# FCC wants more set top box options for consumers



## gigaguy (Aug 30, 2013)

What do you experts think/know about the FCC announcing consumers need more choice/options for set top box rental, use, and ownership. Sounds like very good news for Tivo to me...


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

I think that the following thread is a discussion of that topic.

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=524569


----------



## gigaguy (Aug 30, 2013)

Hmm, ok. I've seen that cablecard discussion but this seems to be a new announcement by the FCC about set top box use and rentals in general, the cost to consumers and the cablecos control- not cablecards per se but I'll defer to the moderators, thanks.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

The FCC and the Cable industry hire each other's executives. The FCC abdicated their responsibility to create a level playing field for third party set top box manufacturers.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

I don't think the FCC has to push them, its not really the box rental, its the total price. At some point, what they charge for cable TV gets to be too expensive for its value and people cut the cable TV cord.


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

It is a full Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that the Commission will vote on next month. I've attached the document (pdf) here -->

http://investordiscussionboard.com/boards/tivo/fcc-chairman-proposal-unlock-set-top-box-creating-choice-innovation


----------



## gigaguy (Aug 30, 2013)

Well I hope it gets Tivo more consumer business, such a better experience than the clunky cableco rentboxes I've used for as short a time as possible. 
I can now buy my own modem instead of rent it, should be the same for other connected devices.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I hope this creates some competition in the market. As it is now choices for consumers are dwindling, not expanding. And as much as I love my TiVo I think the lack of competition has effected their level of innovation. They've done a few cool things in recent years, but there was a long time there where we got little to nothing in the way of new features. And even now they're much slower to release new things then I would like. Maybe a little bit of outside competition would light a fire under them. Or maybe it will expose a new shining star.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> I hope this creates some competition in the market. As it is now choices for consumers are dwindling, not expanding. And as much as I love my TiVo I think the lack of competition has effected their level of innovation. They've done a few cool things in recent years, but there was a long time there where we got little to nothing in the way of new features. And even now they're much slower to release new things then I would like. Maybe a little bit of outside competition would light a fire under them. Or maybe it will expose a new shining star.


Unfortunately, for most people, (not so much on this Forum) they just want to time shift TV programs, and many, but not all, like the commercial FF on a recording, TiVo does this job very well, the rest is just icing on the cake and most people don't even know about any new features that TiVo may put on their DVRs. The average Joe, if asked about TiVo, would, at best, only know about the DVR function TiVo does, but the cable co does that also with much less hassle, so what can TiVo do to get more into the retail market?, what feature would get the average Joe talking about it, Trump sure added some features to the election process and did get attention, you got to give him that, and the average Joe most likely knows his name. Maybe if TiVo hired Trump  to promote themselves


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

I guess I don't see the importance. TiVo is already a great product and a good value but there is only a small niche market interested. Sure if somehow TiVo or a competitor could sell something as good or better for less money it would sell better but TiVo can't make a profit at the current price, a lower price won't help. The FCC can do nothing to fix that problem for set top providers and forcing cable companies to charge more for their own boxes to make TiVo or other makers more competitive won't mean anything to the market.

Better set top boxes aren't in demand, if there was greater demand and a market willing to pay the price necessary for the products to exist, the products would already exist. I am somewhat in awe that we still have a great product like TiVo but I don't know many people that care at all.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

lessd said:


> Unfortunately, for most people, (not so much on this Forum) they just want to time shift TV programs, and many, but not all, like the commercial FF on a recording, TiVo does this job very well, the rest is just icing on the cake and most people don't even know about any new features that TiVo may put on their DVRs. The average Joe, if asked about TiVo, would, at best, only know about the DVR function TiVo does, but the cable co does that also with much less hassle, so what can TiVo do to get more into the retail market?, what feature would get the average Joe talking about it, Trump sure added some features to the election process and did get attention, you got to give him that, and the average Joe most likely knows his name. Maybe if TiVo hired Trump  to promote themselves


Couple things they could do that would make it more appealing to the average Joe...

1) Implement a profile system so multiple family members can more easily share a single TiVo.

2) Make a cheaper Mini (Mini stick?) so that people could expand to other rooms for $50-60 instead of $150.

3) Improve out of home streaming so that it has better adaptive bitrate encoding, does away with the proxy and can be used via LTE on iOS devices as well as Android.

4) Use a checkout system for transferring protected content to a mobile device so that you don't have to permanently delete protected shows but instead can temporarily borrow them from the main DVR. And make it work on both Android and iOS.

5) Expand SkipMode to more channels and make it more reliably available.

6) Improve their FireTV app, and release a Roku one, so that it includes the same management/search features as the mobile app. (would help when on the road in a hotel)


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> I hope this creates some competition in the market. As it is now choices for consumers are dwindling, not expanding. And as much as I love my TiVo I think the lack of competition has effected their level of innovation. They've done a few cool things in recent years, but there was a long time there where we got little to nothing in the way of new features. And even now they're much slower to release new things then I would like. Maybe a little bit of outside competition would light a fire under them. Or maybe it will expose a new shining star.


 I can't figure out if the lack of innovation is because they are the only retail set top box in town or because cable set boxes own the market and left Tivo barely hanging on for a long time.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

Having 4 tuners has turned out to be much more convenient than I expected. If I had known how much, I probably would have gotten TiVo long before I decided to cut cable TV.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Chris Gerhard said:


> I guess I don't see the importance. TiVo is already a great product and a good value but there is only a small niche market interested. Sure if somehow TiVo or a competitor could sell something as good or better for less money it would sell better but TiVo can't make a profit at the current price, a lower price won't help. The FCC can do nothing to fix that problem for set top providers and forcing cable companies to charge more for their own boxes to make TiVo or other makers more competitive won't mean anything to the market.
> 
> Better set top boxes aren't in demand, if there was greater demand and a market willing to pay the price necessary for the products to exist, the products would already exist. I am somewhat in awe that we still have a great product like TiVo but I don't know many people that care at all.


The main purpose will be to lower costs for consumers. Right now TiVo is the only one using CableCARD (excluding a few niche PC based solutions), so your only option is to shell out hundreds of dollars to TiVo or pay $8/mo for life, per room, to lease the MSO equipment.

With a properly setup AllVid system you'd be able to access your MSO subscription via low cost, one time purchase, boxes or even via "cable ready" TVs.

It would also make retail devices technology agnostic, so you could switch from cable to DirecTV or Uverse without having to buy all new equipment. And it would allow you to access ALL of your MSOs services, including VOD, without the device marker working out a special deal with the MSO to write an app. (like Comcast and COX on TiVo now)


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> The main purpose will be to lower costs for consumers. Right now TiVo is the only one using CableCARD (excluding a few niche PC based solutions), so your only option is to shell out hundreds of dollars to TiVo or pay $8/mo for life, per room, to lease the MSO equipment.
> 
> With a properly setup AllVid system you'd be able to access your MSO subscription via low cost, one time purchase, boxes or even via "cable ready" TVs.
> 
> It would also make retail devices technology agnostic, so you could switch from cable to DirecTV or Uverse without having to buy all new equipment. And it would allow you to access ALL of your MSOs services, including VOD, without the device marker working out a special deal with the MSO to write an app. (like Comcast and COX on TiVo now)


True! As I mentioned in the other thread you can have a box be provider agnostic. This means you can access content from other providers. Right now providers (Tivo aside) prefer to limit you to their content and you have additional boxes like ATV or ROKU to get other content.

This will allow us to have boxes that have developer communities. Look at the growth of features and solutions once the iPhone got the app store.

Apply that to the TV world.

The average person does not want or is not cable of switching inputs and the more powerful solutions don't like you switching your TV inputs.

This is about much more than a cheaper experience. I feel that this may finally break the bundling complaint many feel they are stuck with because the cable/sat providers will finally be competing against services from outside of their domain.


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> The main purpose will be to lower costs for consumers. Right now TiVo is the only one using CableCARD (excluding a few niche PC based solutions), so your only option is to shell out hundreds of dollars to TiVo or pay $8/mo for life, per room, to lease the MSO equipment.
> 
> With a properly setup AllVid system you'd be able to access your MSO subscription via low cost, one time purchase, boxes or even via "cable ready" TVs.
> 
> It would also make retail devices technology agnostic, so you could switch from cable to DirecTV or Uverse without having to buy all new equipment. And it would allow you to access ALL of your MSOs services, including VOD, without the device marker working out a special deal with the MSO to write an app. (like Comcast and COX on TiVo now)


I would like to see all of that, sounds terrific and I hope it happens but I don't understand how manufacturers will magically be able to make set top boxes better than TiVo for less money. It may be TiVo patents will expire and cheaply made Chinese boxes will start appearing.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

TiVo is not a set top box, it's a DVR. It has way more hardware then would be required by a simple set top box. A simple set top box wouldn't require much more hardware then the typical streaming stick type device, which typically retails for what $40-$50?

But the big advantage would be the ability to have "cable ready" TVs again. No boxes at all, no inputs, 1 remote and you're good to go.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> TiVo is not a set top box, it's a DVR. It has way more hardware then would be required by a simple set top box. A simple set top box wouldn't require much more hardware then the typical streaming stick type device, which typically retails for what $40-$50?
> 
> But the big advantage would be the ability to have "cable ready" TVs again. No boxes at all, no inputs, 1 remote and you're good to go.


The guide data has to come from somewhere, who going to pay for that.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

lessd said:


> The guide data has to come from somewhere, who going to pay for that.


My proposal is simple. A hybrid system with two ways for 3rd party devices to function. One uses an open API to connect to the gateway and allows direct access to the linear channels. If a device uses this method then it would be up to the device maker to provide the guide data. (like TiVo) The other option would be for the 3rd party device to display a HTML5 app hosted on the gateway. This app would be written and controlled by the MSO. It would essentially have the same UI as a leased box with any data being provided by the MSO. The MSO would pay for this data the same way they do now by placing advertising in the guide, preferential placement of channels and upselling PPV.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> But the big advantage would be the ability to have "cable ready" TVs again. No boxes at all, no inputs, 1 remote and you're good to go.


Yep. It was such a huge step backwards when the MSOs started requiring boxes. TV watching would be so much simpler for millions of people if they could simply get all the channels and VOD content without any additional equipment. CableCARD was supposed to rectify this situation, but we all know how that turned out.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

gweempose said:


> Yep. It was such a huge step backwards when the MSOs started requiring boxes. TV watching would be so much simpler for millions of people if they could simply get all the channels and VOD content without any additional equipment. CableCARD was supposed to rectify this situation, but we all know how that turned out.


Actually, it was probably more dvrs that forced boxes. For quite some time, you could get a cablecard for TVs. I don't know of any current models that will take a cable card.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

TonyD79 said:


> Actually, it was probably more dvrs that forced boxes. For quite some time, you could get a cablecard for TVs. I don't know of any current models that will take a cable card.


Agree. People wanted a DVR and saw no reason to pay for a CableCard for a TV and a DVR.

Then SDV killed those wanting it on a DVR prior to the Tuning Adapter.

iirc, when TV's stopped with the Cable Card slot ~2008 (which were actually 2006 designed sets) only ~60,000 Cable Cards had been deployed - and that included those in TiVo units etc.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

lessd said:


> Unfortunately, for most people, (not so much on this Forum) they just want to time shift TV programs, and many, but not all, like the commercial FF on a recording, TiVo does this job very well, the rest is just icing on the cake and most people don't even know about any new features that TiVo may put on their DVRs. The average Joe, if asked about TiVo, would, at best, only know about the DVR function TiVo does, but the cable co does that also with much less hassle, so what can TiVo do to get more into the retail market?, what feature would get the average Joe talking about it, Trump sure added some features to the election process and did get attention, you got to give him that, and the average Joe most likely knows his name. Maybe if TiVo hired Trump  to promote themselves


Actually Tivo's Research (as well as Nielsen) shows most do not FF through commercials.

Those who do are not the heavy TV Viewers, which is somewhat counterintuitive thinking - and are lower income, so less valuable to advertisers anyway.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

And MVPDs are already lining up to fight the proposal.

Cable/Satellite Group Slams Wheeler's Set-Top Plan
Newly Formed Future of TV Calls Proposal a "Muddle" of Unanswered Questions
http://www.multichannel.com/news/fcc/cablesatellite-group-slams-wheelers-set-top-plan/396894

And Another

Coalition Formed to Fight 'AllVid'
Comes as FCC Proposes to 'Unlock' Set Top Info
http://www.multichannel.com/news/fcc/coalition-formed-fight-allvid/396888

While there were some supporters:

FCC Set-Top Proposal Gets Some Love
Senate Dems, Activist Groups Praise Wheeler's Plan
http://www.multichannel.com/news/fcc/fcc-set-top-proposal-gets-some-love/396895


----------



## GoodSpike (Dec 17, 2001)

sbiller said:


> It is a full Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that the Commission will vote on next month. I've attached the document (pdf) here -->
> 
> http://investordiscussionboard.com/boards/tivo/fcc-chairman-proposal-unlock-set-top-box-creating-choice-innovation


Thank you. In comparison I give you this link to a NY Times article which doesn't say squat. The press in this country really does suck.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/28/technology/fcc-proposes-changes-in-set-top-box-market.html


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> Actually, it was probably more dvrs that forced boxes. For quite some time, you could get a cablecard for TVs. I don't know of any current models that will take a cable card.


Actually the reason for this is a combination of cost and SDV. Back when they sold TVs with CableCARD support they charged ~$200 for the feature. Most people didn't want to pay that becuase they didn't even understand what CableCARD was. And when they did the installation process was usually a huge PITA so they regretted it. Then along came SDV. At first they didn't support CableCARD at all for SDV channels. TiVo pushed hard for the adoption od tuning adaptors. But for a "cable ready" TV having to have a box hang off of it anyway defeated the whole purpose. If you're gonna have a box why not a full blown box? That's when TVs with CableCARD slots disappeared.

This new purposal would be IP based. 90% of new TVs these days are smart TVs anyway. So throwing in an app to display the RUI of the gateway would be trival. It wouldn't require an extra fee, it wouldn't require a TA, and it wouldn't require any special setup. Just a connection to your network.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Is there an organization that lobbies for consumers on this issue? I'd like to donate a bit of cash to them.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

Something might be happening sooner than I would think:

"CableLabs Cuts 27 Staff Amid Restructuring"
http://www.multichannel.com/news/ca...-cuts-30-plus-staff-amid-restructuring/396608


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> Actually the reason for this is a combination of cost and SDV. Back when they sold TVs with CableCARD support they charged ~$200 for the feature. Most people didn't want to pay that becuase they didn't even understand what CableCARD was. And when they did the installation process was usually a huge PITA so they regretted it. Then along came SDV. At first they didn't support CableCARD at all for SDV channels. TiVo pushed hard for the adoption od tuning adaptors. But for a "cable ready" TV having to have a box hang off of it anyway defeated the whole purpose. If you're gonna have a box why not a full blown box? That's when TVs with CableCARD slots disappeared. This new purposal would be IP based. 90% of new TVs these days are smart TVs anyway. So throwing in an app to display the RUI of the gateway would be trival. It wouldn't require an extra fee, it wouldn't require a TA, and it wouldn't require any special setup. Just a connection to your network.


How many systems have SDV? Comcast doesn't. Fios doesn't. It was a factor but not as much as people make out. It didn't kill TiVo when it happened.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

SDV is used pretty much for every system except Comcast. FIOS didn't support CableCARDs at all initially.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> SDV is used pretty much for every system except Comcast. FIOS didn't support CableCARDs at all initially.


The second statement is not related to SDV. And when did they start?


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Dan203 said:


> SDV is used pretty much for every system except Comcast. FIOS didn't support CableCARDs at all initially.





TonyD79 said:


> The second statement is not related to SDV. And when did they start?


FiOS added CableCard support pretty quickly, if not supported initially.

Keller, Texas was the test market in September 2005 and it was rolled out to other markets in 2006. Quite frankly, they did not even have a DVR until 2006.

I was able to get it in 2008 and cablecards had been in use for several years at FiOS at that point - so I believe that CableCards were rolled out in 2006 with FiOS - about the same time as the DVRs.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> FiOS added CableCard support pretty quickly, if not supported initially. Keller, Texas was the test market in September 2005 and it was rolled out to other markets in 2006. Quite frankly, they did not even have a DVR until 2006. I was able to get it in 2008 and cablecards had been in use for several years at FiOS at that point - so I believe that CableCards were rolled out in 2006 with FiOS - about the same time as the DVRs.


Thanks.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> The second statement is not related to SDV. And when did they start?





SomeRandomIdiot said:


> FiOS added CableCard support pretty quickly, if not supported initially.
> 
> Keller, Texas was the test market in September 2005 and it was rolled out to other markets in 2006. Quite frankly, they did not even have a DVR until 2006.
> 
> I was able to get it in 2008 and cablecards had been in use for several years at FiOS at that point - so I believe that CableCards were rolled out in 2006 with FiOS - about the same time as the DVRs.


IIRC there was some initial musings about whether or not they were even required by law to carry CableCARDs. I think they even contemplated challenging it in court. But then they decided to just add cards. I know there was at least a short period here on the forums where people with FIOS wanted to use a TiVo and couldn't. Might have only been a half year or so, can't remember exactly.

In any case there are more cable subscribers in the US being serviced by companies other then Comcast and FIOS then both those companies combined. And the vast majority of those use SDV. (~30m) So SDV is much more widespread then those in Comcast/FIOS markets might realize.

TWC is the 2nd largest cable company in the US and they use SDV for the majority of their channels. They're actually the first one to deploy it and they use it for more of their channels then any other major cable company. They also have other anti-CableCARD practices such as protecting every channel and, until it was prohibited, requiring a truck roll for a CableCARD install.


----------



## joewom (Dec 10, 2013)

Dan203 said:


> SDV is used pretty much for every system except Comcast. FIOS didn't support CableCARDs at all initially.


mediacom the 4th largest cable co does not use SDV. And thank god they don't. And from what I am told have no plans to thanks to DOCIS 3.1. And even without 3.1 they are still able to offer 1gbs download on 3.0 in one area they offer that speed.


----------



## tim1724 (Jul 3, 2007)

TonyD79 said:


> How many systems have SDV? Comcast doesn't. Fios doesn't. It was a factor but not as much as people make out. It didn't kill TiVo when it happened.


Charter, Cox, and Time Warner all use SDV. (Although not necessarily in every city they're in.)


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

joewom said:


> mediacom the 4th largest cable co does not use SDV. And thank god they don't. And from what I am told have no plans to thanks to DOCIS 3.1. And even without 3.1 they are still able to offer 1gbs download on 3.0 in one area they offer that speed.


According to this list...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_television_in_the_United_States

MediaCom has about 865,000 subscribers and is #12. TWC, Cox, Charter, Cablevision and Brighthouse have about 25 million subscribers between them.


----------



## tatergator1 (Mar 27, 2008)

Dan203 said:


> requiring a truck roll for a CableCARD install.


This has not been true at least since the self-install mandate took effect (~2011). TWC, in general, is a pain to deal with, but the staff they employ to manage CableCard and Tuning Adapter infrastructure is amazingly competent and, dare I say it, a pleasure to deal with.

I recently added a Bolt to my network and the shipped "Self Install" box arrived within 2 days. The CableCard TWC shipped was initially unable to be paired because it apparently had not been properly initialized with a "tar" file for my system. The tech was quick to recognize this and forward it to the appropriate department. This was Sunday, so that department wasn't working at the time. I promptly received a call back around noon Monday indicating the "tar" file had been pushed to my card and the the install was finalized with a little additional troubleshooting of the TA.

The whole "tar" file issue makes me wonder if all the historical stories of forum users having to "try 5+ cards before they found one that works" is nothing more than old cards not properly initialized for the system and incompetent staff who have no idea about the intricacies of CableCards.


----------



## joewom (Dec 10, 2013)

Dan203 said:


> According to this list...
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_television_in_the_United_States
> 
> MediaCom has about 865,000 subscribers and is #12. TWC, Cox, Charter, Cablevision and Brighthouse have about 25 million subscribers between them.


I did get 4th largest from them. Wouldn't be the first time a company thought they were bigger then they are. But I do believe they bought a few companies and have more then that now. Being they are in 22 states.

https://mediacomcable.com/site/about.html


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

tatergator1 said:


> This has not been true at least since the self-install mandate took effect (~2011). TWC, in general, is a pain to deal with, but the staff they employ to manage CableCard and Tuning Adapter infrastructure is amazingly competent and, dare I say it, a pleasure to deal with.


Which is why I qualified it with "until it was prohibited".

By 2011 TVs with CableCARD slots no longer existed. They were available from 2005 to about 2009 then pretty much fell off the market. There was a lot of talk around that time about CableCARD 2.0 which was suppose to support 2 way communication for SDV and VOD, but the cable companies did basically the same thing they're doing now. They insisted on retaining complete control of the UI, via OCAP, which essentially made any box/device that used it a dumb box running the cable company's software. The CE manufacturers dropped out of the discussions and CableCARD slots quickly disappeared from pretty much everything except TiVo.


----------



## tatergator1 (Mar 27, 2008)

Dan203 said:


> Which is why I qualified it with "until it was prohibited".


Yep, I read that too fast and associated that with the channel copy protection comment.


----------



## joewom (Dec 10, 2013)

Dan203 said:


> Which is why I qualified it with "until it was prohibited".
> 
> By 2011 TVs with CableCARD slots no longer existed. They were available from 2005 to about 2009 then pretty much fell off the market. There was a lot of talk around that time about CableCARD 2.0 which was suppose to support 2 way communication for SDV and VOD, but the cable companies did basically the same thing they're doing now. They insisted on retaining complete control of the UI, via OCAP, which essentially made any box/device that used it a dumb box running the cable company's software. The CE manufacturers dropped out of the discussions and CableCARD slots quickly disappeared from pretty much everything except TiVo.


I just threw out an old JVC rear projection 60 inch TV that had a cable card slot. Never used it and only TV I ever had that had one. It did not take off like they thought it would.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Dan203 said:


> IIRC there was some initial musings about whether or not they were even required by law to carry CableCARDs. I think they even contemplated challenging it in court. But then they decided to just add cards. I know there was at least a short period here on the forums where people with FIOS wanted to use a TiVo and couldn't. Might have only been a half year or so, can't remember exactly.
> 
> In any case there are more cable subscribers in the US being serviced by companies other then Comcast and FIOS then both those companies combined. And the vast majority of those use SDV. (~30m) So SDV is much more widespread then those in Comcast/FIOS markets might realize.
> 
> TWC is the 2nd largest cable company in the US and they use SDV for the majority of their channels. They're actually the first one to deploy it and they use it for more of their channels then any other major cable company. They also have other anti-CableCARD practices such as protecting every channel and, until it was prohibited, requiring a truck roll for a CableCARD install.


I do remember the early FiOS discussion about CableCards, but I believed that was in 2005 and settled early in 2006, iirc.

On the other:

98 Million MVPD Subs
~14M Dish
~20M DirecTV

=64M Other Subs

~5.5M FiOS Subs
~22M Comcast Subs
~6M AT&T Subs
~1M Mediacom Subs

=30M other subs that MIGHT use TA and ? if all the small systems use T/A



Dan203 said:


> According to this list...TWC, Cox, Charter, Cablevision and Brighthouse have about 25 million subscribers between them.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> =30M other subs that MIGHT use TA and ? if all the small systems use T/A


If you weren't around when SDV first started rolling out then you probably don't remember how bad it was. It was like a year between rollout of SDV and the release of the TA. During that time people with CableCARD devices were told "sorry, CableCARDs can't support all your channels you'll have to get one of our boxes if you want to access everything you pay for". IIRC Time Warner even moved all their premium channels to SDV during this time so people essentially had to lease a box if they wanted HBO. TVs with built in CableCARD slots started to die off during this time and went away completely a model year or two later.

Back in those early days getting a CableCARD to work was a real hassle to. People often need several truck rolls to get them working and the whole time the tech would blame the CableCARD technology, or the TiVo, and suggest the user get one of their boxes instead. (even though their boxes used a CableCARD internally) Not until the extended rules were passed and they were forced to allow self installs did things start to mellow out.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Or it was just a mess of technology that didn't get worked out for a while.


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

Our TV in the MBR actually has a cable card slot (and an OTA tuner), but never considered watching TV without going through a DVR, so never really thought twice about it.

DirecTv was promoting a technology called RVU that would let them use a TV like a Mini. It's too bad this wasn't something developed as a standard for the industry and downright despicable that DirecTv charges $6/mon as well as a $50 install fee if you want to use one.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

jonw747 said:


> Our TV in the MBR actually has a cable card slot (and an OTA tuner), but never considered watching TV without going through a DVR, so never really thought twice about it.
> 
> DirecTv was promoting a technology called RVU that would let them use a TV like a Mini. It's too bad this wasn't something developed as a standard for the industry and downright despicable that DirecTv charges $6/mon as well as a $50 install fee if you want to use one.


RVU is actually an offshoot of DLNA CVP-2 with only minor differences. The DLNA CVP-2 spec was specifically designed for the MSO market. It contains everything they'd need to create a gateway/client system just like DirecTV has. So all this crap about requiring the development of expensive new technology is crap. DLNA essentially has a turn key solution ready to go for them. In fact most of them were already in the process of adapting DLNA CVP-2 to their systems in an effort to meet another FCC mandate which required STBs to have a network accessible tuner. The only difference between those STBs and the "gateway" in the AllVid proposal is that the AllVid gateway would need to have more then one tuner. (probably 6 minimum for cable)


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

So is this going to be a _replacement_ for CableCard? and/or will it potentially allow us to BUY our cable cards?


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

mattack said:


> So is this going to be a _replacement_ for CableCard? and/or will it potentially allow us to BUY our cable cards?


replacement. It's not AllVid either from what I'm reading right now. Wheeler's proposal doesn't require 2 boxes.

"The cable industry is continually trying to call this AllVid," Wheeler said. "It is not. It is not requiring a second box, it is about open standards versus closed standards. We need to have standards the same way we have standards developed for cell phones, standards developed for Bluetooth, standards developed for Wi-Fi, instead of the closed standards that exist for CableCard that have kept CableCard from being available as to those who might want to have competition."

"The FCC is expected to vote on a notice of proposed rulemaking on February 18, opening a public comment period that could result in new cable box rules being implemented later this year."


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Dan203 said:


> If you weren't around when SDV first started rolling out then you probably don't remember how bad it was. It was like a year between rollout of SDV and the release of the TA. During that time people with CableCARD devices were told "sorry, CableCARDs can't support all your channels you'll have to get one of our boxes if you want to access everything you pay for". IIRC Time Warner even moved all their premium channels to SDV during this time so people essentially had to lease a box if they wanted HBO. TVs with built in CableCARD slots started to die off during this time and went away completely a model year or two later.
> 
> Back in those early days getting a CableCARD to work was a real hassle to. People often need several truck rolls to get them working and the whole time the tech would blame the CableCARD technology, or the TiVo, and suggest the user get one of their boxes instead. (even though their boxes used a CableCARD internally) Not until the extended rules were passed and they were forced to allow self installs did things start to mellow out.


I had 2 CableCard TVs so yes, I DO know how bad it was.

Never had HBO unavailable though.

And yes, even in 2008 CableCard via FiOS was a disaster. Took me 4+ weeks to get one operating and I knew more about them than anyone locally.

Finally took someone in New Jersey to get it working as the routing tables were screwed up and I was correct, their "hits" were not getting to my cablecard.


----------



## Jrr6415sun (Mar 31, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> I hope this creates some competition in the market. As it is now choices for consumers are dwindling, not expanding. And as much as I love my TiVo I think the lack of competition has effected their level of innovation. They've done a few cool things in recent years, but there was a long time there where we got little to nothing in the way of new features. And even now they're much slower to release new things then I would like. Maybe a little bit of outside competition would light a fire under them. Or maybe it will expose a new shining star.


tivo will go bankrupt with good competition. They are just not that good of a company to adapt to pressure from others. They move too slow and haven't done any innovating. Their patents are the only thing that have kept them alive this long.

I think this will open up the doors for a ton of competition and I don't see how Tivo survives in the next 4-8 years. Others are going to come in cheaper and probably just as good if not better. Tivo relies on their high monthly fees to make a profit (if they even make a profit anymore) and I don't think that model is going to last with competition.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

The market for an Over The Air DVR is just going to get bigger as time goes on. The cable companies will raise the prices until people think it is no longer worth it to subscribe. DVR'd Broadcast TV plus Netflix is much more TV than most people can watch.

And at some point people will realize that they don't need 20+Mbps internet either, TWC's $15 3Mbps ("720" Netflix) works just peachy for me.


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

Jrr6415sun said:


> tivo will go bankrupt with good competition. They are just not that good of a company to adapt to pressure from others. They move too slow and haven't done any innovating. Their patents are the only thing that have kept them alive this long.
> 
> I think this will open up the doors for a ton of competition and I don't see how Tivo survives in the next 4-8 years. Others are going to come in cheaper and probably just as good if not better. Tivo relies on their high monthly fees to make a profit (if they even make a profit anymore) and I don't think that model is going to last with competition.


There have been quite a few companies try to compete with TiVo, none have been able to succeed. If TiVo's monthly fees are so high that shouldn't be the case and it also shouldn't be true that TiVo's profits are so slim despite the high fees and no competition. It appears to me that the problem lies in the fact the market for a great DVR is too small for competition, any price low enough to increase demand can't be profitable.

What competition for a full featured DVR is coming? I have been reading about TiVo's impending doom for 15 years now, it is always 5 years away.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

trip1eX said:


> Wheeler's proposal doesn't require 2 boxes.
> 
> "The cable industry is continually trying to call this AllVid," Wheeler said. "It is not. It is not requiring a second box, it is about open standards versus closed standards. We need to have standards the same way we have standards developed for cell phones, standards developed for Bluetooth, standards developed for Wi-Fi, instead of the closed standards that exist for CableCard that have kept CableCard from being available as to those who might want to have competition."


Which might be true for cable but certainly not for sat, assuming that they have the authority to tell sat to implement this proposal.


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

Jrr6415sun said:


> tivo will go bankrupt with good competition. They are just not that good of a company to adapt to pressure from others. They move too slow and haven't done any innovating. Their patents are the only thing that have kept them alive this long.
> 
> I think this will open up the doors for a ton of competition and I don't see how Tivo survives in the next 4-8 years. Others are going to come in cheaper and probably just as good if not better. Tivo relies on their high monthly fees to make a profit (if they even make a profit anymore) and I don't think that model is going to last with competition.


I few years back I would have to agree, but big chances are happening, starting from the top with a new CEO. This is followed my a complete review and retooling of management from top to bottom, hopefully, returning TiVo to a Tech company.

A Tech company that could follow others and build upon voice recognition, recognition integrated into TiVo. I don't know too many people who do not search the internet while in front of their sets. Tivo could make use of this cognitive content response for any information about anything by providing the internet feature by voice recognition right into the TiVo. No more reaching for the phone or IPad, perhaps dropping it or having to look down and away from the bigger screen. Quicker response time, then quickly back to the program you been watching without missing any part of it.


----------



## GoodSpike (Dec 17, 2001)

Jrr6415sun said:


> tivo will go bankrupt with good competition. They are just not that good of a company to adapt to pressure from others. They move too slow and haven't done any innovating. Their patents are the only thing that have kept them alive this long.


So they're going to have the opposite result following the model used by Apple? 

I'm not sure what pressure Tivo has had from others that they haven't adopted to. They seemingly adopted to the streaming world fairly well. I'm not aware of any DVR options that are far superior. What are you seeing?


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

Got a laugh out if this one:

"consider the FCCs 2002 requirement that every TV manufacturer introduce technology that would enforce a broadcast flag signaling when a programs owner prohibited recording for later viewing.

When a federal appellate court tossed out the broadcast flag mandate as wildly outside the agencys authority three years later, the judges mocked the agencys hubris. Are washing machines next? one judge asked incredulously at oral argument. Said another: You cant rule the world."

"The danger the FCC cant see in its new video proposal"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...r-the-fcc-cant-see-in-its-new-video-proposal/


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Chris Gerhard said:


> There have been quite a few companies try to compete with TiVo, none have been able to succeed. If TiVo's monthly fees are so high that shouldn't be the case and it also shouldn't be true that TiVo's profits are so slim despite the high fees and no competition. It appears to me that the problem lies in the fact the market for a great DVR is too small for competition, any price low enough to increase demand can't be profitable.
> 
> What competition for a full featured DVR is coming? I have been reading about TiVo's impending doom for 15 years now, it is always 5 years away.


Tivo has been surviving on its patents, and is basically a patent troll at this point in time. Their R&D spending has been in significant decline over the past three years, and they sued Samsung who does not even make DVRs.

It's Tivo's patents that paved the way for MSOs to provide Tivo rental boxes. It's their patents that paved the way for Tivo to provide VoD for the stand-alone boxes.

It's their patents that are the main source of income for Tivo. That and the MSO rentals. The stand-alone box subscriptions are tiny in numbers and aren't enough to sustain the company. (http://www.thestreet.com/story/1306...-isnt-enough-to-justify-its-stock-bounce.html)

It's their patents that have limited other third-party competition. You currently can't even develop a prototype DVR without Tivo's permission. And if Tivo lets you develop one, you can be sure that it will be very limited in features or else it will require a large royalty to be paid to Tivo. So your DVR is either noncompetitive because it lacks features or it's noncompetitive due to price.

And in April 2018, the main patent expires. The existing MSO deals will hold for a while but I wouldn't expect many more new ones after that.

So does that mean third-party boxes will finally emerge? As you said, it's going to take a company who can afford to lose money at it. So Google and maybe Amazon. Tivo is sitting on a lot of cash, but will they ramp up their R&D spending again to develop the new box? Or will they partner up with somebody else like Samsung? Either way, there's not going to be a lot of competition even if there is a new standard released.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

jth tv said:


> Got a laugh out if this one:
> 
> "consider the FCC's 2002 requirement that every TV manufacturer introduce technology that would enforce a "broadcast flag" signaling when a program's owner prohibited recording for later viewing.
> 
> ...


What's funny about that one is that the "broadcast flag" was lobbied for by the MPAA and content providers. Most heavily by the NFL. The FCC was stacked with conservatives at the time and this was considered a "pro business" regulation to help stymy piracy. Now they're trying to use the ruling they helped create against the FCC.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

jth tv said:


> Got a laugh out if this one:
> 
> "consider the FCCs 2002 requirement that every TV manufacturer introduce technology that would enforce a broadcast flag signaling when a programs owner prohibited recording for later viewing.
> 
> ...


That's one of the best articles I've seen on this in a while.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

BobCamp1 said:


> That's one of the best articles I've seen on this in a while.


Seems like a bunch of cable lobby BS to me. Sure he's right that there is competition from OTT services, but I fail to see how regulations imposed on the MVPD industry would hault original content from Netflix, Amazon or YouTube.



> The remarkable proliferation of new programming from non-traditional providers including Amazon, Netflix and from consumers themselves could be brought to a sudden and unintended end


In fact we're more likely to see that happen without regulation. Since in 99% of markets the only choices for high speed internet capable of streaming high quality video is from either a cable company or a telecom with their own video service. (i.e. AT&T or Verizon) And without some sort of regulation they will almost certainly use their position as your ISP to squeeze out the competition to their video business. Now I know this particular proposal doesn't actually handle that bit, but by opening up the market it might help them loosen their grip on the video portion of the business and perhaps embrace their position as an ISP first and MVPD second.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

BobCamp1 said:


> That's one of the best articles I've seen on this in a while.


Except that, while true that cord cutters have shifted to net providers, there is still a very large set of subs that are still paying the MVPDs for TV and they're all still held hostage to the STBs.

Amazon, Hulu, Netflix et al really have nothing to do with opening up access to MVPD programming, in other words, and the FCC has jurisdiction over that. Regardless of how many people cut the cord. Not to mention that linear programming is still an entirely different model than VOD, especially when you factor in live content like sports and news.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

The real challenge that the FCC faces is not coming up with a standard for access to MVPD programming. It's coming up with a set of regulations that will ensure that providers implement the standard in a way that is easy and reliable for consumers to access right away. 

Cable providers really killed CableCARD in the first year or two just by making it difficult for consumers to get access to and unreliable in implementation. It wasn't until the integration ban that CableCARD widely functioned reliably, and it wasn't until the self-install mandate that consumers could be reasonably sure of getting access to one.

If this new standard is going to have any chance of success they will need to deal with the issue of reliability and ease of access in the first round of rule making. Another false start will doom this effort from the outset.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> . ...........
> Since in 99% of markets the only choices for high speed internet capable of streaming high quality video is from either a cable company or a telecom with their own video service. (i.e. AT&T or Verizon) And without some sort of regulation they will almost certainly use their position as your ISP to squeeze out the competition to their video business. Now I know this particular proposal doesn't actually handle that bit, but by opening up the market it might help them loosen their grip on the video portion of the business and perhaps embrace their position as an ISP first and MVPD second.


"might help" (?), "perhaps embrace" (?). Maybe if they weren't trying to maximize profits. 

As long as most consumers have either zero or one choice for HSI, they may as well just bend over. Separating content cost from distribution cost won't prevent monopolistic profit seeking. I don't know what general solution exists for this problem. I think the cost and/or local/state legal barriers make running parallel distribution (cable/fiber) a poor investment in most regions. One proposed solution is have government run the distribution system or regulate it like a utility. I have very little confidence that would be good thing.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> In fact we're more likely to see that happen without regulation. Since in 99% of markets the only choices for high speed internet capable of streaming high quality video is from either a cable company or a telecom with their own video service. (i.e. AT&T or Verizon) And without some sort of regulation they will almost certainly use their position as your ISP to squeeze out the competition to their video business. Now I know this particular proposal doesn't actually handle that bit, but by opening up the market it might help them loosen their grip on the video portion of the business and perhaps embrace their position as an ISP first and MVPD second.


There are three problems with this idea:

1. You're not opening up the DVR market. Only a select few want to enter it, you're making the devices more expensive and too complicated with less support, and you're giving the MVPDs/ISPs a great excuse to raise rates and lower data caps.

Not only that, but I suspect that Google and Amazon don't even want to make a DVR. They want to make a Fire TV that can also tune channels.

2. The video market is already open, just not in the way that you or the FCC personally want it. But you no longer have to use MVPD equipment or a DVR to watch TV whenever and wherever you want. Many people still do, partly because they are set in their old ways and partly because they don't know any better.

3. The proposal "doesn't handle that [net neutrality] bit." That's actually the most important bit! Even Tivo doesn't make plain DVRs anymore: it's all about streaming. If there's no unlimited streaming, then Amazon, Google, and Apple are out of AllVid too and Tivo isn't too far behind.

Everyone cares about net neutrality. Nobody cares about AllVid. The FCC/FTC will have a much easier time pushing through net neutrality and ISP laws as they will have the backing of the entire public, not just the over 40 crowd.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Yeah long term I think the net neutrality bit is the most important part. If these MSOs start using their position as your ISP to start squeezing out the competition in the video space we're all in serious trouble.

But what the FCC is trying to do here has noble intentions. In 1996 congress passed a law with the intention of opening up the cable set top box market. The cable industry drug it's feet for a decade before finally implementing the technology, and even then they did everything they could to make it as difficult to use as possible. In that same time they've raised prices on STBs and transitioned to pure digital so that an STB is required at every TV. So the problem congress was trying to fix has gotten worse and the technology they tried to create to fix it has fallen flat with only one company left using it. (i.e. TiVo) They're trying to come up with a new technology that fixes the problems of CableCARD so that more devices will use it and more people will be able to ditch their leased STBs. 

It probably wont save everyone money. I'm sure the cable companies will figure out a way to manipulate pricing so that they end up ahead. But at the very least it might spur innovation. My leased box, which is the only method I have to access VOD, still uses the same UI that it had 15 years ago. A slow, poorly designed, SD menu system from the 90s. At least with AllVid I could integrate VOD into my TiVo, like I do Netflix, etc..., and not have to use the boxes horrible UI.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

BobCamp1 said:


> 2. The video market is already open, just not in the way that you or the FCC personally want it. But you no longer have to use MVPD equipment or a DVR to watch TV whenever and wherever you want. Many people still do, partly because they are set in their old ways and partly because they don't know any better.


For SOME content sure, but not all. And that's an important point.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> But what the FCC is trying to do here has noble intentions.


Yes, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

The FCC doesn't have the power to regulate all the areas they need to ensure success. The FTC might, but there's no way you're going to get this Congress or the next one to tell businesses exactly how they should make their products. Besides, that stifles innovation rather then promotes it. Innovation cannot be commanded.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

slowbiscuit said:


> For SOME content sure, but not all. And that's an important point.


It's for the majority of content. You'd be surprised at what's available to watch online legally. And I don't think that amount is going to get smaller in the next few years.

For me, aside from Doctor Who (which just got pulled from streaming) and the live NFL regular season games (which don't need a DVR), all my other shows and sports programs are available online at no additional cost. With the popular programs already being available without an MSO box, it sucks momentum out of the FCC's movement.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

BobCamp1 said:


> Yes, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
> 
> The FCC doesn't have the power to regulate all the areas they need to ensure success. The FTC might, but there's no way you're going to get this Congress or the next one to tell businesses exactly how they should make their products. Besides, that stifles innovation rather then promotes it. Innovation cannot be commanded.


I would put both your statements another way:

The cable companies intentions are to pave a road to hell for consumer choice and the FCC's best efforts may not stop them.

Congress has been bought by big cable and is not likely to allow any Government agency to stop the cable companies from preventing competition and stifling innovation.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Dan203 said:


> *But what the FCC is trying to do here has noble intentions.* In 1996 congress passed a law with the intention of opening up the cable set top box market. The cable industry drug it's feet for a decade before finally implementing the technology, and even then they did everything they could to make it as difficult to use as possible. In that same time they've raised prices on STBs and transitioned to pure digital so that an STB is required at every TV. So the problem congress was trying to fix has gotten worse and the technology they tried to create to fix it has fallen flat with only one company left using it. (i.e. TiVo) They're trying to come up with a new technology that fixes the problems of CableCARD so that more devices will use it and more people will be able to ditch their leased STBs.
> 
> It probably wont save everyone money. I'm sure the cable companies will figure out a way to manipulate pricing so that they end up ahead. But at the very least it might spur innovation. My leased box, which is the only method I have to access VOD, still uses the same UI that it had 15 years ago. A slow, poorly designed, SD menu system from the 90s. *At least with AllVid I could integrate VOD into my TiVo, like I do Netflix, etc..., and not have to use the boxes horrible UI.*


FCC Chairman Wheeler is claiming this is NOT AllVid.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

atmuscarella said:


> I would put both your statements another way:
> 
> The cable companies intentions are to pave a road to hell for consumer choice and the FCC's best efforts may not stop them.
> 
> *Congress has been bought by big cable and is not likely to allow any Government agency to stop the cable companies from preventing competition and stifling innovation.*


You do realize that the Cable Companies are AGAINST this proposal?


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

BobCamp1 said:


> Yes, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
> 
> The FCC doesn't have the power to regulate all the areas they need to ensure success. The FTC might, but there's no way you're going to get this Congress or the next one to tell businesses exactly how they should make their products. Besides, that stifles innovation rather then promotes it. Innovation cannot be commanded.


You mean like the FCC telling Cable Companies they had to use CableCards, and is now in 55 Million STBs?


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

BobCamp1 said:


> It's for the majority of content. You'd be surprised at what's available to watch online legally. And I don't think that amount is going to get smaller in the next few years.
> 
> For me, aside from Doctor Who (which just got pulled from streaming) and the live NFL regular season games (which don't need a DVR), all my other shows and sports programs are available online at no additional cost. With the popular programs already being available without an MSO box, it sucks momentum out of the FCC's movement.


So in other words if you get what you want, who cares about all the other people using boxes to get the rest. They just have to suck it up and keep paying more because the FCC shouldn't get involved.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> You mean like the FCC telling Cable Companies they had to use CableCards, and is now in 55 Million STBs?


You've proven my point. Mandating CableCards in all boxes didn't help anything. 99% of those CableCards aren't necessary. They reduced reliability and drove up the price of those boxes. Cable companies found a way around the integration ban because the FCC didn't tell them those mandatory CableCards had to be replaceable in the field.

CableCards became obsolete the moment they were launched, as third-party boxes did not support VoD. They became even more obsolete when SDV was launched. Now you needed TWO devices from your cable company to get your box to work. Old CableCard TVs didn't have USB ports, so they immediately went obsolete and nobody even produces them anymore. And wait -- there's a switch to MPEG4 too? There's no adapter for that, so buy a new DVR. You know, the DVR you were supposed to be able to use on any system but it turns out you can no longer even use it on the system you already have.

And the mandate didn't really help compatibility, either. How could cable companies already have 6 tuner DVRs with CableCards fully working yet it took a while for the six tuner Tivos to work?

And thanks to Echostar vs. FCC, we're not entirely sure that the FCC even had the authority to mandate CableCards in the first place. They apparently don't have any hold over DBS systems in this area. But that's OK, because all you have to do is ask the FCC for a waiver and they'll just give you one.

So the FCC can want set top boxes. But they have demonstrated neither the authority nor the competency to get them.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

slowbiscuit said:


> So in other words if you get what you want, who cares about all the other people using boxes to get the rest. They just have to suck it up and keep paying more because the FCC shouldn't get involved.


Exactly. TV is entertainment, not a utility. Next you'll be telling me the FCC should mandate movie ticket prices because they're too high.

Not only that, but who says the new solution will be less expensive? It's more complicated and has more features. And you're assuming that lots of companies are lining up to produce these new boxes when the market hasn't been profitable and is slowly shrinking. And they may not produce the boxes you want -- they may produce sticks instead.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

My biggest hopes for whatever technology comes out of this whole thing....

1) It eliminates the TA. No reason to require two devices just to tune normal linear channels

2) It's cross platform in that the same technology can be used for all linear MVPDs. Even if it requires a new device for different MVPDs as long as they are all open it would be nice. Although a technology that allowed a single device to be transported between them would be better.

3) There is some way to access VOD. Even if it's via an app with the MSOs UI. Some way to acces VOD from 3rd party devices that is mandated for all MSOs would be nice.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

BobCamp1 said:


> So the FCC can want set top boxes. But they have demonstrated neither the authority nor the competency to get them.


DOJ supported FCC Chairman Wheeler on this yesterday.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

BobCamp1 said:


> You've proven my point. Mandating CableCards in all boxes didn't help anything. 99% of those CableCards aren't necessary. They reduced reliability and drove up the price of those boxes. Cable companies found a way around the integration ban because the FCC didn't tell them those mandatory CableCards had to be replaceable in the field.
> 
> CableCards became obsolete the moment they were launched, as third-party boxes did not support VoD. They became even more obsolete when SDV was launched. Now you needed TWO devices from your cable company to get your box to work. Old CableCard TVs didn't have USB ports, so they immediately went obsolete and nobody even produces them anymore. And wait -- there's a switch to MPEG4 too? There's no adapter for that, so buy a new DVR. You know, the DVR you were supposed to be able to use on any system but it turns out you can no longer even use it on the system you already have.
> 
> ...


Guess you would say the same about ATSC or FM Radio. Throw everything out there and let the market decide, just like they did with AM Stereo in the early 80s.....so all 4 systems failed.

Suppose NTSC wasn't a standard.....so you had the 3 types of SD TV in the USA such as NTSC, PAL etc. No TV could receive the other.

Or the 2 color systems....RCA and GE.....and one could not display the color of the other.

You think its bad now with cablecard?

Imagine 5 different HD Types in the market and thus your choices limited the TV you could buy depending on the channels you wanted to watch.

There is a reason for standards.

As AM Stereo proved, letting the market decide doesn't work - it causes ALL to fail.


----------



## Brad Bishop (Sep 11, 2001)

TonyD79 said:


> Actually, it was probably more dvrs that forced boxes. For quite some time, you could get a cablecard for TVs. I don't know of any current models that will take a cable card.


I don't know if it was "quite some time". I remember about a 2-3 year period where they trickled onto the market and then kind of vanished.

I remember waiting for them and thinking, "That is how it ought to be done!" I also remember:
1) It added a surprising amount of cost to the, at the time, already expensive HDTVs
2) CableCards were still, at best, only "kind of" supported.

I think HDTVs w/ cableCard disappeared before the HD TiVos appeared (Remember: TiVo was pretty late coming to the market with the S3s).

All of this was before SDV so, if you actually paid extra for a HDTV w/ cableCard then when SDV came along it was all for naught.

I lived in Canada for a brief time in the early 1990s and TVs sold there had the decoder (standard) built in (well before cableCard - this was the analog decoders). If you had a TV there you could call the local cable company and give them the serial number of your TV or something (I was a US citizen and only read up on it then when someone told me about it - all of my stuff was USA so no-built-in decoder) and then if you wanted some special package or pay channel you just told them and it was done. No external box nonsense.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

There were a few things that led to the death of CableCARD TVs. First was price and poor communication. When they came out they typically had about a $200 price premium compared to the same model without the CableCARD slot. The cable companies would also commonly spread misinformation about the cards and provided a very, very, poor installation experience. That alone pushed most of the TVs out of the market. Then came SDV and all the TVs already out there became useless. IIRC Time Warner moved all their premium channels to SDV first so they could basically tell owners of CableCARD devices that the standard did not support premium channels. TiVo is the one who fought back and got them to create the Tuning Adapter so that they could access SDV channels. But by that time it was too late. CableCARD TVs were already on the way out and even those that were left decided that adding a USB port and requiring people to have an external box anyway wasn't going to work for the intended purpose and abandoned the standard. For a couple of years only TiVo and a single tuner external box for HTPCs supported CableCARDs at all. Then Silicone Dust and Ceton came along with their offerings and vitalized the HTPC market briefly. But MS screwed them over when they stopped updating MCE and eventually discontinued it. Now we're essentially back to TiVo and maybe the Silicone Dust DVR if it ever makes it out of beta.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

BobCamp1 said:


> Exactly. TV is entertainment, not a utility. Next you'll be telling me the FCC should mandate movie ticket prices because they're too high.


Next you'll be telling me that the AT&T breakup was wrong and we should have all kept renting phones from them because of course Ma Bell knew what was best for us.

It's not about whether it's a utility, its about whether an entire industry can force the use of their equipment to access the network.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

It's more like a price fixing issue. With TV, compared to Ma Bell, you do (usually) have a few choices but all of those choices have the same business model where you have to lease equipment with a reoccurring monthly fee to access their service. So no matter which service you choose you're essentially in the same boat. The FCC was grated regulatory power over these MVPDs and they're attempting to use that power to change this practice. 

Unfortunately the technologies involved here are vastly more complex then simply allowing 3rd party telephones to access the phone network, so it's a much harder thing to do.


----------



## irisr (Jun 29, 2015)

Good editorial today from the NY Times!

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/08/opinion/the-fcc-gets-ready-to-unlock-the-cable-box.html


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

irisr said:


> Good editorial today from the NY Times!
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/08/opinion/the-fcc-gets-ready-to-unlock-the-cable-box.html


Telephone service, as mentioned in the editorial as an example, never had any copyright problems with content provided by the telephone co.s. as cable programs have.


----------



## Brad Bishop (Sep 11, 2001)

Regarding the new regulations: I don't see them "fixing" it any better than they did 20 years ago.

I really hate the use of government force. I'd rather watch the company wither on the vine as people look elsewhere for entertainment (and the company, sadly, learns nothing).

If, however, you were going to use government force to do this, the only way I see it getting done is if there were some law/regulation that said:
"The provider of services cannot be the supplier of consumer equipment."

Essentially forcing everyone to buy a new box from some other company and forcing the cable company to play nice because it would now be in their best interest to keep consumers using their service.

The biggest problem with any of this (using force, that is) is that the company will figure a way to wiggle around the law. They'd just split off sister companies to supply the consumer product while being buddies with them with information on how things work and would not be so forthcoming to external competitors.

I don't think it's a good idea, it's just the only one where I could see you'd force their hands at it and, even then, it probably wouldn't work and just make things more expensive (see how cable rates were "fixed" by the 1996 Telecommunications Act)


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

lessd said:


> Telephone service, as mentioned in the editorial as an example, never had any copyright problems with content provided by the telephone co.s. as cable programs have.


Cable is definitely a much more complex business. But there is nothing about opening up the set top box market that would violate copyright. Even VOD would work if they had a strict set of rules. Or make it easier and just use an RUI app for VOD, so the MSO retains control of that part but it's open to all devices and not just the ones they choose.


----------



## TeamPace (Oct 23, 2013)

Interesting discussions. As to whether SDV and cable are now easy to install. Last month I helped friends switch to a TiVo BOLT & mini to replace their Time Warner equipment. It took me about a week, more than 8 hours of time on the phone with TW & TiVo tech support, 3 different tuning adapters, 3 trips to the TW store, and having TiVo replace the BOLT before we got it all working. The friend was very close to giving up and staying with the rented equipment. Not many people want to deal with those hassles even if the end result is a much better system and cost savings. Not 100% sure of the solutions but clearly part of the problem is TW doesn't really have any incentive for you to succeed at replacing their equipment. I suspected that the defective tuning adapters we returned to TW simply went right back on the shelf to be handed out to the next poor sucker who wanted to try and switch to TiVo.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

TeamPace said:


> Interesting discussions. As to whether SDV and cable are now easy to install. Last month I helped friends switch to a TiVo BOLT & mini to replace their Time Warner equipment. It took me about a week, more than 8 hours of time on the phone with TW & TiVo tech support, 3 different tuning adapters, 3 trips to the TW store, and having TiVo replace the BOLT before we got it all working. The friend was very close to giving up and staying with the rented equipment. Not many people want to deal with those hassles even if the end result is a much better system and cost savings. Not 100% sure of the solutions but clearly part of the problem is TW doesn't really have any incentive for you to succeed at replacing their equipment. I suspected that the defective tuning adapters we returned to TW simply went right back on the shelf to be handed out to the next poor sucker who wanted to try and switch to TiVo.


Some people have a good experience some, like in your post, do not, it is a risk that most people don't want to take.


----------



## tvmaster2 (Sep 9, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> Cable is definitely a much more complex business. But there is nothing about opening up the set top box market that would violate copyright. Even VOD would work if they had a strict set of rules. Or make it easier and just use an RUI app for VOD, so the MSO retains control of that part but it's open to all devices and not just the ones they choose.


My mother in law has Cox Whole Home dvr: one recorder and three satellites. Has had problems since day one, boxes switched out, service calls, missed recordings, stuttering playback, etc.
My Cox cable card tivo's just keep rolling right along.
Not so sure I buy the argument some are making that cable cards have been a failure - they sure haven't been for us. But her monopoly-based DVR's: not so great.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

lessd said:


> Telephone service, as mentioned in the editorial as an example, never had any copyright problems with content provided by the telephone co.s. as cable programs have.


More complex sure, but doesn't change the editorial's point (which is completely valid). The tech isn't the issue, control over the eyeballs and revenue is.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

slowbiscuit said:


> More complex sure, but doesn't change the editorial's point (which is completely valid). The tech isn't the issue, control over the eyeballs and revenue is.


That was easy to solve with the opening of telephones that could be purchased at retail, cable with its encryption is another ball game, as I have said before (I am cable card biased) cable cards are a good solution for many people, if there was a market for a 3rd pty cable box using the cable card it would have happened already, the same is true of HDTV (except for the SDV mess with some providers), but you need a good UI and so far TiVo (and maybe a few PC cable card ready tuners) provide that UI, any cable card TiVo without service can provide you with a dumb cable box, but that not want people want, and in many cases the cable card cost almost as much as a non DVR cable box itself.
I still not sure why we should go through the expanse of any change, (again I am biased as all is working great for me so why fix what not broke) it may not make things any better for the cable co. customer, but it will sure increase the cost to the MSO, and the MSO have all the cable cards they will ever need when their own cable card type boxes are returned.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Yeah, Cablecard has been great for the less than 1% of cable customers benefiting from it, and the few CE manufacturers that went through the hassle and expense of CableLabs cert to provide it to them. Look at all we've accomplished after 10 years of it being out there.


----------



## i.hardon (Aug 31, 2013)

I'm not sure what is inherently wrong with the Cablecard that couldn't be improved by forcing action on the "incomplete" bits - like allowing third parties to manufacture two-way capable equipment to an agreed standard, eliminating the need for a tuning adaptor or internet connection to do video on demand.

The DVB world seems to have managed to create a healthy 3rd party equipment market. Many TVs have DVB-T/T2 and DVB-C/C2 tuners, along with a "common interface" slot that accepts a conditional access module - similar to the cableCARD, and identical in form factor. Usually has a card slot to accept the subscriber's viewing card.

Unfortunately provider takeup isn't so hot in some countries. I am in the UK, and neither the pay-TV satellite or cable companies allow the use of third party equipment (but, in fairness, they don't charge you to use their own - the cable company owns their set top box, you pay nothing to rent it, and will replace it for free, and the satellite company gives it to you). In the case of the cable company, they offer their own TiVo boxes anyway. Of course DVB-T/T2 works fine (over the air) as the channels aren't encrypted here.

If you were to use a third party cable or satellite receiver, you can see and tune into the signals, but you just can't watch any encrypted content (and there's a lot of FTA stuff on satellite, like the main BBC/commercial networks and a few others)

But in other countries it's pretty vibrant. You can plug in your DVB-C/C2 TV into the cable network, DVB-T/T2 TV into an aerial, or DVB-S/S2 box into a dish, insert the CAM (which AFAIK doesn't need to be paired to the TV), let it tune in the channels and away you go.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

CableCARD is a standard that was designed in the 90s with it's primary objective being the decryption and authorization of linear one way channels. It did not account for two way technologies like VOD or even SDV, which are linear channels that are dynamically assigned a frequency and require two way communication to function. They also turned out to be very difficult to get working resulting in multiple unnecessary tech visits or phone calls to get functioning, causing a very poor user experience. It also only worked with cable, so DSS and IP services are excluded from supporting it.

The goal of this new law was to develop a "downloadable" security system that would work across all MSO technologies. However due to fundamental differences in the technologies they use it's not as easy as it sounds. The MSOs want an apps approach where they controll the entire UI and experience and the 3rd party device just becomes a dumb box that display's their app. Companies like TiVo and Google want an open API they can use to access and discover the services offered by the MSO so they can present them to the user using their own UI. It seems, at the moment, the FCC is siding with the technology companies and shooting for something using the open API approach. The issue there is that because of the fundamental differences between the technologies used by each MSO this will almost certainly require an extra box, referred to as a gateway, which essentially acts as a man in the middle converting the proprietary technologies used by the MSO into the open standards required by the new system. The concern is that these boxes could prove to be expensive, compared to CableCARD, and provide little to no advantage for existing TiVo users. Espically those that live in Comcast areas whi already have access to VOD and do not require the add-on tuning adapter device to access all their channels.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> . The concern is that these boxes could prove to be expensive, compared to CableCARD, and provide little to no advantage for existing TiVo users. Espically those that live in Comcast areas whi already have access to VOD and do not require the add-on tuning adapter device to access all their channels.


*
My point* :up: plus I doubt any big market exist for 3 pty anything for cable, TiVo being the exception and TiVo not doing that well, so why change, where is the big benefit and who get that benefit if it does exists.
Lets start the *keep the cable card option *for the FCC. It has been 100 years or so and we are still using the lead acid battery for almost all cars, if a better solution (cost and usability) does not exists, keep using what works even if it is old, or real old. (Even my hybrid car has a small lead acid battery to provide 12VDC, why ??, when my 260VDC lithium ion battery could have an electronic 12VDC switching power supply do that job, and the lead acid battery can't even be used to start the car engine).


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

lessd said:


> I doubt any big market exist for 3 pty anything for cable, TiVo being the exception and TiVo not doing that well, so why change, where is the big benefit and who get that benefit if it does exists.


The whole point of this is to create a market for 3rd party devices. The CE companies believe a market exists if the technology can be improved to relieve the burden of CableCARD setup and allow access to ALL the services the MSOs provide. They could be wrong, but we'll never know if we just stick to what we have now.

For your piece of mind... there are still millions of CableCARDs deployed inside MSO leased boxes, so even if this new standard comes to pass it will be many years before your current CableCARDs stop working. So it's not like you'll be forced to use this new technology. At least not in the immediate future.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> The whole point of this is to create a market for 3rd party devices. The CE companies believe a market exists if the improved can be improved to relieve the burden of CableCARD setup and allow access to ALL the services the MSOs provide. They could be wrong, but we'll never know if we just stick to what we have now.
> 
> For your piece of mind... there are still millions of CableCARDs deployed inside MSO leased boxes, so even if this new standard comes to pass it will be many years before your current CableCARDs stop working. So it's not like you'll be forced to use this new technology. At least not in the immediate future.


Beyond the DVR what product could develop with any new system, that could be used with any MOS system, a TV that had a built in way to get the downloaded security may be one, but how much demand would there be for that, as the cable co could charge you for each TV in your home, and it adds another soft spot to any TV as in, who do you call if the TV cable input stops working, your TV now works with any external source like a DVD player etc. but stops working with the cable direct, the cable tech can't just change out the cable card as the security system is built in. IMHO 99% of people will still use/rent the MSO equipment with its on-sight warranty and free upgrades, I see to much risk with any other way, TiVo proved that by having only small retail DVR market, I don't think the hassle with cable cards is the reason TiVos retail market is small as that cable card hassle only happens when you change TiVos (or get one for the first time) and most people don't have any hassle with a new TiVo, just a quick call to the MSO.
My mind just can't see where this is going, or could go as IP is different and can be used now without (or with) a TiVo as most smart TVs have Netflix and other apps built in.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

TVs with built in support is a good example. Right now if you want to watch cable on any TV you need an external box. That box requires power, a cable running from it to the TV, and a separate remote control. The vast majority of TVs sold these days are already "smart TVs", so they already have a way to run software directly on the TV. With a properly designed system that's all that would be needed. Essentially you'd select the live TV app and your TV would display a built in UI that would allow you to access not just live content but also extended services like VOD. No extra box, no extra remote, no ugly wires you have to try to tuck behind your TV on the wall.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> TVs with built in support is a good example. Right now if you want to watch cable on any TV you need an external box. That box requires power, a cable running from it to the TV, and a separate remote control. The vast majority of TVs sold these days are already "smart TVs", so they already have a way to run software directly on the TV. With a properly designed system that's all that would be needed. Essentially you'd select the live TV app and your TV would display a built in UI that would allow you to access not just live content but also extended services like VOD. No extra box, no extra remote, no ugly wires you have to try to tuck behind your TV on the wall.


And no DVR, how many people would have cable without a DVR today.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

lessd said:


> And no DVR, how many people would have cable without a DVR today.


Roughly 35% of the 100 Million USA Households that sub to a MVPD. You forget that VOD does not need a DVR.

Roughly 85% of the Households have a DVR OR SVOD (and sorry, that means Amazon, Hulu or Netflix etc)


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Roughly 35% of the 100 Million USA Households that sub to a MVPD. You forget that VOD does not need a DVR.
> 
> Roughly 85% of the Households have a DVR OR SVOD (and sorry, that means Amazon, Hulu or Netflix etc)


Using VOD to time shift for networks programs would drive me nuts with the commercials. I would have to be financially challenged to not have a DVR of some type, if, as I do, want to watch network TV. I can watch all three network news programs (ABC CBS & NBC) in about 45 minutes, as I can get rid of both the ads and news I don't want to see, or have already seen.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

lessd said:


> Using VOD to time shift for networks programs would drive me nuts with the commercials. I would have to be financially challenged to not have a DVR of some type, if, as I do, want to watch network TV. I can watch all three network news programs (ABC CBS & NBC) in about 45 minutes, as I can get rid of both the ads and news I don't want to see, or have already seen.


Just because ~60 some percent have a DVR, that does not mean that DVR usage is that high, Live TV is still viewed the majority of the time in TiVo's own research as well as Nielsen. Again, the heaviest DVR users, according to TiVo, are light TV Viewers and lower income, which is TOTALLY counterintuitive.

Though that could also explain why TiVo is doing so poorly in Retail.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Just because ~60 some percent have a DVR, that does not mean that DVR usage is that high, Live TV is still viewed the majority of the time in TiVo's own research as well as Nielsen. Again, the heaviest DVR users, according to TiVo, are light TV Viewers and lower income, which is TOTALLY counterintuitive.
> 
> Though that could also explain why TiVo is doing so poorly in Retail.


You could be correct as I have one friend that spends about 15 weeks a year traveling places, cruse, land trips, etc., when they are home and want to watch TV all they want to get involved in is the power button on the TV remote and channel surf until they find something to watch, the TiVo they have means very little to them.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

lessd said:


> You could be correct as I have one friend that spends about 15 weeks a year traveling places, cruse, land trips, etc., when they are home and want to watch TV all they want to get involved in is the power button on the TV remote and channel surf until they find something to watch, the TiVo they have means very little to them.


Not my stats. They are stats from TiVo and Nielsen.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

FCC is voting today. This is not the end since there will be some feedback allowed before any ruling takes place. Interesting day. Updates on CNBC.

update: looks good. STB is going to have competition.


----------



## drebbe (Apr 11, 2012)

JoeKustra said:


> FCC is voting today. This is not the end since there will be some feedback allowed before any ruling takes place. Interesting day. Updates on CNBC.
> 
> update: looks good. STB is going to have competition.


It has passed on a 3-2 vote


----------



## rifleman69 (Jan 6, 2005)

JoeKustra said:


> FCC is voting today. This is not the end since there will be some feedback allowed before any ruling takes place. Interesting day. Updates on CNBC.
> 
> update: looks good. STB is going to have competition.


Yep, this is good for TiVo in the long run if they're ready.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Not so sure this is good for TiVo. They've sort of carved out a niche of being the only device willing to deal with the pitfalls and shortcomings of CableCARD. If this new standard does open up the market they could see an influx of new competition from big time tech companies like Google and Apple that might ultimately lead to their demise.

That being said it's still good for consumers.


----------



## UCLABB (May 29, 2012)

Dan203 said:


> Not so sure this is good for TiVo. They've sort of carved out a niche of being the only device willing to deal with the pitfalls and shortcomings of CableCARD. If this new standard does open up the market they could see an influx of new competition from big time tech companies like Google and Apple that might ultimately lead to their demise.
> 
> That being said it's still good for consumers.


I think TiVo's best hope is that a big company like Apple or Google buys it. I'm not sure what its value will be when the patents expire, but the name and customer base and some features may have some value. Apple/Google wouldn't have to start from scratch.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

12:07 pm TiVo issues statement on FCC set top box notice of proposed rulemaking (TIVO) : Co states, "We are hopeful that this proceeding results in a competitive environment that increases choice, both for consumers and operators, and protects the business models that operators and device makers have created under the current CableCARD system.""

CYA time I guess. Anything bad for the cable companies must be good for consumers.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

JoeKustra said:


> 12:07 pm TiVo issues statement on FCC set top box notice of proposed rulemaking (TIVO) : Co states, "We are hopeful that this proceeding results in a competitive environment that increases choice, both for consumers and operators, and protects the business models that operators and device makers have created under the current CableCARD system.""
> 
> CYA time I guess. Anything bad for the cable companies must be good for consumers.


Could TiVo build a unit legally that covers both Cable Cards or any new system, as any new system will be a long time in coming and will not be available in all places at once.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

lessd said:


> Could TiVo build a unit legally that covers both Cable Cards or any new system, as any new system will be a long time in coming and will not be available in all places at once.


That's part of the plan. To apply the same rules, whatever they might be, to all MSOs regardless of the technology they use.

If they go with a gateway system then TiVo could build one device that would work with any MSO. If they go with some sort of open standard for security, but not a gateway, then TiVo would need to build a different box for each system with "tuners" that were specific to the technology used for that system.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> That's part of the plan. To apply the same rules, whatever they might be, to all MSOs regardless of the technology they use.
> 
> If they go with a gateway system then TiVo could build one device that would work with any MSO. If they go with some sort of open standard for security, but not a gateway, then TiVo would need to build a different box for each system with "tuners" that were specific to the technology used for that system.


Would it be possible for all MSO to use a download security system, and map the channels like the cable card does, so all MSOs use the same system with their own security codes and channel map???


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

The technology hasn't really been hammered out yet. The conclusion of the committee was two options... The MSOs wanted to just continue to use apps, with full control of the UI, and claim those are good enough. The FCC seems to have rejected that. The tech companies wanted a gateway or a "virtual headend" that basically translated the technologies of the MSO to open standards. Based on what has been said so far it appears this is the way the FCC is leaning. Although we have no idea where they will ultimately land on this whole thing. 

The whole point here is to make it so consumers don't have to acquire any special hardware for each device, so a card or any other plug in module is probably out. In all likelihood we'll end up with a gateway. 

Most of the MSOs are heading toward their approach in their own hardware anyway. DirecTV already has RVU and most cable companies offer some sort of multi-room DVR. They're just putting up a fight here claiming it's too hard because they want to retain control of the UI, not because the technology is actually difficult.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

I am a bit more cynical today. It (and 4k) might just be a way to squeeze more $'s out of the system. Somebodies going to have licensing, the patents and/or copyrights. Change the system and the old is obsolete and the some new somebodies will be getting money.

And cables, every time we need to buy new cables.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

On the plus side if this is a pure IP system they should be able to adapt existing TiVo hardware to support it. Although it's probably going to take years to come to fruition so who knows what TiVo hardware will look like at that point or if they'll even still be around.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> On the plus side if this is a pure IP system they should be able to adapt existing TiVo hardware to support it. Although it's probably going to take years to come to fruition so who knows what TiVo hardware will look like at that point or if they'll even still be around.


It's going to look like an inverted pyramid.

Oh, you didn't actually mean what it "looks" like.


----------



## slice1900 (Dec 2, 2005)

UCLABB said:


> I think TiVo's best hope is that a big company like Apple or Google buys it. I'm not sure what its value will be when the patents expire, but the name and customer base and some features may have some value. Apple/Google wouldn't have to start from scratch.


I think that's unlikely. Apple already has a built in userbase much larger than Tivo's just from their Apple TV product alone. Apple buys small companies if they offer some technology that's unique (i.e. get them for their patents and the expertise that created that technology) or a situation like Beats where rather than patents they bought them for their favorable music streaming contracts.

Tivo doesn't fit in Apple's acquisition strategies, since its patents are mostly expired by now and what they bring to the table technologically isn't anything special anymore, when you look at what is available on all the other DVRs out there from the various providers. Maybe those DVRs don't have as nice of an interface as Tivo does but they have advanced past Tivo technologically. Apple's bread and butter is designing UIs so that's the last thing they'd acquire Tivo for.

There's some hope for Google to acquire them, since Google tends to build their products off an acquisition rather than developing it internally - they built Maps, YouTube, Android and other products off acquisitions. Though if like me you already think the ads when you hit pause and recommendations in the menu is annoying, you probably won't like the direction Google would take Tivo. While those ads on my Tivo bother me, I'd glad that they haven't followed the lead of most providers in putting ads in the guide. They ever go there, and I'm done with Tivo.


----------



## slice1900 (Dec 2, 2005)

lessd said:


> Would it be possible for all MSO to use a download security system, and map the channels like the cable card does, so all MSOs use the same system with their own security codes and channel map???


This is exactly what the directive was - to design a downloadable security system. So rather than have a physical device like a cable card, it would be software only. Encryption can provide the authentication and security that cable card does without all the hassle.

The reasons the industry is against it don't have anything to do with worries that this will make it less secure, because they use software for this all over the place. They fear it because giving power to the consumer reduces their power. Plus there's always been a tremendous resistance to change in the industry, because of the fear that change may hurt them - by bringing in more competition or allowing their existing competition to compete with them more effectively.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> This is exactly what the directive was - to design a downloadable security system. So rather than have a physical device like a cable card, it would be software only. Encryption can provide the authentication and security that cable card does without all the hassle.
> 
> The reasons the industry is against it don't have anything to do with worries that this will make it less secure, because they use software for this all over the place. They fear it because giving power to the consumer reduces their power. Plus there's always been a tremendous resistance to change in the industry, because of the fear that change may hurt them - by bringing in more competition or allowing their existing competition to compete with them more effectively.


I like the idea of a TV or DVR purchase that one just connects to your cable and make one phone call or goes on-line and activates the equipment without any problems, this process (on line) does exist for Comcast cable modem/tel 3pty purchases, as I have done it with my own Arris TM822.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> Not so sure this is good for TiVo. They've sort of carved out a niche of being the only device willing to deal with the pitfalls and shortcomings of CableCARD. If this new standard does open up the market they could see an influx of new competition from big time tech companies like Google and Apple that might ultimately lead to their demise.
> 
> That being said it's still good for consumers.


Don't look at it as a negative for Tivo, look at it as the way-overdue, sorely needed kick in the pants that they will get with competition.

They still have the market almost all to themselves and a killer brand that will mean something IF they are willing to move a little faster and roll out new stuff without some of the current stupidity (like tying the boxes too closely to their servers).

But I don't foresee any real competition for a couple of years when the patents start expiring.


----------

