch anything that was stored back here to be viewed in any rrom, and THAT is the relevant application (for me).


That is the point. No device that allows protected content to be transferred to an external device will receive a certification. It is possible to circumvent this restriction for an MRV utility by deploying a streaming protocol, since the content never resides to any significant extent on any other device. If the content is copied or transferred in any sense, then it breaks the rules.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

classicsat said:


> If TiVo were to become truly open-source, then Cable-labs would terminate their license for the models fully open-sourced. Mark my words.


There is no need to mark them. CableLabs specs explicitly (although indirectly) forbid it.



classicsat said:


> The Series 3s are practically finished for development.


What's your point? Since I have yet to see anything of interest proposed as a new feature, why should I (or he) care?



classicsat said:


> At best they may receive bug fixes, so if what you have are Series 3s (including TiVo HD models), then CCI byte encumbered MRV is it for you.


Not at all. I am on TWC, who restricts to the maximum extent. My MRV is not encumbered. (I almost never use it, but that is another matter.)



classicsat said:


> Lastly, it is my opinion you are just dreaming up rights just don't actually have, namely you never own content from the studios, only rent or purchase a limited license for. DRM and other measures that studios and providers implemement, enforce the rights they have, and issued to you based on the license you are granted for their product.


I'm not sure of your point, here, either. The FCC, for reasons too deep to discuss at this moment, have chosen to give the CATV company full and unfettered permission to protect or not whatever they want, unless it is a local station. By federal law, no provider may protect any content on a local station, even should it be identical to content on any other station. Independently of this, and with no force of law whatsoever, CableLabs will refuse to certify a device that does not honor this form of DRM. There is no legal statute requiring any device to honor the CCI byte. If the subscriber happens to have a provider - like Verizon - who copy protects nothing, then they are perfectly free to transfer anything they like to any medium they like. There are certainly laws preventing them from selling or distibuting the content, but not preventing them from transferring from one DVR to another or to an external device in the same household.

There are laws against circumventing Macrovision protection, or cracking encryption with the intent of receiving content without paying for it, etc.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> The controls are specifically designed to provide a uniform perceived audio level. For the most part this is applied WRT channels as a whole so one channel is not much louder or softer than its neighbors, but there is nothing preventing the equipment from leveling commercials, as well. It is quite capable of it.
> 
> Being compressed is not an issue unless the average level is high. The controls are capable of dynamically compressing, expanding, or leveling the audio in any case.


And if I'm the sponsor who's squashed all of the dynamic range out of my spots so that they drill into your brain, me and my lawyers are going to be all over any station, network, or "neutral re-transmission utility" like a cable or satellite company, same as if they'd altered the words or the pictures in the spot.

What the actual viewer does to it in the privacy of his own home is between him and his compander.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

TheFeaz said:


> None taken, but what, in your estimation constitutes "doing something" about it?


Disable it.



TheFeaz said:


> Well, I'm sure you can tell that a person of my aptitudes is quite capable of fixing it to do anything, but that does not mean that I wish to. I don't mind tinkering with the Tivo as a hobby and as an enthusiast, but when those acts are criminalized, that becomes a point of conern.


If by "criminalized", you mean "illegal", it isn't. The CCI byte is essentially a CableLabs artifact. (Well, sort of.) CableLabs is not a government authority and none of their requirements have any force of law whatsoever. The FCC is a government authority, and their regulations when ratified by Congress do have the force of law. The FCC does not enforce CCI compliance, though. Their only regulations concerning the CCI byte limit what the CATV company can do as far as implementing the CCI byte. They cannot set it at all on local stations, and they cannot set it above 0x02 on any premium or basic cable channel. Otherwise, they can do as they please, but you are not proscribed by law from doing something about it.



TheFeaz said:


> It's not like the FBI is sitting outside my house with field glasses, watching for me to hack my Tivo


You could walk into FBI headquarters with a soldering iron and a PC and hack your TiVo on the director's desk, and all they could arrest you for is loitering.



TheFeaz said:


> TA's aren't really the result of bone-headedness so much as they are a stop-gap between older and newer technologies. It's my understanding that the CableCARD standards were implemented before the SDV standards (such as they are) were implemented.


SDV is not a standard, which is part of the problem, and no, the SDV specifications were not in place prior to CableCard standards, but that is largely irrelevant.

The CATV companies had long been employing two-way technologies and fully expressed their intent to expand them. The impending CableCard specifications threatened to require two-way communications as part of the spec, potentially resulting in a requirement the Consumer Electronics Manufacturers would be required to produce TVs with upstream modulators. They did not want to bear this cost, especially for low end TVs. People who bought low end TVs, they reasoned, would not be interested in things like IPPV and what not. It's true they did not anticipate the development of SDV, and one might tend to forgive them this, but such forgiveness is specious. Although SDV was yet a bit over the horizon, two-way protocols were not. In any case, the CE Manufacturers went to the FCC and whined about having to support two-way communications, demanding the development of a UDCP spec. That was bone-headed act #1, motivated by greed and egocentrism. The FCC then decided to acquiesce to the CE Manufacturers. That was bone-headed act #2, motivated by stupidity and no doubt no small amount of bribery. The FCC then turned around and submitted requirements that CableLabs create a UDCP spec, but in bone-headed move #3, they made no requirement for anyone to provide a two-way spec. What might have motivated this 3rd boneheaded act is truly beyond me. It's like going to a burger joint for a burger and fries, ordering the fries, and forgetting to order the burger.

The CableCard spec, as-is, works well enough. It is the continued lack of a viable two-way spec that necessitates the use of TAs.



TheFeaz said:


> Neither the CableCARD nor the TA is, in and of themselves problematic


Actually, the TA is. It is very poorly engineered.



TheFeaz said:


> Well, yes... If I'm willing to criminalize myself, potentially jeopardizing my property rights, criminal record, and career. That's no answer, let's be realistic, unless I'm missing some solution you're alluding to (in which case, by all means, point it out.)


There is nothing remotely illegal about modifying a TiVo. They don't like us to talk about it here, however. It's the primary topic on the "other" TiVo forum.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> ...
> 
> There is nothing remotely illegal about modifying a TiVo. They don't like us to talk about it here, however. It's the primary topic on the "other" TiVo forum.


Getting the service without paying for it does have legal implications, and it's fear that TiVo mods will, or will be mistaken to, lead to that that makes it nervous making around here.

If I ever decide I consider that to be too much of a burden on me, I'll demand TCF refund me every penny of the $0.00 they've charged me for the use of the site.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

unitron said:


> Getting the service without paying for it does have legal implications


Absolutely. It would be out-and-out theft.



unitron said:


> and it's fear that TiVo mods will, or will be mistaken to, lead to that that makes it nervous making around here.


I don't know it that's true, or not. Certainly no one to my knowledge has ever successfully done so, and I suspect it isn't even possible in a practical sense. I certainly would never attempt it, and I agree any suggestion that it even be attempted should be considered inappropriate.



unitron said:


> If I ever decide I consider that to be too much of a burden on me, I'll demand TCF refund me every penny of the $0.00 they've charged me for the use of the site.


I'm sure if they do, they will demand a receipt for it.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> ...
> I'm sure if they do, they will demand a receipt for it.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

But seriously, DDB doesn't encourage or condone screwing TiVo out of sub revenues any more than does TCF.

But they're much more into "What other interesting things can we do with a TiVo besides put in a bigger hard drive".

Some of which might get into territory that TiVo has to care about to keep the content providers off of their backs, so where some of their people could come here and post occasionally, it had to be off limits to them, and TCF needed to avoid being lumped in with them as well.

Also that other stuff can involve stuff TiVo has to officially be opposed to, like stuff that involves a soldering iron.

A soldering iron with a very small tip, and special solder alloys, and magnifying glasses...


----------



## TheFeaz (Jan 3, 2012)

lrhorer said:


> That is the point. No device that allows protected content to be transferred to an external device will receive a certification. It is possible to circumvent this restriction for an MRV utility by deploying a streaming protocol, since the content never resides to any significant extent on any other device. If the content is copied or transferred in any sense, then it breaks the rules.


Well, and there's the tricky part, determine exactly what DOES, and what does NOT qualify as "on the same device". The physical medium on which the data is stored is a hard drive, a removeable, replaceable component, physically house and mounted within the unit; What about augmenting internal storage with an external hard drive (EHD)? What if the EHD is configured in some sort of way (such as a RAID configuration), where, although not physically/mechanically, it is still technically integrally and irremoveably connected to the internal hard drive? (ie., because the striped RAID array won't work if one disk is removed).

What if the previous scenario is extended to a media storage device that connects wirelessly? (i.e., one of these new networkable HDD's)? What if that device is configured, like the RAID, in such a way so as that the data is incomplete / ambiguous without a connection to main host (e.g., the Tivo unit)? What if the same were applied to a hard drive running in a Windows Mdia Center installation? By this I mean, the physical data might be stored on the media server, but without the use of the Media Access Key on th esame Tivo network, the data would be unuseable.

I'm not raising the question of any of this is technically feasible (which we all know it is), or if it's logical or reasonable to propose (again, because we all already know that it is.) What I am suggesting here is that the notion that, in order to be compliant with the rules, data must reside "on the same device", is itself an ambiguous statement. I could, after all, make a case all day long for why even a hard drive, physically installed in the Tivo, is not the media device itself (as it's an easily removeable component), and could similarly make the case that hardware, interconnected over a secure network, employing apprpriate protocols to enforce licensing, does not break these "rules of containment". Unless there are already court precedents that address these types of issues, a claim that such a structure inherently violates those provisions would likely not hold up in court.


----------



## TheFeaz (Jan 3, 2012)

unitron said:


> And if I'm the sponsor who's squashed all of the dynamic range out of my spots so that they drill into your brain, me and my lawyers are going to be all over any station, network, or "neutral re-transmission utility" like a cable or satellite company, same as if they'd altered the words or the pictures in the spot.


And I suspect that you, as the sponsor, have a contractual relationship with me which defines certain aspects of your content with regard to quality and suitability, among which would be audio / video levels. Likewise, I'm sure that I, as the transmitter, have certain leeway, again described contractually, to alter content to fit technical specifications.

Some would argue that the loud commercials are an overt attempt to get your attention. I think that may be true some of th etime (maybe even most), but I also suspect that some of it is just lack of production quality, and nobody bothers to QC the things before queuing them up. The fact that they're "a little hot" is only marginal inconvenience for the producers (if at all), so it just goes on out the door. If, on the other hand, it was too quiet.. Well, that is a quality issue that I'm sure would raise attention.


----------



## TheFeaz (Jan 3, 2012)

lrhorer said:


> If by "criminalized", you mean "illegal", it isn't. The CCI byte is essentially a CableLabs artifact. (Well, sort of.) CableLabs is not a government authority and none of their requirements have any force of law whatsoever. The FCC is a government authority, and their regulations when ratified by Congress do have the force of law. The FCC does not enforce CCI compliance, though. Their only regulations concerning the CCI byte limit what the CATV company can do as far as implementing the CCI byte. They cannot set it at all on local stations, and they cannot set it above 0x02 on any premium or basic cable channel. Otherwise, they can do as they please, but you are not proscribed by law from doing something about it... ...There is nothing remotely illegal about modifying a TiVo. They don't like us to talk about it here, however. It's the primary topic on the "other" TiVo forum.


Well, okay, so it's not criminal... At least not yet. There are also issues of contractual rights and dobligations, and I don't know what all of them are (I'm not a lawyer). Most of the time, the service agreements pretty much give them (the CATV company) all the rights; You have few if any, unless spelled out by law or in the contract. We seem to exist more and more in a legal environment where, rather than having every right that you're not expressly forbade from having, it now seems as though you have few rights unless specifically granted to you.

A lot of these contracts for service that you sign for CATV and Internet service spell out a LOT of stuff that you can and cannot do. You can't go to jail for breaking them (civil law vs. criminal law), but if they decide to make an example out of you for some reason, then you can get your pants sued off you. The mere image of people hacking their Tivo boxes (as pointed out in another post in this thread) makes onlookers wary that you must be up to stealing something.



lrhorer said:


> You could walk into FBI headquarters with a soldering iron and a PC and hack your TiVo on the director's desk, and all they could arrest you for is loitering.


Cops don't scare me NEAR as much as lawyers do. Cops enforce the laws. Lawyers make them.



lrhorer said:


> SDV is not a standard, which is part of the problem, and no, the SDV specifications were not in place prior to CableCard standards, but that is largely irrelevant.
> 
> The CATV companies had long been employing two-way technologies and fully expressed their intent to expand them. The impending CableCard specifications threatened to require two-way communications as part of the spec, potentially resulting in a requirement the Consumer Electronics Manufacturers would be required to produce TVs with upstream modulators. They did not want to bear this cost, especially for low end TVs. People who bought low end TVs, they reasoned, would not be interested in things like IPPV and what not. It's true they did not anticipate the development of SDV, and one might tend to forgive them this, but such forgiveness is specious. Although SDV was yet a bit over the horizon, two-way protocols were not. In any case, the CE Manufacturers went to the FCC and whined about having to support two-way communications, demanding the development of a UDCP spec. That was bone-headed act #1, motivated by greed and egocentrism. The FCC then decided to acquiesce to the CE Manufacturers. That was bone-headed act #2, motivated by stupidity and no doubt no small amount of bribery. The FCC then turned around and submitted requirements that CableLabs create a UDCP spec, but in bone-headed move #3, they made no requirement for anyone to provide a two-way spec. What might have motivated this 3rd boneheaded act is truly beyond me. It's like going to a burger joint for a burger and fries, ordering the fries, and forgetting to order the burger.
> 
> The CableCard spec, as-is, works well enough. It is the continued lack of a viable two-way spec that necessitates the use of TAs.


Interesting info... Thanks. I did not know all of that background.



lrhorer said:


> Actually, the TA is [inherently problematic]. It is very poorly engineered.


Well, this may be true (I agree, it's poorly engineered, in terms of a product), but the concept of it isn't inherently problematic, just bulky.


----------



## TheFeaz (Jan 3, 2012)

unitron said:


> Getting the service without paying for it does have legal implications, and it's fear that TiVo mods will, or will be mistaken to, lead to that that makes it nervous making around here.
> 
> If I ever decide I consider that to be too much of a burden on me, I'll demand TCF refund me every penny of the $0.00 they've charged me for the use of the site.


I'm not going to get into a whole discussion on Tivo hacking, out of respect for the moderators, but I have to say, that while I'm sure that somehwere out there, anything is probably going on, the bulk of what I've seen on hacking Tivo really has more to do with cool features (like FTP and web interface), and just understanding the Tivo architecture. I don't ever recall seeing anything about stealing the service. Of course, I also wasn't looking for any of that.. I was personally perfectly happy to pay Tivo for a service I want.

As far as a comment back there somewhere about open-source being taboo for the CableLabs license, that's too bad. Of course, it's probably a pretty good indication that CableLabs encryption algorithm must be pretty weak, because open-source software isn't inherently insecure at all.


----------



## TheFeaz (Jan 3, 2012)

unitron said:


> But seriously, DDB doesn't encourage or condone screwing TiVo out of sub revenues any more than does TCF.


Sorry... I hate alphabet soup... I assme TCF is the Tivo Community Forums... Who is DDB?


----------



## sathead (Jan 12, 2008)

TheFeaz said:


> Sorry... I hate alphabet soup... Who is DDB?


It's that "other" TiVo website...
Just do a Google search for "TiVo hacking" and it will be listed in the top five results.


----------



## TheFeaz (Jan 3, 2012)

sathead said:


> It's that "other" TiVo website...
> Just do a Google search for "TiVo hacking" and it will be listed in the top five results.


Oh... I've been there before.  Thanks. They seem pretty much on th elevel, from what I had seen, but any way, we won't discuss.  Thanks for clearing up the alphabet soup though.


----------



## wmhjr (Dec 2, 2007)

innocentfreak said:


> Good luck, I couldn't justify paying $200 a year for something I wasn't going to own.


I know this is an old post, but just stumbed into it.

You're paying more than $200 a year for something you don't own. Tivo service.

The argument was much stronger before Tivo raised rates for Premiere series boxes. Let's do the math, shall we?

Tivo service for a single Tivo Premiere is $19.95/month. Now let's add in the cablecard rental. That's $3.95/month with Fios for example. So, that's 
$268.80 per year. Now, let's add in the purchase price and potential replacement of the Tivo hardware.

OTOH, Comcast here charges $15.95/month - period. That's $191.40/year. IOW, it is $95.40 LESS per year not including the up front cost of the Tivo or the potential repair/replacement cost.

If you're a new customer with FiOS, you get a FREE DVR and a Free connected HD set top box for as long as you're at the same address. Additional DVRs are $19.95/month at the very most. No purchase price, no cablecard rental.

If you don't have a Premiere, then the increased Tivo cost is not as dramatic, however I can't come up with a single scenario where once you include the Tivo service fees and the cablecard rental along with at least SOME amount noted for buying and replacing the Tivo, you don't always always always pay more to subscribe to Tivo.

I'm not bashing Tivo either, but let's be clear. People complaining about the "rental cost" of a provider DVR but ignoring the monthly Tivo service fees are not being honest. Right now, DVR service is becoming far more of a commodity. The value add that Tivo provides is less and less distinctive than it once was, the providers continue to drop their DVR costs, and Tivo continues to increase their costs. Anybody with any economics or business experience can see that this can lead to short term revenues at the expense of long term canibalization. I fear it's not a pretty picture for Tivo over the long term. Take it a step further. Tivo is not bidirectional for provider content (no Cablecard 2.0 in the forseeable future at least) so there is some functionality that we'll never get that is free for the cable dvr users. I'm thoroughly unimpressed with Tivo implementation of Netflix (who has already been their own enemy to begin with) and Amazon (Tivo Premiere pixelation and poor quality that does not exist with S3/HD typically). IPTV is becoming more and more mainstream. See the trend?


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

Frankly i think you are a fool with your money if you are paying $19.95/month to TiVo. 

Lifetime service... I wouldn't ever consider owning a TiVo without it.

If you pay service fees for TiVo then don't expect your TiVo to have any residual value and don't expect to find any savings... (my S3 is still worth ~ $300)

Also, don't complain that your TiVo is expensive - you are the one that selected a plan that by definition quickly costs you more money.

If my lifetime service was $400 and my TiVo has a residual value of $300 with lifetime - I pay for the service within the first year. If I decide to upgrade I can either sell my TiVo to offset the cost or move it to another TV. I now have a house full of TiVo's without a service fee.

Personally i can't think of a compelling reason for anything but a lifetime service. You can return the unit in 30 days for a refund and if you don't think you will use it for at least a year - you probably shouldn't purchase the unit anyway.

(a non-lifetime S3 is a door stop and is probably worth less then $25)


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

wmhjr said:


> I know this is an old post, but just stumbed into it.
> 
> You're paying more than $200 a year for something you don't own. Tivo service.


Nope I bought lifetime and have on every TiVo I have owned other than my original Series 1 and 2. I have also already covered every dollar I have spent on TiVo so at this point it is just savings for me.


----------



## TheFeaz (Jan 3, 2012)

wmhjr said:


> You're paying more than $200 a year for something you don't own. Tivo service.


Your numbers are right, of course, but your conclusion is based on the assumption that one pays month-to-month for Tivo for its full useful life. People who do THAT are not (or certainly should not be) the ones ranting about not wanting to perpetually "rent" stuff, because that's essentially what you're doing. Lifetime service is really the only way to go, in my opinion, since you're already making a commitment to a piece of hardware that's useless without the service. With product lifetime service, you get three benefits, the way I see it:

1) Reduced monthly cost, perpetually reduced depending on how long you actually keep the product and use it;

2) Product and service / content that you do, for all intents and purposes, "own" (e.g., no monthly bil); and

3) retained value. When you buy a Tivo, you have a physical product-- an asset, a depreciating asset, like anything else, but an asset nonetheless. When you buy a month of service for $19.95 (or $1.95, for that matter), that purchase only has value for the month that it's effective. After that, it no longer has any value. Your lifetime service purchase however not only has value when you use it, but has an inherent value of its own so, for example, if you go to sell your four-year-old Tivo on eBay, it's worth considerably more with lifetime service, perhaps nearly the amount your paid for lifetime service to begin with. That means you would net a service cost of $0 for four years, having "spent" only the cost of the Tivo unit which, granted you didn't get anything for in this scenario, but then what would you really expect to get out of a 4-year-old Tivo anyway? And how much did you spend at $19.95 a month for those four years?



wmhjr said:


> The argument was much stronger before Tivo raised rates for Premiere series boxes.


I too think this was a dumb and short sigted move on their part.



wmhjr said:


> The value add that Tivo provides is less and less distinctive than it once was, the providers continue to drop their DVR costs, and Tivo continues to increase their costs. Anybody with any economics or business experience can see that this can lead to short term revenues at the expense of long term canibalization. I fear it's not a pretty picture for Tivo over the long term.


This is why I'm concerned that Tivo is fast on its way to becoming irrelevant. They won't be the first pioneer to end up dying at the hands of their competitors (or their own suicide, such as the case may be.) I see a company (Tivo) who has learned that it can live for quite a while on the "fat" of its residuals. Those will keep coming in for quite a few more years, and they certainly haven't lost their following... yet.

Take a look around though in the next 2-1/2 - 4 years, as the current wave of subscription contracts and lifetime service lifespans are running out. If you don't see Tivo making some serious headway into the market with newer technologies or finding a niche that the CATV and sat companies can't beat them at, then I'll show you a company who will go the way of the Divx by 2020.


----------



## TheFeaz (Jan 3, 2012)

Got my new Dish system in yesterday... Loving it so far. Tivo and Dish have some (bad) history, as I understand it, but I think they'd do well to learn from each other, and make better friends than enemies. As anyone who's followed me knows, I had / have no issues w/ Tivo, but it became irrelevant when my CATV operator put restrictive blocks on every channel and I can't move anything off the Tivo HDD to longer-term storage, so I dumped the CATV company and, unfortunately, the Tivo along with it, since it won't work with Charlie. FYI, here are some things about Dish that I'm loving (always loved Dish when I had the Dish 500 years ago...)

1) MRV and it actually works;

2) Ability to watch programs on my PC, both in the house and over the Internet;

3) Nice integration w/ Blockbuster instant videos (similar to what Tivo has for Netflix as far as I can tell). The Blockbuster app on Tivo is worthless as the rental rates are ripoff;

4) Nice integratoin with Internet TV

5) Good guide / search features (Sorry Charlies, still not as nice as my Tivo though); INFINITELY better than cable;

6) Learning remote - This would really be a cool feature in the next-gen Tivo- My sat box will download all the programming codes I've set on my remote, and my remote will download all of my preferences (i.e., fav channel list, timers, etc.) from my STB. If one or the other ever dies, I can restore a lot of my settings.

7) The ability to hook up an external HDD. I haven't done this yet, but all you do is plug it into the USB. I doube the file formats are useful on another media device, but who cares? As long as I can watch them from my Dish box, and swap out the EHD wheenver I want, I have unlimited storage, which is all I am asking for.


----------



## wmhjr (Dec 2, 2007)

bradleys said:


> Frankly i think you are a fool with your money if you are paying $19.95/month to TiVo.
> 
> Lifetime service... I wouldn't ever consider owning a TiVo without it.
> 
> ...


Actually, I totally disagree with you. For those that got into the lifetime service early and were able to transfer it to different units, fine. However, since Lifetime is now only "lifetime of that unit" to me it's worthless. It only BARELY pays for itself now in about 2 years. That is without considering the cost of cash. Meaning, you've paid up front so based now on the cost of cash, it's really closer to 2.5 years at a minimum.

While in the past this may also have made at least a little sense, to me it also makes zero sense because I see a change in how we consume content coming. Far more IPTV, streaming, etc where Tivo is could be irrelevant. Keep in mind that I'm not talking about the people on this forum (many of which would never in their entire lives say a single bad word about Tivo for fear of being struck by lightening from the Tivo icon). I'm talking about the market, because Tivo can't survive on just forum members. Sorry, but true. Totally true. And Johnny in the suburbs ain't gonna spend $400 for lifetime on a box that he just spent $100 minimum along with monthly rental fees for a cablecard when Verizon is handing him a box for free.

Honestly, unless you're still running Series 2 units, I would put up the numbers comparing your costs to a new Verizon customer running a totally free DVR and set top box any day.

I don't expect agreement here, as more people here will find any reason to support Tivo than not. I also like Tivo. But I have to say, the value add for me diminishes every single month as providers catch up. I think that in the mid term Tivo had better REALLY hook up some MSO deals on a much larger scale or they're in trouble. As for the long term, well, I just don't see a valid revenue stream there. Too much change, and the content delivery is changing completely. Who would have thought there would even BE a Hulu or Amazon streaming 15 yrs ago (not that downloading Amazon HD content actually works with a premiere right now....). Tivo was the king of conventional TV DVRs but conventional TV is going away fast.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

In their last statemnet TiVo was predicting they will exceed 4 million subscribers worldwide by the end of 2014. This will be due mainly from their cable company contracts they are implementing like RCN, Virgin , Charter, etc.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

Current FiOS subscriber so no option to get a HD DVR for free for life. 

As for as costs, I have already covered and recouped my cost for my hardware and at this point it is all just savings.


----------



## TheFeaz (Jan 3, 2012)

I agree with most of what you've said here, but I also must point out that some of it represents a sad reality in the way in which the modern consumer has been "taught" to... Well, how to be "good consumers", which is NOT synonomous with being a "responsible" consumer.



wmhjr said:


> Actually, I totally disagree with you. For those that got into the lifetime service early and were able to transfer it to different units, fine. However, since Lifetime is now only "lifetime of that unit" to me it's worthless. It only BARELY pays for itself now in about 2 years. That is without considering the cost of cash. Meaning, you've paid up front so based now on the cost of cash, it's really closer to 2.5 years at a minimum.


I don't like these fallacious comparisons with consumer products (as opposed to business assets) because it represents an apples to oranges comparison. There are financial reasons in a business to lease a car, for example, over buying it, because leasing leaves capital available to invest in another asset, one that will (presumably) perform, rather than depreciate, as the car will, leased or not. Consumer economics, what I'll call "home economics" is somewhat different. Yes, a portion of our income we (should) invest in performing assets, but most of it is simply "spent". The money I "save" by spending $19.95 a month for service over the money I "spend" for LTS is not money saved at all-- It is simply money I spend for one thing instead of another. That is of course unless I'm charging the LTS on a 19% interest credit card and paying over time, but that's a whole other discussion.

LTS is no more or less of an asset than a $19.95 month worth of service. The difference is that the value of the former doesn't instantly evaporate (although you could argue that it is worth "something less" a month later, since it's tied to the lifetime a product with a finite lifespan, although the true lifespan of that product is somewhat subjective). LTS does however retain a value over time. If you want to talk about the cost (or value) of money, then consider a $200 Tivo purchased two years ago w/ LTS (I think another $200?) The physical asset is nearly worthless (I wouldn't give you much for it), but the LTS attached to it has value. I would prob. buy it from you for $200. This means you would recover 100% of your expenditure for LTS after having enjoyed it and benefited from it over the useful life of your Tivo unit (useful to YOU), plus be able to buy new equipment (and another LTS agreement) at a discounted rate. I, in turn would enjoy the benefit of your used Tivo, perhaps for years to come, but even if only for a year, I would still only be out the $200, the approximate cost of service I would have had to subscribe to anyway, had I purchased a new unit of my own (which would have likely cost me more than the $200 I paid you for your used one, including LTS). Now, as a Tivo owner, albeit a used Tivo owner, I, too am eligible for the service discounts and upgrade that you were eligible for, so now I can buy a new Tivo and another LTS agreement for it at a discounted rate. Both you and I got value from the LTS that far exceeded the "cost" of the service, when compared to what we would pay by buying it monthly over the total term and real lifespan of the original Tivo unit (3 years, in this example, and many of us have units that have lived usefully for much longer.)

This little scenario is one of very few win-win-win scenarios that I really like to see, but don't see very often, where EVERYBODY comes out ahead-- You do, because you basically got 2 years of services for free; I did, because I benefited from a substantial discount without having to front the cost of the purchase of new equipment, and Tivo did, because they got to sell brand new products to both of us, and even the used, pre-paid product that generated no direct revenue to Tivo (through your sale to me), ended up generating a new sale and a new service agreement for them. If that sounds far fetched, bear in mind that is VERY much how I ended up getting hooked up with Tivo in the first place. I can promise you that had it not been for the availability of LTS, I would never have bought a Tivo, let alone four of them as I now have, all with LTS. In fact, I used to bash the whole notion of Tivo before I knew that option was even available.



wmhjr said:


> While in the past this may also have made at least a little sense, to me it also makes zero sense because I see a change in how we consume content coming. Far more IPTV, streaming, etc where Tivo is could be irrelevant.


Tivo becoming irrelevant is a big concern I have for them long-term, as well. This was one place I agreed with you 100%.



wmhjr said:


> Keep in mind that I'm not talking about the people on this forum (many of which would never in their entire lives say a single bad word about Tivo for fear of being struck by lightening from the Tivo icon).


Well, take it easy there.. But seriously I do know what you're talking about. Tivo really has adopted quite a following, and that sometimes tends to blind people to what the market really demands. Tivo is likely to join the ranks of the Pontiac Aztek, another product that was loved by its owners and followers, but failed in the market nonetheless.



wmhjr said:


> I'm talking about the market, because Tivo can't survive on just forum members. Sorry, but true. Totally true. And Johnny in the suburbs ain't gonna spend $400 for lifetime on a box that he just spent $100 minimum along with monthly rental fees for a cablecard when Verizon is handing him a box for free.
> 
> Honestly, unless you're still running Series 2 units, I would put up the numbers comparing your costs to a new Verizon customer running a totally free DVR and set top box any day.


Well, if all your "Johnny" wants is a DVR, probably not, but if Tivo can make the idea of a total, integrated streaming home media package take hold, then Johnny might be VERY interested. The trouble is that right now, that's anyone's game. You've got the CATV companies (at a SEVERE disadvantage, IMHO, because they're working with old equipment that they're trying to squeeze every bit of useful life out of an obsolete asset.), Google TV, the sat companies, and other TIvo knock-offs who, although late entering the game, should not be discounted too quickly because at least they, unlike Tivo, are not (yet) set in their ways and may be poised to jump on trends that will define the market of the future. I haven't totally written Tivo off in this area yet, but as I said in another posting, you'll be able to pretty much set their lifespan by what happens in the next 2-1/2 years.



wmhjr said:


> I don't expect agreement here, as more people here will find any reason to support Tivo than not. I also like Tivo. But I have to say, the value add for me diminishes every single month as providers catch up. I think that in the mid term Tivo had better REALLY hook up some MSO deals on a much larger scale or they're in trouble. As for the long term, well, I just don't see a valid revenue stream there. Too much change, and the content delivery is changing completely. Who would have thought there would even BE a Hulu or Amazon streaming 15 yrs ago (not that downloading Amazon HD content actually works with a premiere right now....). Tivo was the king of conventional TV DVRs but conventional TV is going away fast.


I don't think that people here will "find any reason to support Tivo". Although some may, I think this is more about people here being enthusiasts who believe in a product that we like. Believing in it doesn't mean we'll stand behind every dumb move Tivo makes, but it does mean we believe in the POTENTIAL for the product and the company. Whether Tivo lives up to that potential or not is up to Tivo. We shall see. In the meantime, I still believe in their potential.


----------



## chelman (Oct 27, 2004)

I understand you and many times I've felt the frustration of being stuck with a product that could be better.


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

@WMHJR

And you completely disreguard the residual value of the lifetime service. I have three boxes... An early S3, and upgraded HD and a Premier all with lifetime... I could go on ebay and get about 1k for the lot. 

Cost of cash? realy??? In home electronics? I purchased one unit at a time and now have three TV's with active lifetime TiVo boxes on them... You are going to tell me paying $60 a month to TiVo I would be in any way saving money?

Yes I do pay verizon for my cable cards... This is one reason I am considering selling my S3 unit - did I mention for $300 - and upgrading it to a single card Premier. For what $150 total? But hey - I have that option 

I think you might want to go take home economics again.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

I just bought a Premiere Elite $499 
Subtract 10% for mobile discount = $450
Subtract $90 for reward zone points = $360
Bought lifetime at $399 = $759
Sold Tivo S3 with lifetime for $379 = $380
Saved paying for one cable card $1.10 per month
I also get a credit for customer owned equipment $2.50

So I think the payback is less than two years.


----------



## wmhjr (Dec 2, 2007)

Rather than quote ad nauseum, let me answer a few of the comments made above. I understand that many (most) here will not agree - that's the spice of life. 

1) Cost of cash in terms of SERVICE FEES and not consumer electronics. IMHO, for newer subs, all the lifetime service does is spread out expected lifespan of service fees over a couple years. THAT is when you begin to see savings. Because it is restricted to the unit it's tied to, it means lifetime with that particular product, which over time becomes more or less obsolete and beyond its service life from a component perspective. Perhaps for some people, that has value. For others - including a massive amount of this market, it has zero. Zero appetite, and zero value. It is subjective as opposed to objective. I don't have confidence that my Tivo HDs or my Elite will last much longer than 2-3 yrs, so why in the world should I pay those fees up front? Neither do I have any confidence whatsoever that the residual value will continue to be held. I'd bet if you asked somebody with a condo in San Francisco 5 yrs ago whether they thought their property values would decline 40% they'd call you crazy. What about today? Not so nuts, huh?

2) The market is rapidly changing. And I mean rapidly. 10 yrs ago you could watch NOTHING streaming on IP. Today you can watch "almost" everything. More and more content is IP based. Now there are even IP delivered only series and programs. More integration of cloud based content into the TV as a "selling point" (even though even new TVs do the same thing). You don't see these changes? Exactly what advantage does Tivo bring to this space? They don't have the content. They don't control the access. They don't control the UI. They don't control the delivery. 

Look at todays kids and the 20something generation. No landline phones. It's all cell. More and more they have no cable period. It's all IP based. Folks, we're not going to be here forever. The market is changing. 

Also, a couple of the MSOs are actually best prepared to deal with this. Verizon is the top of that short list, but even they can't lay claim to the new market.


----------



## Torgo (Dec 31, 2001)

wmhjr said:


> I know this is an old post, but just stumbed into it.
> 
> You're paying more than $200 a year for something you don't own. Tivo service.
> 
> ...


I pay $0 for my cablecard on Comcast, and I get a $2.95/mo credit for bringing my own device. I paid $60 for my premiere (right before they went to the $19.99/mo pricing. 
If I'm not breaking even ($99/year for service), I'm pretty damn close, and don't have to put up with the Comcast ****box DVR.

winning


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

TheFeaz said:


> And I suspect that you, as the sponsor, have a contractual relationship with me which defines certain aspects of your content with regard to quality and suitability, among which would be audio / video levels. Likewise, I'm sure that I, as the transmitter, have certain leeway, again described contractually, to alter content to fit technical specifications.
> 
> Some would argue that the loud commercials are an overt attempt to get your attention. I think that may be true some of th etime (maybe even most), but I also suspect that some of it is just lack of production quality, and nobody bothers to QC the things before queuing them up. The fact that they're "a little hot" is only marginal inconvenience for the producers (if at all), so it just goes on out the door. If, on the other hand, it was too quiet.. Well, that is a quality issue that I'm sure would raise attention.


Dude, it ain't being "too hot".

It ain't volume.

It ain't amplitude.

It ain't level.

IT'S COMPRESSION

It's what top 40 AM radio stations did back in the '60s to stand out as the loudest thing as you tuned across the dial. You don't overmodulate, that just sounds bad and makes the FCC think about taking you off of the air.

You squash the dynamic range.

It doesn't actually make it louder. The peaks aren't any higher than they were. But the rest is a lot closer to the peaks.

So it seems louder, but you can point to the meter and say "See, it never goes into the red".

And it's the reason for "listener fatigue".

Think of it as the audio equivalent of typing all uppercase.

None of the letters are bigger than uppercase letters in that font and size are.

But none of them are smaller, either.


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

http://www.ebay.com/itm/TiVo-Series...713?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item256b1109e9

This TiVo S3 is sitting at about $278 in actual bids as of this post with similar specs to mine. I am going to list it in a couple of days for my next upgrade!

Like I said, I think I can get near $300 for that "valueless" service I paid for.

S3 with upgraded 1 TB Drive (origional drive included)
Wifi dongle
Actual Shipping

I can get a new Premier for $499 ($99 box, $399 service) so $200 out of pocket!

I purchased the TiVo in December 2006 for Christmas - that is 6 years of use. I am trying to remember, but I think $300 was what I paid for lifetime in 2006. So that is a pretty good return on your dollar in my opinion.

Oh, non-lifetime boxes are selling for ~$30


----------



## TheFeaz (Jan 3, 2012)

wmhjr said:


> 1)Cost of cash in terms of SERVICE FEES and not consumer electronics. IMHO, for newer subs, all the lifetime service does is spread out expected lifespan of service fees over a couple years. THAT is when you begin to see savings.


Cost of cash- Again, your cash costs you nothing; You're going to spend it on Tivo service fees, cheeseburgers, or golf balls. This argument is only valid if you were going to use those $200 you paid for LTS to go out and buy an investment property that was going to provide you a residual income.

As far as realizing your savings after the 2 years, that is true. But, given your own stated optimism that your Tivo has a useful life of 2-3 years, what do you have for your $19.95/month after 2 years? You have a 2-year old, un-subbed box on month 25. For about the same amount of $$$, I on the other hand have a 2-year old box with service for as long as it lives. The current market says that's worth $200-300, whether you'd pay it or not. (Since, after all, we are talking about what the MARKET will bear.)



wmhjr said:


> I'd bet if you asked somebody with a condo in San Francisco 5 yrs ago whether they thought their property values would decline 40% they'd call you crazy. What about today? Not so nuts, huh?


I was telling people five years ago they'd be LUCKY if their $500K house was worth HALF that five years from now (then). I laughed at them then, I laugh even harder now. That's not faith in a product or a market, that was just plain greed and stupidity.



wmhjr said:


> 1)The market is rapidly changing... Look at today's kids and the 20 something generation. No landline phones. It's all cell. More and more they have no cable period. It's all IP based. Folks, we're not going to be here forever. The market is changing.


Well, to quote the old adage, "The only thing constant is change"... So, of course you're right- The market is changing; It always has been; It always will be. You need to be very careful though in predicting the future market based on the current behaviors of the young. For one thing, today's young are a VERY fickle crowd, given to fad and fashion. I'm not saying IPTV is going away, but it's anyone's guess as to what will be "in" five years from now. Look how MySpace was the place to be one day, and almost unheard of now.

I'm not bashing the young generation, but they haven't exactly been cultivated by the education system, the government, MTV, the media, and their parents (my generation) to make prudent, responsible financial decisions. They have been trained to be "good consumers". With a high percentage of disposable income, short-lived life experience, poor role models, and an unhealthy faith in the altruism of those marketing to them from every angle, I wouldn't want to wager too many of my pennies on what that generation is ultimately going to embrace.

Of course, none of that invalidates your point that technology is changing, and Tivo will need to grow with it, or become a footnote in history. But to suggest that TV, as we know it, is literally on its way out the door, I don't think so. There are a LOT of people out there not really smart or sophisticated enough to use all these new technologies until we standardize and integrate some of them, and that's going to take some time. A tough economy is liable to slow some of that as well.

I have to tell you, I found this to be kind of surprising myself, but I'm amazed at the number of people out there today who even still own VHS tapes. As all those credit card payments come due from that "good consumer" spending of the younger generation, and other priorities begin to take over (having kids, a home, a mortgage, etc.), you're liable to see some of that appetite for the newest, latest, and greatest thing being quelled. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised (though I'm not betting on it either), if you didn't see something of a reversal away from materialism in the NEXT generation, as they defy what they see their parents represent, as what so often seems to happen in the youngest generation.


----------



## TheFeaz (Jan 3, 2012)

unitron said:


> Dude, it ain't being "too hot"... IT'S COMPRESSION


I understand what compression is... I have an RF license myself. Still, I am saying that as a broadcaster, I'm sure I have something in my contract that says I reserve the right to adjust the output to suitable levels, which might be referring to its average.

Anyway, this is a moot argument, as the FCC has actually instituted policy that REQUIRES this, going into effect over the next 12 months. So, if the average level of my content is 50, and you compress your spot so it all peaks out at 100, no, you won't red-line anything, but since you're maxing out the level all the way through, your aerage is 100, which means I turn you down to 50.

And honestly, I've never run any of them through a meter, but some of the audio on some of the infomercials DOES sound hot... Some of it almost sounds like it's flat-topping, which means it is not all always compression, which was my second point back there, that it was just poor engineering on the producer's part. Then again, if the people producing those things really gave a rip about quality, they would probably selling other products...


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

For people who think that TiVo not receiving any support Amin65 posted on the sandiegohdtv.org forum:

http://www.sandiegohdtv.org/forums/thread-plus-package-hd-channels-cablecard?page=5

Well Tivo has a major firmware update planned for the Premiere/Elite models. Firmware is supposedly v20.2 and has the new 2.6.31 kernel. I expect to see major improvements to the UI and such.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

TheFeaz said:


> I understand what compression is... I have an RF license myself. Still, I am saying that as a broadcaster, I'm sure I have something in my contract that says I reserve the right to adjust the output to suitable levels, which might be referring to its average.
> 
> Anyway, this is a moot argument, as the FCC has actually instituted policy that REQUIRES this, going into effect over the next 12 months. So, if the average level of my content is 50, and you compress your spot so it all peaks out at 100, no, you won't red-line anything, but since you're maxing out the level all the way through, your aerage is 100, which means I turn you down to 50.
> 
> And honestly, I've never run any of them through a meter, but some of the audio on some of the infomercials DOES sound hot... Some of it almost sounds like it's flat-topping, which means it is not all always compression, which was my second point back there, that it was just poor engineering on the producer's part. Then again, if the people producing those things really gave a rip about quality, they would probably selling other products...


Some of that flat-topping, or clipping, is a result of people who don't know how to use a microphone getting too close and maxing out the diaphragm throw, not to mention proximity effect, so it's distorted before it ever hits the preamp or the pots.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

wmhjr said:


> I don't have confidence that my Tivo HDs or my Elite will last much longer than 2-3 yrs, so why in the world should I pay those fees up front? Neither do I have any confidence whatsoever that the residual value will continue to be held. I'd bet if you asked somebody with a condo in San Francisco 5 yrs ago whether they thought their property values would decline 40% they'd call you crazy. What about today? Not so nuts, huh?


Why so little confidence in how long your Tivos last? 
I have two TivoHDs, one 5 yrs old and the other 3 yrs old. I expect them to last a few years yet. Especially since the hard drives and power supplies are easily fixed/replaced.
Heck, I still have a S2 540 all original still chugging along after 7 yrs.

Now let's look at my costs.
My S2 was a gift so it only cost me $299 for lifetime in 2005. 
TivoHD #1 was $399 + retail cost in 2007. 
TivoHD #2 was $299 + retail cost in 2009.
The lifetimes alone cost me $1000.

If I had gone the per month route:
S2 @ $12.99 /mo for 84 months
TivoHD #1 @ $9.99 /mo for 60 months
TivoHD #2 @ $9.99 /mo for 31 months
To date, that would have cost me just over $2000 for the subscriptions not counting my retail costs. 
I'd say lifetime is the better deal.


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

@steve

Can't forget the cost of your money... Heck you could have invested that money in mortgage derivatives and really cleaned up!


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

wmhjr said:


> Cost of cash in terms of SERVICE FEES and not consumer electronics. IMHO, for newer subs, all the lifetime service does is spread out expected lifespan of service fees over a couple years. THAT is when you begin to see savings. Because it is restricted to the unit it's tied to, it means lifetime with that particular product, which over time becomes more or less obsolete and beyond its service life from a component perspective. Perhaps for some people, that has value. For others - including a massive amount of this market, it has zero. Zero appetite, and zero value. It is subjective as opposed to objective. I don't have confidence that my Tivo HDs or my Elite will last much longer than 2-3 yrs, so why in the world should I pay those fees up front? Neither do I have any confidence whatsoever that the residual value will continue to be held.


I too will disagree that my original S3's that I purchased in January 2007 will not last more than 2-3 years from now. Mine are currently 5 years old and for what I'm using them for are as functional as when I bought them (more so due to added features). I even have one of my original S1's in use that's 10 years old in my son's game room doing manual recordings of SD shows for him and his friends.



wmhjr said:


> 2) The market is rapidly changing. And I mean rapidly. 10 yrs ago you could watch NOTHING streaming on IP. Today you can watch "almost" everything. More and more content is IP based. Now there are even IP delivered only series and programs. More integration of cloud based content into the TV as a "selling point" (even though even new TVs do the same thing). You don't see these changes? Exactly what advantage does Tivo bring to this space? They don't have the content. They don't control the access. They don't control the UI. They don't control the delivery.
> 
> Look at todays kids and the 20something generation. No landline phones. It's all cell. More and more they have no cable period. It's all IP based. Folks, we're not going to be here forever. The market is changing.
> 
> Also, a couple of the MSOs are actually best prepared to deal with this. Verizon is the top of that short list, but even they can't lay claim to the new market.


I don't see it changing that fast for the majority of TV viewers. Streaming HD is still not up to the quality of even the compressed versions provided by most cable operators and even if you could get the same quality streamed with 5.1 audio most ISP's are limiting your monthly bandwidth. I feel lucky that I have Comcast whose limit is 250GB but that would limit you to about 40 hour long TV shows a month given the typical 6GB size that we see for most shows.

Scott


----------



## TheFeaz (Jan 3, 2012)

bradleys said:


> Can't forget the cost of your money... Heck you could have invested that money in mortgage derivatives and really cleaned up!


Alright, so you still insist on arguing this like money you would otherwise "spend" is still an investment? (Remember, none of us are shorting our 401(k)'s to pay for LTS. But, let's just indulge ourselves here...

We'll leave inflation out of this to keep it simple. His example was based on a term that totaled 48 months, so that's 4 years. We have $1,000 of capital then to "invest" at T-4 years. I don't know mortgage derivatives (and they would have been speculative before the fact anyway), so I'm just going to run the numbers for our Tive "investment".... Again, $1,000 of working capital.

Scenario #1 - Lifetime Service
Capital Investment: $1,000
Initial Value of investment: $2,000 (based on $19.95 month stated "value")
Future (at T-0 years) value of investment: $600 (3 Tivos x estimated resale value of LTS @ $200 / unit)
Total investment value: $2,600 (actual + recovery of capital through resale)
*Net proceeds: $1,600* (Actual value - capital investment)

Scenario #2 - Month-to-month @ $19.95 w/ capital invested in fund (X)
Capital Investment: $1,000 to fund (X)
Purchase of Tivo services (additional capital) - $2,000
Total Capital investment: $3,000

Initial Value of Tivo investment: $2,000 (stated value @ $19.95 / month)
Future value of Tivo investment: $0 (Expired sub has no resale value)
Return on fund (X) - $1,000 (Assuming approx 20% annual ROI)
Total investment value: $4,000 (Unconverted capital (fund X) + Gains + value)
Net proceeds: $1,000 (Actual value - capital invement)
*Net proceeds per $1,000 - $333* (Adjusted for fair comparison to scenario #1).

If you're going to use the argument of investing in X over Y as an argument for favoring one investment, then you need to consider them both investments in both scenarios. Your scenario neglects to consider the cost of the money that you're investing @ $19.95 month. The performance of this investment (or lack thereof) depletes the value of your winner (fund X). This is kind of like telling me that I should go buy a rental house on my credit card at 20% interest, because the rental has a great ROI.

That's not a bid thing, IF, and only IF the rental generates enough income to service its debt. In your example of mortgage derivatives, that may be true, in hindsight, for your particular example, but to service a $20 monthly obligation (the non LTS service premium) that you'd have to buy in order to receive he equivalent value in goods / services as my $1,000 LTS investment, then your $1,000 investment would need to return that $19.95 to you every month (and then pay you a $600 bonus at the end). Notwithstanding the bonus, that's about a 25% ROI, which is a VERY (ridiculously?) ambitious investment objective. Even with that 20%+ ROI, my $1,000 investment returned me $1,600 ($2,000 in like-kind goods + service + $600 recovered capital - $1,000 initial investment). So it wasnt such a foolish investment after all, no?

Anyway, I really don't want to keep this argument up. I just get kind of hot under the collar these days when people start talking about "spending" as investing. It's very much akin to when the girl at the grocery store hands me my receipt and says, "Oh, you SAVED $20 today!". It doesn't "really" make me mad, but I always correct her, reminding her that, "No, I SPENT $82 today".

The only way you SAVE money is by SAVING it, and not spending it; The only way you MAKE money is by INVESTING it. They are mutually exclusive and you cannot compare their performances on opposite sides of an equation. That is an economic fallacy and it drives me NUTS to hear people going on about it, whether it's to justify auto "leasing" or liberals trying to justify new taxes as "investments".


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

TheFeaz said:


> As far as a comment back there somewhere about open-source being taboo for the CableLabs license, that's too bad. Of course, it's probably a pretty good indication that CableLabs encryption algorithm must be pretty weak, because open-source software isn't inherently insecure at all.


The encryption is not really CableLabs', but it is not quite the point. CableLabs requires that the operating software cannot be trivially replaced or the hardware lock-down be trivially avoided.


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

@feaz

I was being sarcastic. Mortgage derivatives were a key cause of the recession and are mostly worthless now.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

wmhjr said:


> Actually, I totally disagree with you. For those that got into the lifetime service early and were able to transfer it to different units, fine. However, since Lifetime is now only "lifetime of that unit" to me it's worthless. It only BARELY pays for itself now in about 2 years. That is without considering the cost of cash. Meaning, you've paid up front so based now on the cost of cash, it's really closer to 2.5 years at a minimum.


That statement is just utterly stupid. It costs TiVo about $600 to deliver the basic model plus another dollar or two a month to Tribune Media for guide data. In order to stay in business, they **MUST** recover those costs. Now, they can do so by doing what the Moxi did and charge $800 up front, no options, period. Moxi didn't get very far with that strategy, despite all the utter nonsense from the Moxi owners about "free guide service". They can take the second option of selling at an initial loss, but then making up for it in a monthly fee plan. In fact, this is exactly what they do. For the consumer who buys a DVR and keeps it for two years or so, the cost is about the same. The buyer who only keeps the box a year or so spends a lot less. The buyer who keeps the box more than two years spends more. Unlike anyone else, however, TiVo offers *BOTH* options. One can purchase the hardware plus PLS - which is in no way different from Moxi's plan - or one may purchase and go for a monthly subscription. So exactly what is the down-side, here?



wmhjr said:


> While in the past this may also have made at least a little sense, to me it also makes zero sense because I see a change in how we consume content coming.


What, exactly, do you suggest as an alternative. You say they should not sell at a loss and make it up by offering a monthly fee, nor should they charge for their entire costs up front. What else is there?



wmhjr said:


> Sorry, but true. Totally true. And Johnny in the suburbs ain't gonna spend $400 for lifetime on a box that he just spent $100 minimum


What else do you suggest? How else is TiVo to recover their investment?



wmhjr said:


> along with monthly rental fees for a cablecard when Verizon is handing him a box for free.


I really wish people would quite being utterly stupid.

*NOTHING IS FREE. NOTHING. NOT EVER. IT DOESN'T HAPPEN*

I am not familiar with Verizon's plans, but it is quite possible they include the $500 or so cost (to them) of the DVR in the cost of their service plan and then don't show the breakdown on the bill. My car's invoice didn't show the cost of the engine or the steering wheel, either, but I assure you they were included in the cost. More to the point, however, if Verizon does include a DVR with the bundle, then the FCC requires by law that they provide a discount if the subscriber uses their own DVR.

(Actually, Verizon may be exempt, as they are not considered a "CATV company" by the letter of the regs.)



wmhjr said:


> Honestly, unless you're still running Series 2 units, I would put up the numbers comparing your costs to a new Verizon customer running a totally free DVR and set top box any day.


*NOTHING IS EVER FREE, TOTALLY OR OTHERWISE*

Verizon loads the cost of their service with the cost of delivering the DVR, whether they itemize that cost on the bill or not and whether they discount the service for customers who do not use the DVR / STB or not. Providing you with that hardware costs them money, and I absolutely guarantee they load the costs of delivering that hardware to the subscriber. What's even worse, if the subscriber continues to use the DVR or STB beyond the length of time the provider has allocated for the amortization of the box, then one continues to pay them for the box. After ten year or so, the subscriber will have easily paid for two boxes. Not only that, but he is also paying for other subscribers who trash their leased DVRs or demand a replacement every few months. Isn't that fun?



wmhjr said:


> Who would have thought there would even BE a Hulu or Amazon streaming 15 yrs ago


There still isn't - not in my household. Neither one offers anything I want for the cost. Actually, neither one offers very much I want in any case. I'm no more interested in renting videos than I am in renting a DVR, but even if I were, neither of those services offers very much I want to see that I do not already have.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

"NOTHING IS EVER FREE, TOTALLY OR OTHERWISE"

Not even bad advice?


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

unitron said:


> "NOTHING IS EVER FREE, TOTALLY OR OTHERWISE"
> 
> Not even bad advice?


Bad advice may be the most expensive item of all.


----------



## TheFeaz (Jan 3, 2012)

bradleys said:


> @feaz
> 
> I was being sarcastic. Mortgage derivatives were a key cause of the recession and are mostly worthless now.


LOL... Well, a good thing then that I disclosed early on that I don't know anything about mortgage derivatives!  Actually, I figured you were referring to BEFORE that market went bust. Maybe they were a good investment at one time. I was going to call Ben Bernanke (sp?) but he doesnt' seem to be answering his phone... ROTFL


----------



## evanborkow (Mar 17, 2008)

lrhorer said:


> Bad advice may be the most expensive item of all.


:up:


----------



## wmhjr (Dec 2, 2007)

So, I've been busy and could not respond = but to lrhorer, the feaz, etc......

First of all, to lrhorer....

If you're going to be a jacka$$ (calling people stupid because you don't agree with them), then don't be surprised when people tell you you're a jacka$$. People can disagree without getting emotional. Frankly, your posts tell me more about the amount of emotional investment into Tivo than any relevant rational thought. Sorry - but that's the way it is. Let me explain to you how when you make "assumptions", well, you know the cliche, right?

You have absolutely no idea what costs Tivo needs to recover. You have absolutely no idea with the COGS is for Tivo. You have no idea how they've capitalized, what they've invested, what their manufacturing costs are, supply chain, marketing, software development, etc. You can assume whatever you want, but either you're almost certainly wrong (probably with some degree of magnitude) OR you're an insider divulging sensitive intellectual property and would be subject to both criminal and civil liability. I don't think it's the latter.

Second, (in a continuation of your assumptions which in your more recent lengthy post are highly inaccurate to say the least) you make further assumptions as to how the "free DVR" cost is apportioned to the service contract, and the subscriber is still paying for it. Well, you're partially correct. The subscriber is. Problem is, it's not just the subscriber that has the DVR, it's all subscribers. The package prices is actually LOWER than previous packages with the same content - and before you start talking about locked in commitment - there is none. It's month to month. This is a lesson as to why people should not assume. So commonly it can get you in trouble.

Beyond this, and for more than just lrhorer....

The problem here guys is that I could care less what you have in YOUR house - or what's in mine. As accurately stated by somebody earlier, you'd be surprised at the number of people who still have VHS recorders in their home. I have a Premier and 2 HDs. As an aside, I ALSO have a free STB and free VZ DVR. Regardless of what kind of package I have, whether I have lifetime or monthly subs for Tivo, I have never, ever ever in person met a single solitary person who has so many devices. Never. Are there some here on this forum? Absolutely. What should we take away from that?

What we should take away is that if you're making assumptions based on what YOU are willing to do, or how much value YOU believe certain products have, they I humbly suggest you leave financial decisions to somebody else. You - nor I - are representative in any way of the general market. We are outliers, and we had better remember that. 

You may not like Hulu. Neither do I. Again - could care less. I still have a "home phone". The majority of US homeowners/renters under the age of 35 as of 2011 do not (Gartner research, telecommunications trends, 2011). An increasing number of sub 30 year old viewer have no cable service and view content via IP delivery. It is extremely surprising to me that some people cannot recognize the changing market dynamics. 

By the same token, just as in IT where more products are becoming cloud delivered services, customers want services delivered as "services" and don't want to have to pay for up front hardware costs. Just like businesses would often prefer to move capital investment to expense, to cover costs of change and make spend more predictable, consumers are starting to look for the same thing. Like it or not, it IS an advantage to be able to take a failed box to a location 6 miles away and immediately get a replacement - at no cost. 

Bottom line is that I've invested in Tivo, and like the product. I want it to succeed. I think the MSO deals are the best thing they could have done, and that they waited too long. However, I think subscription price INCREASES at the same time that competition is LOWERING prices is a stupid move, and is counterproductive. I also see a huge threat on the horizon.


----------



## bensonr2 (Feb 4, 2011)

I whole heartily agree that they are killing themselves with average consumers and the price point they've set.

Many of my friends will bring up how much they hate their cable co stb and will ask me about my Tivo. They always seem intrigued until I bring up the current 20 dollar per month service charge.

I think a price point of around 14 dollars a month would serve them much better. The average charge for a DVR box from your local cable provider is around 17 a month. It Tivo were around 14 it would wind up being a much more attractive proposition for the average person.


----------



## jpcamaro70 (Nov 23, 2011)

Consider this though:

My old cable bill included 10.95 for dvr service and 6.95 for the box per month. Also consider this is the worst dvr in use today (I suppose). And i'm not going to count the .25 per month for the remote (yes they charge for that crappy remote.)

So now, I spent 70 upfront, and 20 per month for a far superior product. FAR SUPERIOR!

So I'm spending @ 2 more per month, when factoring the cost of the dvr over a 1 year period it's another 6.

Thats 8 per month for one year to totally recover the cost of the dvr and for service. Break that down to 2 years and it's only 5 per month more. 

Everyone is different, but i'll gladly pay more for a BMW over a toyota.


----------



## bensonr2 (Feb 4, 2011)

jpcamaro70 said:


> Consider this though:
> 
> My old cable bill included 10.95 for dvr service and 6.95 for the box per month. Also consider this is the worst dvr in use today (I suppose). And i'm not going to count the .25 per month for the remote (yes they charge for that crappy remote.)
> 
> ...


You and everyone else on the forum can justify the price all you want. And as for myself obviously I'm ok with the price as I pay it.

My point is I think they are killing their subscriber growth. The average consumer is not going to be willing to pay that much per month and have to buy the equipment on top of it.


----------



## nycityuser (Dec 30, 2004)

bensonr2 said:


> You and everyone else on the forum can justify the price all you want. And as for myself obviously I'm ok with the price as I pay it.
> 
> My point is I think they are killing their subscriber growth. The average consumer is not going to be willing to pay that much per month and have to buy the equipment on top of it.


I completely agree. Most novices (i.e., average people) don't care about the "quality" of a DVR. They just want to record shows to watch later.

With TiVo there is the complexity of having to buy the box, set it up, arrange for the cablecard and pay two separate companies for its use.

With the cable company you just call them up and they send a box that works, or they deliver and install it themselves.

And the cable company's box is less expensive! How can TiVo win?

Many say that lifetime service is the way to go. In that case TiVo's model is to lay out $500+ for a box and service vs no initial outlay to the cable company.

Again, how can TiVo win?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

bensonr2 said:


> You and everyone else on the forum can justify the price all you want. And as for myself obviously I'm ok with the price as I pay it.
> 
> My point is I think they are killing their subscriber growth. The average consumer is not going to be willing to pay that much per month and have to buy the equipment on top of it.


TiVo can not compete on price with cable companies that are using DVRs as loss leaders. To try to do so would be foolish.

If/when a cable company actually charges the user what a DVR actually costs you get pricing that is on par or more than TiVo. Motorola was charging cable companies over $450 for DVRs (in lots of 10,000) and then the cable company still had to provide all the support and some of the software development. No one can cover those costs for $14/mo.

And frankly all of that doesn't matter as I don't think price is what is holding TiVo back. Not when Apple can sell 10 of millions of their iphones with average 2 year costs of around $2400. Which basically tells us that people are willing to pay big money for the right product.

Cable cards and tuning adapters assure that TiVo DVRs are not going to be user friendly. Add to that the spineless FCC who has allowed cable companies to use DVRs as loss leaders, allowed tuning adapters, and the Satellite companies to completely block 3rd party devices plus TiVo's own inability to provide superior non-DVR functions and you end up with an unprofitable niche product.


----------



## bensonr2 (Feb 4, 2011)

I still think Tivo could do better on the price.

And nobody here knows how much it costs Tivo to build the premiere. Nor do we know the true cost of a motorola or scientific atlanta box.

But I have to think that guide data does not cost Tivo anywhere near the monthly charge to customers nor can it cost 500 or more to manufacture the premiere.

Again I don't really have any numbers to go on. But I'm sure I could build a htpc with at least two tuners for under 500. I know several friends that have. So I have to think a mass produced device is going to come under that price.

Also I think the comparison to the pricing of an iphone is a poor way to make your argument. Yes Apple's product does have a slight premium compared to similar smart phones. But its not way out of line. Some of the more popular Android phones go for the same as an iphone. And your attempt to add in the service charges to the lifetime cost doesn't make sense. For most customers the monthly cost of service for an iphone on their provider is relatively close to that of other smart phones.

Where I think Tivo should be for pricing:

175 for the Premiere XL (forget about the 500 gb version)

300 for the Premiere Elite.

And 14 a month for service with an option of 400 for lifetime.

Even at those prices it would still be a luxury purchase. But low enough that someone considering a Tivo can feel that it is somewhat price competitive with their cable companies DVR.


----------



## basscadet (Mar 21, 2003)

bensonr2 said:


> Even at those prices it would still be a luxury purchase. But low enough that someone considering a Tivo can feel that it is somewhat price competitive with their cable companies DVR.


It already is price competitive with cable DVRs, as others have already pointed out. "Competitive" does not mean "lower than", it means providing a service at a price similar enough to compete, where that price could be lower or higher depending on the quality of the service provided.

A $14 per month charge would be lower than what my cable company was charging me for a far inferior DVR. I was paying $17 per month (not including taxes and fees) for my Cablevision DVR that was basically just an SD program guide with a hard drive and a record button. I'm now paying $20 per month for TiVo plus $2 for the CableCARD. $22 for TiVo or $17 for the cable DVR - to me, that's a no brainer, and I can't believe I waited so long to switch back. (It was the CC nightmares I heard about that held me back.) Maybe other people don't care about all the extra stuff TiVo does and would rather have that five bucks... those people aren't TiVo's target market anyway.

That said, I think TiVo's done a pretty good job with pricing over the years. My first TiVo cost me $300 in 2003 or 2004. My current one cost me $99 and it does a lot more/is HD/doesn't recompress/is faster. So I don't know what else you expect them to do; they've lowered the prices pretty dramatically on the boxes while increasing their capability, and the service costs about the same now as it did when they started, once you take inflation into account.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

bensonr2 said:


> I still think Tivo could do better on the price.
> 
> And nobody here knows how much it costs Tivo to build the premiere. Nor do we know the true cost of a motorola or scientific atlanta box.
> 
> ...


I guess we just have different views on why TiVo doesn't sell better.

I look at TiVo as a premium product. If I were to compare this to the car world I would say cable DVRs are Chevys and TiVos are Cadillacs. I don't expect to pay the same price for a Cadillac as a Chevy and GM doesn't expect to sell as many Cadillacs as Chevys.

My belief is that TiVos sales problems have more to do with the hassle of cable cards and tuning adapters or just being locked out of the Satellite market than price.

When you talk about the cost of building a HTPC as something that has any relevance to TiVo pricing, I think we have completely different views of the market. I think people want a superior product that just works by plugging in the coax cable and if TiVo could give them that they would pay a significant premium for it. Unfortunately the cable and satellite companies have made sure that isn't possible.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

steve614 said:


> Why so little confidence in how long your Tivos last?
> I have two TivoHDs, one 5 yrs old and the other 3 yrs old. I expect them to last a few years yet. Especially since the hard drives and power supplies are easily fixed/replaced.
> Heck, I still have a S2 540 all original still chugging along after 7 yrs.
> ....


I have no apprehension that Tivo hardware will last 5-10 or more years. Active on my account are: an s2 ATT unit from 2002 that i gave to a friend, a pioneer DVR tivo from 2003, and my 2 S3's from 2006. In addition to those i personally had 5 or 7 other units and I never got rid of one because of a hardware issue.

BUT.... I have major apprehension that I would WANT to use any current Tivo for more than a year or two.

I'm not even too concerned that tivo's current hardware will be capable enough in a few years, I think it will be able to handle whatever it needs to, maybe slow, but it will be able to.

The angst i have is that I dont trust Tivo to maintain their software quickly enough for me to want to use it that long.

How long did the S3 platform last? How long has the premier been out? I'm too lazy to look it up but I'm getting the feeling that Premier has been out for a while now so there's not that much longer until it gets abandoned too. Will there be an S5 in May and then tivo abandons the premiers in 18 months?

Even the currently supported premier has gone a crazy long time without support for amazon (prime) streaming. Who knows what other IP services come along in the near future that I'd really like to enjoy but tivo doesn't bother with. I'd be forced to use another box (like I currently do with my google tv bluray player to take advantage of my amazon prime). At some point google (google tv), apple (apple tv), microsoft (xbox), sony playstation), boxee, or roku is going to make a streaming box that has at least some passable dvr function (even if a pay add on...) and then the tivo's at that point become close to worthless to me. From what i understand cable is even able to make a decent box if they get the right versions/brands of hardware and software, maybe my provider grows up and allows 3rd party iptv at some point.

All that said, I'm likely going to buy a premier elite in the next few months with lifetime. But I'll do it with apprehension that I'm throwing my money away and the Elite wont match up to the competition sometime soon- and not because of the physical hardware but because of Tivo's choices.

I'm sure I'll get a year or two out of it, but i dont trust that tivo wont abandon it in a couple years more time. When there was just SD or even nust broadcast HD there was no big deal when they bailed on software, but now with more content available online it's way more important for tivo to maintain the software.

and I dont even trust that while it's currently "supported" that they'll "do the right thing" with their software...


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

TiVo announced the Series 3 in Jan 2006 and released the Premiere in April 2010 so we are coming up on 2 years.

I don't see a series 5 till another two years or so.


----------



## bensonr2 (Feb 4, 2011)

basscadet said:


> A $14 per month charge would be lower than what my cable company was charging me for a far inferior DVR. I was paying $17 per month (not including taxes and fees) for my Cablevision DVR that was basically just an SD program guide with a hard drive and a record button. I'm now paying $20 per month for TiVo plus $2 for the CableCARD. $22 for TiVo or $17 for the cable DVR - to me, that's a no brainer, and I can't believe I waited so long to switch back.


I'm sorry but I believe you are not understanding how the average consumer sees this. First of all 22 per month is noticeably more per month to most people. Second that is not even taking into account how many promotional deals cable companies offer on their DVR's. Many friends I know get them for free. Yes yes I understand these are promotional offers good for a year or two at most. But with Tivo there are next to no promotional offers to entice new customers.

And again I want to reiterate the point that when I talk to people about Tivo what always kills whatever their interest was is when the price comes up.

And while the 99 dollar premiere is a decent starting price, it is seriously gimped by the small hard drive. Why can't the base model come with the large hard drive? Tivo needs to sell a product that is far better then your average cable companies cable dvr. That's why I think the Elite needs to be way lower then 500 and a product they push.

Most people still can't get more then a two tuner dvr from their cable company. If Tivo were to offer the 4 tuner box at a more realistic price it would entice people to spend the premium on Tivo.


----------



## Speed Daemon (Jan 15, 2012)

All this talk regarding pricing pros and cons is all well and good, but that's not really the point for me. My biggest problem with TiVo is that they are systematically removing all of the things that made the TiVo product and brand exceptional.

The #1 reason I bought my Series 1 TiVos was because they run Linux, and there were 3rd party precompiled binaries to add functionality, a FOSS Tk/Tcl API that could be user customized, and the ability to add more storage, Ethernet networking etc. I've seen every subsequent version get more and more proprietary, and less and less customizable.

When I bought my lifetime service plans, I expected TiVo to honor their end of the deal. I did not expect or welcome unwanted advertising and other revenue streams that weren't part of the deal. I understand that a business needs revenue to remain solvent, but not by pushing ads at me without my consent. I didn't like that TiVo pushed me to buy hideously overpriced DT TiVos (effectively paying the lifetime fee again) without any fair warning that a similar lifetime "transfer" offer for the HD model was only months away. And now they want me to throw more good money after bad on the Premiere? No thanks!

I knew that $200 for life was probably not realistic. And if they had approached me honestly and openly, and offered me an option to upgrade my lifetime subscriptions to opt-out of push adverts, I would have been a lot less peeved. If they had treated my like a valuable customer instead of a sucker, they would have done a lot better for themselves. As things stand, my HD units will probably be my last TiVo DVRs.

IMHO this might be a good time for the company to revamp its business model. Sorry TiVo, but as a STB maker, you're a virtual unknown. The 2nd rate Tribune EPG is crap, and selling hardware isn't really necessary.

*If TiVo licensed their look 'n' feel (especially the remote) to other STB makers, certified tuner cards as "TiVo-ready" and took another stab at running their product on commodity hardware, there's a good possibility that they could renew hope among long-time customers and open up new markets for new users.*

I hear more and more of my friends mentioning how they're quitting cable and satellite TV, and going with online programming instead. I think that's great. What's not so great is the number of (often relatively unknown) content providers. Subscribing to every provider (Amazon, Hulu+, itunes, Netflix etc.) that's needed to be able to watch all the shows you want can make cable look not so bad after all. What if there was one established company that could integrate every Internet TV provider into a single, seamless interface for both viewing and billing? Hint hint.

If TiVo would think outside the box...literally...


----------



## jpcamaro70 (Nov 23, 2011)

nycityuser said:


> I completely agree. Most novices (i.e., average people) don't care about the "quality" of a DVR. They just want to record shows to watch later.
> 
> With TiVo there is the complexity of having to buy the box, set it up, arrange for the cablecard and pay two separate companies for its use.
> 
> ...


This is very true. When i was thrown into cable from DTV, I was complaining to others who have cablevision about how bad it is, they didn't understand why I was so unhappy with it.

Tivo has lost the marketing edge, it's not about price. The rest of us need to see that Tivo is a FAR superior product that is easy to set up and costs very little more than you are currently paying.

When the iphone came out, I would never, never pay for a phone like that. I always got one for free or for 50-100 bucks. Guess what, I'm an iphone user and i paid dearly for that and so many others do.

Build a convincing product, with a top-notch targeted marketing campaign and people will pay.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> I have no apprehension that Tivo hardware will last 5-10 or more years. Active on my account are: an s2 ATT unit from 2002 that i gave to a friend, a pioneer DVR tivo from 2003, and my 2 S3's from 2006. In addition to those i personally had 5 or 7 other units and I never got rid of one because of a hardware issue.
> ...


I just completely jinxed myself posted that yesterday afternoon then went to bed last night and my S3 in my bedroom is dead. Power supply looks dead...


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> I just completely jinxed myself posted that yesterday afternoon then went to bed last night and my S3 in my bedroom is dead. Power supply looks dead...


Coincidence. A lot of people have been posting the last few months with S3 power supply capacitor issues, due to "capacitor plague". 
Open up your Tivo and inspect the power supply. See if you notice any bulged capacitors - they can be very subtle. Here's a photo where you can barely see a difference:









P.S. If the above wasn't true, then yeah I'd say you jinxed yourself. 

Edit: NM. I see you posted in the S3 thread concerning this issue.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> I just completely jinxed myself posted that yesterday afternoon then went to bed last night and my S3 in my bedroom is dead. Power supply looks dead...


If the power supply is actually dead and not just hurtin', check the onboard fuse as well as the caps.


----------

