# TiVo, Sony and Others want to replace CableCARDs with "Gateways"



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

http://hd.engadget.com/2009/12/23/tivo-sony-and-others-tell-the-fcc-gateways-should-replace-cab/

TiVo (and others) have responded to the FCC's request for comments on CableCARDs replacement with a proposal for "Gateways". A "Gateway" is basically a device with a shared common public interface that consumer electronics could use to communicate with the provider regardless of the medium (cable, fiber, Satellite, etc).

The Gateway device would be provided by the service provider (kind of like a tuning adapter). It would be the sole device to communicate with the provider. All other devices, including set top boxes, would talk to the Gateway device via an existing network standard (Bonjour, http or whatever). In this way the cable or satellite provider could make whatever changes to their system they liked as long as the gateway device was updated to work with it.

I like this as it would make things like SDV a non-issue since the Gateway would handle all of that. And since there would only need to be one gateway per household it would make both CableCARDS and tuning adapters a thing of the past.

The best part of the plan is that it could work with both existing Series 3 and even Series 2 models (highly unlikely) as long as the Gateway could hook up to your LAN. Theoretically a Series 3 TiVO could be made compatible with Satellite if the Satellite Gateway streamed video over the LAN (that too is highly unlikely though).


----------



## schwinn (Sep 18, 2004)

Not a bad idea at all. Of course, this means all our existing systems would need to become IP-capable, but at least it prevents the cable company, FIOS, sat vendors from making yet another box that we have to have.

Only thing is, the gateway would need to be provided free, or something like that... otherwise, isn't it just like having another cablebox?


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Hmm. Now where have I heard a proposal like that before? Oh, yeah, I remember, now. It was when I read what I typed almost two years ago when standards for a proposed SDV adapter were being discussed...


----------



## tiassa (Jul 2, 2008)

schwinn said:


> Not a bad idea at all. Of course, this means all our existing systems would need to become IP-capable, but at least it prevents the cable company, FIOS, sat vendors from making yet another box that we have to have.
> 
> Only thing is, the gateway would need to be provided free, or something like that... otherwise, isn't it just like having another cablebox?


I think the "Gateway" would replace the cable box, and the cable co would rent you a "channel tuner" or a DVR and maybe even a "internet connector" (aka Cable Modem/Router) or a "telephone adapter" depending on what services you subscribe to.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

schwinn said:


> Only thing is, the gateway would need to be provided free, or something like that... otherwise, isn't it just like having another cablebox?


DOCSIS already has the fundamental capabilities, so all that is needed is a single Cable Modem box. It doesn't have to be supplied by the CATV company, either.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

tiassa said:


> I think the "Gateway" would replace the cable box, and the cable co would rent you a "channel tuner" or a DVR and maybe even a "internet connector" (aka Cable Modem/Router) or a "telephone adapter" depending on what services you subscribe to.


I own a Wireless Cable Gateway, made by Motorola. It includes the DOCSIS modem, an 802.1G wireless bridge, and a 4 port switch. There are other units available with the application mix sliced and diced however the manufacturer wants to do it. Some include the VOIP telephone adapter, but no Wireless. Whatever. The point is, since DOCSIS, VOIP, and 802.1x are all standards, the manufacturers can package them however they want (mostly, by what is popular with consumers), and of course the CATV people can do the same.


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

The question I have (and the article in the OP mentions it) is DRM. I used to run MythTV, but had to drop that when I went to HD because it couldn't handle encrypted content. It would be great if the gateway solved this problem.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

JETarpon said:


> The question I have (and the article in the OP mentions it) is DRM. I used to run MythTV, but had to drop that when I went to HD because it couldn't handle encrypted content. It would be great if the gateway solved this problem.


The article mentions there are ways around this such as using DTCP-IP or some other DRM standard. If the Gateway device holds all the encryption keys and then hands them out to the host devices I don't see DRM being an issue since the host devices wouldn't be able to decode video without the gateway. Think of it as a 802.1X authentication server for cable TV.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 8, 2008)

Would the "gateway" necessarily be on the customer premises?


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> Would the "gateway" necessarily be on the customer premises?


If not we'd be in the same boat as now with our devices having to support two way communication over coax.


----------



## schwinn (Sep 18, 2004)

JETarpon said:


> The question I have (and the article in the OP mentions it) is DRM. I used to run MythTV, but had to drop that when I went to HD because it couldn't handle encrypted content. It would be great if the gateway solved this problem.


I agree, this would be excellent, as you wouldn't need tuners in the Mythbox anymore, or in any other TV/box.

Of course, with the broadcast and movie industry so concerned with "piracy" (emphasis on the quotes) they will prevent any unecnrypted feed coming along the lines to the device (ala HDCP). Any platform that can be "tapped" would be refused "qualification" to decode the stream, so MythTV will be immediately eliminated from contention. We'll be back to the "CableLabs approved" nonsense we have now which allows approved systems to run cablecards at all.

So, I wouldn't hold my breath for MythTV to be allowed again... a perfect example of why people SHOULD have been fighting against the DMCA and the existing nonsense, because now that it's "already there" they will leverge that to continue to lock down the content for no good reason. Reminds me of the "First they came" poem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...)

I don't want to get into the argument over piracy on this thread. My opinion is that it's not a factor - movies are usually pirated via screener copies or cameras at theaters, not over TV feeds. This means, TV piracy is a red herring. Besides which, the music industry has shown that if you charge a fair price, people will happily pay... so if piracy is flourishing, maybe they need to rethink their pricing or business model, instead of screwing the customers with locked-down and poorly implemented platforms.


----------



## jeremyz (Apr 12, 2006)

schwinn said:


> [snip]
> 
> I don't want to get into the argument over piracy on this thread. My opinion is that it's not a factor - movies are usually pirated via screener copies or cameras at theaters, not over TV feeds. This means, TV piracy is a red herring. Besides which, the music industry has shown that if you charge a fair price, people will happily pay... so if piracy is flourishing, maybe they need to rethink their pricing or business model, instead of screwing the customers with locked-down and poorly implemented platforms.


If you don't want to *get* into an argument about piracy, please don't *make* an incorrect argument about piracy. There's substantial piracy of TV-only content, so the notion that "TV piracy is a red herring" is total nonsense.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

So people who don't want a TiVo get stuck with TWO STB's...? That seems stupid.


----------



## jeremyz (Apr 12, 2006)

Adam1115 said:


> So people who don't want a TiVo get stuck with TWO STB's...? That seems stupid.


Once the technology gets settled, we can probably expect that manufacturers would just build the functions of the "non-gateway" box right into the tv. Frankly, we could probably expect them to build the functions of the tivo right into the tv at that point.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

jeremyz said:


> Once the technology gets settled, we can probably expect that manufacturers would just build the functions of the "non-gateway" box right into the tv. Frankly, we could probably expect them to build the functions of the tivo right into the tv at that point.


Somehow I don't think a Vizio DVR would be as good...


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> If not we'd be in the same boat as now with our devices having to support two way communication over coax.


Not necessarily. There's no technical reason a "gateway" couldn't be publicly accessible via the Internet. That said I doubt the cable companies would do that simply based on how the tuning adapter was implemented.

It's probably a good idea not to have it use the Internet though since not being able to watch TV simply because your Internet connection went down would not be a good thing.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> So people who don't want a TiVo get stuck with TWO STB's...? That seems stupid.


If I'm reading it right, technically it would only require one gateway per household, not per TV. Think of it as a DOCSIS modem for TV. It could probably be combined with existing modems similar to how phone service currently is.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

morac said:


> It's probably a good idea not to have it use the Internet though since not being able to watch TV simply because your Internet connection went down would not be a good thing.


That wouldn't have to be the case. For normal TV the box could retrieve a key that would enable content for two or three days at a time. Unless the cable company had a long outage you would never notice unless you tried to access an interactive service.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

morac said:


> If I'm reading it right, technically it would only require one gateway per household, not per TV. Think of it as a DOCSIS modem for TV. It could probably be combined with existing modems similar to how phone service currently is.


It'd be a bit more complicated than that if it includes satellite tv...


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

Adam1115 said:


> It'd be a bit more complicated than that if it includes satellite tv...


Why? The idea is it wouldn't.

The idea seems even better if you tie it in with a home server - TVs could have an interface which connects to the server/gateway.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

SullyND said:


> Why? The idea is it wouldn't.
> 
> The idea seems even better if you tie it in with a home server - TVs could have an interface which connects to the server/gateway.


Cable modems are two way. Satellite is not.

Also, I don't see how any current encryption techonology in use for cable could work for satellite. So this device will have to support Cable's technology and both DBS providers proprietary encryption, as well as any future DBS provider.


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

Adam1115 said:


> Also, I don't see how any current encryption techonology in use for cable could work for satellite. So this device will have to support Cable's technology and both DBS providers proprietary encryption, as well as any future DBS provider.


I don't think the gateway device is intended to work with any provider; It's the part you change out based on the provider. The communication from the gateway to the STB (Or TV, DVR, etc) is standardized. The STBs can then be independent of the provider.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

SullyND said:


> I don't think the gateway device is intended to work with any provider; It's the part you change out based on the provider. The communication from the gateway to the STB (Or TV, DVR, etc) is standardized. The STBs can then be independent of the provider.


Except that only benefits companies like TiVo.

DirecTV, Dish, and Cable all WANT to market their own STB so they can provide interactive content and keep prices down.

So they not only have to redesign all of their boxes, but they each have to design and implement this gateway box.

Why should they have to spend all this money just to help companies like TiVo compete with them?


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

Adam1115 said:


> Except that only benefits companies like TiVo.


Ultimately it benefits the consumer. In the long run I could see it hurting TiVo. Think of it as the new "Cable-Ready". I loved it when I didn't have to worry about having a box hooked up to my TV. With the gateway scenario Sony sells you a TV which interfaces with a DiSH gateway, a FIOS gateway, a DirecTV gateway, an AppleTV gateway, you name it, the TV doesn't care.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

SullyND said:


> Ultimately it benefits the consumer. In the long run I could see it hurting TiVo. Think of it as the new "Cable-Ready". I loved it when I didn't have to worry about having a box hooked up to my TV. With the gateway scenario Sony sells you a TV which interfaces with a DiSH gateway, a FIOS gateway, a DirecTV gateway, an AppleTV gateway, you name it, the TV doesn't care.


Until they raise rates and I can't afford cable or dish. Who do you think is going to pay for this? I don't want to pay for you to have a directv ready tv when I have a perfectly good DVR already.


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

Adam1115 said:


> Until they raise rates and I can't afford cable or dish. Who do you think is going to pay for this? I don't want to pay for you to have a directv ready tv when I have a perfectly good DVR already.


I don't think the FCC is going to swoop in and take your precious HR2x away.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

SullyND said:


> I don't think the FCC is going to swoop in and take your precious HR2x away.


Nope, just make them spend a ton of dough redesigning it to work with this new gateway, and more tons of dough to design the gateway. Who do you think they'll pass that cost onto?


----------



## Gene S (Feb 11, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> Except that only benefits companies like TiVo.
> 
> DirecTV, Dish, and Cable all WANT to market their own STB so they can provide interactive content and keep prices down.
> 
> ...


If they do this "gateway" thing right, their precious "interactive content " will be available on all consumer products designed to work with the gateway.

It's a win-win for them. They get their revenue stream, and they let the customer buy their own STB.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

Adam1115 said:


> Nope, just make them spend a ton of dough redesigning it to work with this new gateway, and more tons of dough to design the gateway. Who do you think they'll pass that cost onto?


Why should that be a cost that only Cable television providers bare? The days when DBS could argue for a waiver as "small companies fostering new technology" are over. If you don't agree with the Telecom Act of 1996 then you should write to your congressman.

Ultimately those costs are not that much different than what DTV absorbs today to continue developing their own proprietary technology. In fact, it may eventually lower their costs as the gateway technology and the components that enable it become commodities.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

Adam1115 said:


> Except that only benefits companies like TiVo.
> 
> DirecTV, Dish, and Cable all WANT to market their own STB so they can provide interactive content and keep prices down.
> 
> ...


Very encouraging. It only takes few weeks of using HR2X for the long time TiVo user to see the light.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

samo said:


> Very encouraging. It only takes few weeks of using HR2X for the long time TiVo user to see the light.


I like TiVo better. But $24/mo? ($12.95 + 9.95) And 10 channels of HD vs. 40+? And Cablecards were a freaking nightmare.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Adam1115 said:


> Nope, just make them spend a ton of dough redesigning it to work with this new gateway, and more tons of dough to design the gateway. Who do you think they'll pass that cost onto?


The mandate doesn't have to say that you have to make your own boxes work with the gateway (although it could), so there's no reason why they couldn't have the providers make gateways just to work with CE devices. Old and new STBs would all work, just like they do today on cable.

Of course then you'll get into the argument about making 'crippled' gateways and such, so you might end up with the FCC mandating their use for all new STBs anyway. But this only happens because the providers don't want to open up access.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Adam1115 said:


> I like TiVo better. But $24/mo? ($12.95 + 9.95) And 10 channels of HD vs. 40+? And Cablecards were a freaking nightmare.


YMMV. Comcast after the migration has tons of HD channels, and we all know that Tivos with lifetime subs will generally pay for themselves within 3 years.

But I agree that Cablecards are usually a big pain in the ass.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

slowbiscuit said:


> there's no reason why they couldn't have the providers make gateways just to work with CE devices.


There is a reason. IT COSTS MONEY. Who do you think pays the development costs to make the gateway???


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

Adam1115 said:


> I like TiVo better. But $24/mo? ($12.95 + 9.95) And 10 channels of HD vs. 40+? And Cablecards were a freaking nightmare.





slowbiscuit said:


> YMMV. Comcast after the migration has tons of HD channels, and we all know that Tivos with lifetime subs will generally pay for themselves within 3 years.
> 
> But I agree that Cablecards are usually a big pain in the ass.


I definitely agree with YMMV depending on the cable company. We have Comcast (ex-Adelphia) in a small town of 24,000 and we have 41 HD channels.

I disagree though that CableCards are a nightmare or pain. Our install was painless even though the installer had not installed them into a TiVo before (this was 2 years ago).

Scott


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

HerronScott said:


> I definitely agree with YMMV depending on the cable company. We have Comcast (ex-Adelphia) in a small town of 24,000 and we have 41 HD channels.
> 
> I disagree though that CableCards are a nightmare or pain. Our install was painless even though the installer had not installed them into a TiVo before (this was 2 years ago).


Yeah, I have 45 HD channels on Comcast, although I could use a couple more (FX, BBCA!). And my cablecard installation was...interesting (three years ago; again, the cable guy had never heard of Series 3 TiVos which were brand-new at the time, and had no clue what he was doing---it took him a while to figure it out but he managed it, and I'm sure the next Minneapolis Series 3 TiVo customer appreciated my experience ), but I haven't had a single problem since, including a move that was handled without issue remotely.

When my initial 3-year service expired, I went to one-year because I'm hoping that something next-generationy will be out by then. But I'm happy with my Series 3 and Comcast, although I probably shouldn't admit being happy with Comcast in public.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Adam1115 said:


> There is a reason. IT COSTS MONEY. Who do you think pays the development costs to make the gateway???


Well, duh. But you won't get open access without mandates, and open access is what is needed.

I should be able to buy a universal STB, DVR, TV, or PC interface to get any of the video services that I want to subscribe to. No rentals or 'leases' (ugh), no stupid lock-in with crappy boxes.

As mentioned above, the providers don't want this so it will never happen anyway.


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

Adam1115 said:


> There is a reason. IT COSTS MONEY. Who do you think pays the development costs to make the gateway???


I'm sure they'll saddle *you* with all the cost. 

It's not as if the providers are sitting on their hands and not working on their own development for what is "next".


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

HerronScott said:


> I disagree though that CableCards are a nightmare or pain. Our install was painless even though the installer had not installed them into a TiVo before (this was 2 years ago).


Again, YMMV. Might be smooth for some enlightened areas but all you have to do is look at the huge CC threads here to know the process is broken for many (including myself at initial install time 18 months ago).


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

I wonder how Comcast decides which HD channels to offer in different markets. We have FX in HD here (no BBCA though but I don't see that in DirecTV's Choice Xtra package either).

I too am happy with Comcast in our area for both cable and Internet service. Is there a support group for that? 

Scott


----------



## schwinn (Sep 18, 2004)

slowbiscuit said:


> The mandate doesn't have to say that you have to make your own boxes work with the gateway (although it could), so there's no reason why they couldn't have the providers make gateways just to work with CE devices. Old and new STBs would all work, just like they do today on cable.
> 
> Of course then you'll get into the argument about making 'crippled' gateways and such, so you might end up with the FCC mandating their use for all new STBs anyway. But this only happens because the providers don't want to open up access.


The second paragraph is exactly why the new system should be required to use the same "gateway" device. Otherwise, you can be darn sure they use that loophole to create crippled gateways for Tivo boxes (for example) while keeping better functionality within the cable box. Heck, the cablecos already did this with the existing cable boxes we have (which can do VOD, but our cablecard systems can't). Let's not make the same mistake again.

If they want to incorporate the hardware from the gateway within their STB, that's fine... but allowing them to do something different in their STB will bring us right back to where we are today.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> There is a reason. IT COSTS MONEY. Who do you think pays the development costs to make the gateway???


No one wants to pay it, of course, but the costs are trivial compared with the overall revenues to be gained, especially over time. The sticking point here isn't money, however, but the fact the CATV companies, the Consumer Electronics manufacturers, the CATV equipment manufacturers, and consumers all have fundamentally incompatible agendas. They are four small children, all arguing endlessly over the rules of the game they are about to play.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

slowbiscuit said:


> Well, duh. But you won't get open access without mandates, and open access is what is needed.


No it's not.

The FCC should be working to bring more competition by encouraging more competitors, not mandating what types of STB they use. Having a STB free TV or a TiVo does not represent the needs of the majority of Cable / Satellite customers who are perfectly happy with their setup. I've had to have a STB even with cable since the mid 90's to receive certain programming. All of these mandates are a failure, they need to focus on what they should be regulating, not micromanaging how I interface it to my TV.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

SullyND said:


> I'm sure they'll saddle *you* with all the cost.


Of course they will! They have to. The cost of all funding for anything is ultimately borne by the consumer. It's totally trivial compared to the hundreds of billions of dollars a year in revenue every year from CATV subscriptions and purchases of TV receivers and related devices, though.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

I wouldn't be surprised if DTV has already paid more lobbying to be excluded from these regulations than it would cost them to develop a solution.

Programming providers have one motive in all of this and it's not keeping consumer costs down. It's keeping consumers locked into their system so that they don't have to compete.

Congress set the agenda for a fully competitive market for pay television services in 1996. The FCC has failed to meet that goal after over a decade because they've given too much weight to the desires of interests who are opposed to that goal. 

Cable card has failed. Tru2way is a fresh coat of fail for cable card. It's time to trash the cable company model and look at the Internet. Would you want an Internet where you could only access your cable company and its partner web sites? Are you concerned that you paid the cost to develop a cable modem that provides access to an open network and not just a cable company proprietary network? Of course not.

It's time to ignore the NCTA and Sat companies and create a system based on open standards that puts everyone an even playing field.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> The FCC should be working to bring more competition by encouraging more competitors, not mandating what types of STB they use. Having a STB free TV or a TiVo does not represent the needs of the majority of Cable / Satellite customers who are perfectly happy with their setup. I've had to have a STB even with cable since the mid 90's to receive certain programming. All of these mandates are a failure, they need to focus on what they should be regulating, not micromanaging how I interface it to my TV.


Not all mandates are failure. Take the "Cable Ready TV" mandate. That worked very well until the switch to digital made it obsolete. The replacement "Digital Cable Ready TV" was a failure mainly do to DRM, not because of any technological related problems.

Competition doesn't work very well unless it is easy to switch from one video provider to another. Sure you can rent a box for each TV you have, but many people don't want to do that which is why basic cable is so popular.

Think of it this way. If you had to buy a new TV every time you switched video providers would that make any sense? If not for the current standards that would be the case.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Adam1115 said:


> The FCC should be working to bring more competition by encouraging more competitors, not mandating what types of STB they use.


Sounds good but the reality is way different - so how do I get another cable company to compete with Comcast in the ATL? It costs a bazillion dollars to install the infrastructure, we don't need more cables strung, and in the end the cost to the consumer will be the same as will the lock-in (see: U-Verse, FIOS).

Mandating universal access is a far cheaper and easier solution, which is exactly why it won't be implemented.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

slowbiscuit said:


> Sounds good but the reality is way different - so how do I get another cable company to compete with Comcast in the ATL? It costs a bazillion dollars to install the infrastructure, we don't need more cables strung, and in the end the cost to the consumer will be the same as will the lock-in (see: U-Verse, FIOS).
> 
> Mandating universal access is a far cheaper and easier solution, which is exactly why it won't be implemented.


It doesn't cost a bazillion dollars.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

slowbiscuit said:


> in the end the cost to the consumer will be the same as will the lock-in (see: U-Verse, FIOS).
> 
> Mandating universal access is a far cheaper and easier solution, which is exactly why it won't be implemented.


I'm just curious, how much saving do you expect from competition? Comcast makes about 10% profit on revenue. Do expect competition to make less profit? Do you expect competition to be like dot.com or TiVo and subsidize your TV programming with Wall Street money?
Even if competition uses different technology or delivery method, why would you expect cost to the consumer to be significantly less?


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

samo said:


> I'm just curious, how much saving do you expect from competition? Comcast makes about 10% profit on revenue.


Comcast must have very high revenue then since it seems almost like clockwork that they have quarterly record high profits. Of course if Comcast is the only TV service available in an area then it's easy to see how that works.

The way most competitive businesses profits work is on volume. The business might not get a lot of profit per sale (possibly even less than 1%), but when you total all the sales it add up. Cable companies tend to not have any real competition in many areas so they can pretty much charge what they want. 10 cents on the dollar is a very high profit margin for most businesses.

Think of it this way. Say the only store you could shop at was Best Buy (no Internet stores or anything else). Since Best Buy knows you don't have a choice, they decide to set profit margins at 10%. You'd see the cost of everything go up.

It works similar with TV providers. Officially prices may not be lower, but you'll get better deals in areas with competition than without.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Adam1115 said:


> It doesn't cost a bazillion dollars.


 I want some of what you're smoking. It is VERY expensive to put in the infrastructure to deliver wired video access.

If it's so cheap to do, why isn't U-Verse widely available? Or FIOS?


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

slowbiscuit said:


> I want some of what you're smoking. It is VERY expensive to put in the infrastructure to deliver wired video access.
> 
> If it's so cheap to do, why isn't U-Verse widely available? Or FIOS?


Fios is fiber, so that's a little different.

Yea, it's expensive, not because running wire is all that expensive. It's because negotiating franchise agreements with umpteen communities is a PITA. That's exactly the problem FIOS has had, and if it were made easier their could be a lot of competition.

Also we don't necessarily need to run cable to each house. Make the law that I own the cable from my house to the pedestal. If another company sets up a new pedistal, they just move my line to them. There's not much sense in 2 or 3 cable lines running to EACH HOUSE when each person is only going to subscribe to one provider.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Gene S said:


> ...It's a win-win for them. They get their revenue stream, and they let the customer buy their own STB.


But they LOSE the revenue stream that is their bread and butter: $8/ month per outlet and $10 / month per HD DVR. There are thousands and thousands of Joe Sixpacks quietly paying $36 a month for no content that costs the cableco nothing.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Adam1115 said:


> Also we don't necessarily need to run cable to each house. Make the law that I own the cable from my house to the pedestal.


So you don't want the FCC to mandate open access with existing providers (i.e., satellite), but it's perfectly ok to have them confiscate the cable infrastructure that the cableCos paid to install (or buy) so someone else can come in and ride the pipes on the cheap.

I get it now.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

slowbiscuit said:


> So you don't want the FCC to mandate open access with existing providers (i.e., satellite), but it's perfectly ok to have them confiscate the cable infrastructure that the cableCos paid to install (or buy) so someone else can come in and ride the pipes on the cheap.
> 
> I get it now.


Somehow this is done with telephone poles that are rented by their owners to other providers that need the poles to provide a service. The poles may be owned by the electric co., the telephone co. or others.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

slowbiscuit said:


> So you don't want the FCC to mandate open access with existing providers (i.e., satellite), but it's perfectly ok to have them confiscate the cable infrastructure that the cableCos paid to install (or buy) so someone else can come in and ride the pipes on the cheap.
> 
> I get it now.


I want exactly what people in FiOS areas have - competition. Competition keeps everybody on their toes, and both the telcos and cable up the ante.

Only when Verizon started stringing FiOS did we see the scramble by cable companies to deploy things like DOCSIS3, up the bandwidth to 1GHz in some areas and roll out more HD channels. Otherwise we'd be stuck with 1.5Mbps internet and maybe four or five HD channels.

I also want to use my own equipment, like we were able to in the 90s.

I also want the open access to satellite networks. Who says we can't chew gum and walk at the same time?

Maybe it's too late now to mandate sharing of the existing networks, but it should be made easier for new players in the market to deploy a network.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

morac said:


> 10 cents on the dollar is a very high profit margin for most businesses.


Agree. Comcast makes healthy profit. But my point was that if you make them non-profit like TiVO, you still will save only 10% of your bill.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

netringer said:


> But they LOSE the revenue stream that is their bread and butter: $8/ month per outlet and $10 / month per HD DVR. There are thousands and thousands of Joe Sixpacks quietly paying $36 a month for no content that costs the cableco nothing.


Joe Sixpack doesn't have an account here, but he asked me to tell you that he laughs at elitists who pay $200 upfront for extra TiVo HD and $10/month for extra program guide that costs TiVo nothing.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

slowbiscuit said:


> YMMV. Comcast after the migration has tons of HD channels, and we all know that Tivos with lifetime subs will generally pay for themselves within 3 years.
> 
> But I agree that Cablecards are usually a big pain in the ass.


Apart from SDV, I don't see how cablecards by themselves are a "big pain in the ass."

Both of mine were installed and authorized first shot by two contractors who were sent by the company. Completely painless, but they just put in the cards and called the office. I did the driving (operating the tivo menus to setup the cards and test channels)

I think that cablecard issue are a symptom of a bigger problem within the cable industry. Even with company supplied cable boxes many people have had problems. With cablevision I had one SA box fail completely, but it was just before we moved so I just disconnected it and returned it, didn't bother to have them fix it (and wasn't charged for it either).

Our current provider's supplied motorola box doesn't work with the video on demand, gives some weird error code. I have to call them and ask them to fix it. I just noticed this a couple days ago.

So by no means are equipment problems unique to cablecards. I have a feeling that the cable companies just like to tell people that because it's the path of least resistance.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

Raj said:


> I want exactly what people in FiOS areas have ...
> I also want to use my own equipment, like we were able to in the 90s.
> I also want the open access to satellite networks.


And me and Joe Sixpack want FCC and government to leave things alone. We want government to concentrate on creating jobs. We don't really care who makes money on delivering our entertainment and we are perfectly OK with the boxes we get from the providers.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

slowbiscuit said:


> So you don't want the FCC to mandate open access with existing providers (i.e., satellite), but it's perfectly ok to have them confiscate the cable infrastructure that the cableCos paid to install (or buy) so someone else can come in and ride the pipes on the cheap.
> 
> I get it now.


No you don't. When comcast runs a line through my property to my house it's my line. I'm not talking about their cable on an easement they run for the subdivision. I'm talking about the single RG6 cable from their pedestal they ran to service my house with cabletv. I'm free to rip that out of the ground should I choose. They might charge me to re-run it if I ever want cable again...

Satellite already does this. Already have a dish network dish on your house? DirecTV may re-use the cable that Dish 'paid to install'.

Who pays to run cable in your yard or in your house is not relevant. I never said they should have to open up the lines on the pole. Another provider should be able to plop another pedestal to serve a subdivision.



samo said:


> And me and Joe Sixpack want FCC and government to leave things alone. We want government to concentrate on creating jobs. We don't really care who makes money on delivering our entertainment and we are perfectly OK with the boxes we get from the providers.


:up:


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

samo said:


> And me *I* and Joe Sixpack want FCC and government to leave things alone. We *I* want government to concentrate on creating jobs. We *I* don't really care who makes money on delivering our entertainment and we are *I am* perfectly OK with the boxes we *I* get from the providers.


FYP.
Way to embellish your argument. 
You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but I don't think you have enough information to speak for "Joe Sixpack".


----------



## Gene S (Feb 11, 2003)

netringer said:


> But they LOSE the revenue stream that is their bread and butter: $8/ month per outlet and $10 / month per HD DVR. There are thousands and thousands of Joe Sixpacks quietly paying $36 a month for no content that costs the cableco nothing.


It's been about 2 years since I've really dug my teeth into this subject, but... Last I heard PPV and VOD were their "bread & butter." That hardware is expensive, doesn't matter how many they get in "bulk."
This gateway will allow anyone to go down to Wal-Mart, buy the STB themselves, and buy PPV from the cable company.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

steve614 said:


> FYP.
> Way to embellish your argument.
> You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but I don't think you have enough information to speak for "Joe Sixpack".


Just because *you* don't think that I have enough information to speak for Joe, doesn't give you any right to butcher my post and put different meaning into it. Joe is my neighbor, my friend and my client. I know exactly what he thinks and does because I talk with him all the time. I can't get him a mortgage anymore because his job was shipped to China and his wife's job was shipped to India. $750B Obama promised to get him a job for most part went to the pockets of the people who sent his job to China in a first place.
He didn't care about TiVo or separable security when he had a job. He certainly doesn't care about gateway that would allow him to buy a TiVo or another box just to watch TV now.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

samo said:


> And me and Joe Sixpack want FCC and government to leave things alone. We want government to concentrate on creating jobs. We don't really care who makes money on delivering our entertainment and we are perfectly OK with the boxes we get from the providers.


Although this is veering off topic, opening up the market does have the potential to create jobs, and encourage people to open small businesses.

Also, entertainment is just one portion of it. With convergence the TV has gone beyond being the idiot box.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

samo said:


> Just because *you* don't think that I have enough information to speak for Joe, doesn't give you any right to butcher my post and put different meaning into it. Joe is my neighbor, my friend and my client. I know exactly what he thinks and does because I talk with him all the time. I can't get him a mortgage anymore because his job was shipped to China and his wife's job was shipped to India. $750B Obama promised to get him a job for most part went to the pockets of the people who sent his job to China in a first place.
> He didn't care about TiVo or separable security when he had a job. He certainly doesn't care about gateway that would allow him to buy a TiVo or another box just to watch TV now.


Well the "joe sixpacks" I talk to are tired of the crappy DVRs that are 1/3 full when you record one sporting event, or that crash and reboot on a regular basis, miss recordings, have slow menus and are boring and unintuitive.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

samo said:


> Just because *you* don't think that I have enough information to speak for Joe, doesn't give you any right to butcher my post and put different meaning into it.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

steve614 said:


> FYP.
> Way to embellish your argument.
> You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but I don't think you have enough information to speak for "Joe Sixpack".


Really? How many cable boxes do you think are deployed vs. third party boxes? Hint: the huge vast majority of cable customers don't have a TiVo or anything else.



Raj said:


> Well the "joe sixpacks" I talk to are tired of the crappy DVRs that are 1/3 full when you record one sporting event, or that crash and reboot on a regular basis, miss recordings, have slow menus and are boring and unintuitive.


Really? The majority of cable implementations don't even have DVR's, so I don't think you're talking to 'joe sixpacks'.

Joe sixpack is an 'average cable user'. The average cable user has a SD STB. No HD. No DVR. Those are higher end users.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

samo said:


> Joe Sixpack doesn't have an account here, but he asked me to tell you that he laughs at elitists who pay $200 upfront for extra TiVo HD and $10/month for extra program guide that costs TiVo nothing.


Ahhh, but the program guide DOES cost TiVo something, as does the subcontracted dial-up access.

But point taken. 

What Joe Sixpack doesn't know is there's a DVR UI that doesn't suck.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Adam1115 said:


> No you don't. When comcast runs a line through my property to my house it's my line. I'm not talking about their cable on an easement they run for the subdivision. I'm talking about the single RG6 cable from their pedestal they ran to service my house with cabletv. I'm free to rip that out of the ground should I choose. They might charge me to re-run it if I ever want cable again...
> 
> Satellite already does this. Already have a dish network dish on your house? DirecTV may re-use the cable that Dish 'paid to install'.
> 
> Who pays to run cable in your yard or in your house is not relevant. I never said they should have to open up the lines on the pole. Another provider should be able to plop another pedestal to serve a subdivision.


No, it's not your line, just like you don't own or maintain the telco or power line to your house. If you want to have the gov't say that you can take it, then I guess that's one position to take, but it's just another mandate, no different than having all providers open access.

Regardless, the point I made originally is the same - whether you own the cable in your yard or not, it still costs a bazillion dollars to install and maintain the infrastructure to deliver that video to your house. Comcast et al are not going to let someone else use the lines on the poles and in the ground, so how is a competitor going to get it to 'your' line? Giving you the cable in your yard is not going to promote competition as long as those high barriers to entry exist.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Raj said:


> I want exactly what people in FiOS areas have - competition. Competition keeps everybody on their toes, and both the telcos and cable up the ante.
> 
> Maybe it's too late now to mandate sharing of the existing networks, but it should be made easier for new players in the market to deploy a network.


I agree, but any provider can come to Cobb County and talk to my local franchise authority about running a cable to my neighborhood. In fact, I've been to a local meeting run by them for cable issues and they've said that the best way to get Comcast to act faster would be if another provider came in. But none has in the past decade since my local cableCo was bought out by Comcast.
U-Verse started in the ATL a couple of years ago, but is still not available at my place and is spreading at a snail's pace. FIOS doesn't run here, but it could, etc.

Since there's nothing stopping another provider from coming here except return on investment, how do you propose that it be made easier for new players to deploy a network? Someone has to pay the bazillion dollars that it takes to do that, a point adam1115 fails to acknowledge (and who doesn't say how it would happen on the cheap). If it was so cheap and easy to do, it would already be here, because the gov't is not standing in the way in my county.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

slowbiscuit said:


> No, it's not your line, just like you don't own or maintain the telco or power line to your house. If you want to have the gov't say that you can take it, then I guess that's one position to take, but it's just another mandate, no different than having all providers open access.
> 
> Regardless, the point I made originally is the same - whether you own the cable in your yard or not, it still costs a bazillion dollars to install and maintain the infrastructure to deliver that video to your house. Comcast et al are not going to let someone else use the lines on the poles and in the ground, so how is a competitor going to get it to 'your' line? Giving you the cable in your yard is not going to promote competition as long as those high barriers to entry exist.


That's exactly what I was saying. My position is that you should be able to re-use the dropline from your house to the pedestal for another provider. Stealing is a ridiculous term. I've been charged several hundreds of dollars to connect to the cable system on houses that had never had cable. Well you aren't allowed to mess with the underground wiring (yes, I stand corrected), it's not like the cable companies are getting screwed.

In my subdivision, qwest brings a fiber optic line to a central box. From there they would have to run cable to the pedestals on each street to service each home. I don't see why a competing company couldn't do the same thing.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> Really? The majority of cable implementations don't even have DVR's, so I don't think you're talking to 'joe sixpacks'.
> 
> Joe sixpack is an 'average cable user'. The average cable user has a SD STB. No HD. No DVR. Those are higher end users.


Does time stand still in your universe?

Yes the currently majority of TV households don't have a DVR, but in about two years that won't be the case. In mid 2008, 1/4 of TV watching households had a DVR. That number jumped to 1/3 a year later. Analysts say DVR usage will pass the 50% mark by 2011 or 2012. There's a similar trend with HDTVs and service, with about 43% of households owning a HTV, though admittedly only 2/3 of HDTV owners actually get HD programming.

The time to start thinking about opening up the interface to competition is not once the majority of TV watchers have a cable provided HD box or DVR because by that point it will be too late as the cable company equipments will become the standard. Look how long it took for the cableCARD standard to become reality. The soon they start working on this the better.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Raj said:


> Apart from SDV, I don't see how cablecards by themselves are a "big pain in the ass."


They are a big PITA because rule #1 for most cable company technicians I've had in my home or on the phone is to find a relevant piece of equipment that didn't come from the cable company, and blame whatever problem there might be on that.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

morac said:


> Does time stand still in your universe?
> 
> Yes the currently majority of TV households don't have a DVR, but in about two years that won't be the case. In mid 2008, 1/4 of TV watching households had a DVR. That number jumped to 1/3 a year later. Analysts say DVR usage will pass the 50% mark by 2011 or 2012. There's a similar trend with HDTVs and service, with about 43% of households owning a HTV, though admittedly only 2/3 of HDTV owners actually get HD programming.
> 
> The time to start thinking about opening up the interface to competition is not once the majority of TV watchers have a cable provided HD box or DVR because by that point it will be too late as the cable company equipments will become the standard. Look how long it took for the cableCARD standard to become reality. The soon they start working on this the better.


The discussion was 'why should the majority of customers have to pay for a gateway that a minority will use', since the cost will be passed to customers.

Am I saying there won't be more DVR's? Of course there will. And most of them will come from the provider as they will be cheaper.

Third party STB's will *NEVER* be used by the majority of users. People will simply opt for the cheaper box. That's not because TiVo isn't better, it just isn't at the top of everyones priority list. Some people don't care about TV as much as the TiVo forum users do.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

Adam1115 said:


> My position is that you should be able to re-use the dropline from your house to the pedestal for another provider.


You keep focusing on the "savings" possible for reuse of the dropline, but that's totally absurd. If you add up Comcast's expenses for an overall deployment, the cost of 50' of RG-6 that they run from the curb to the house is laughably insignificant, probably less than 0.01% of the total expenditure.

Plus, your scheme doesn't work in general. Verizon opted to run fiber to the premises, not to the curb. They wouldn't want to reuse Comcast's RG-6 even if you paid them to. Their solution is far far better.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

Adam1115 said:


> Third party STB's will *NEVER* be used by the majority of users. People will simply opt for the cheaper box.


I agree, but it just demonstrates how short sighted Joe Sixpack is.



> That's not because TiVo isn't better, it just isn't at the top of everyones priority list. Some people don't care about TV as much as the TiVo forum users do.


If you define "care about TV" as the number of hours/week that people watch TV, then the vast majority of Americans care a lot. After sleep and work, watching TV is probably the third biggest time sink in most people's lives. And yet they're not willing to spend a few dollars to dramatically improve that experience? I know *multi-millionaires* who are unwilling to pay an extra $10/mo to rent a DVR instead of an STB. But maybe that's how they got rich in the first place.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> Third party STB's will *NEVER* be used by the majority of users. People will simply opt for the cheaper box. That's not because TiVo isn't better, it just isn't at the top of everyones priority list. Some people don't care about TV as much as the TiVo forum users do.


And if the Government hadn't broke up AT&T Joe Sixpack would still be getting his phone from AT&T and probably be happy with pulse dialing and lousy service right?

And of course Joe Sixpack never buys a new TV right? After all TVs cost way more than a 3rd party DVR does. TV manufactures must be going out of business left and right.

I don't know about Joe Sixpack, but personally I've saved more money by purchasing a TiVo S3 with lifetime service (which also has resell value) than I would have paid renting a DVR from the cable company. If I had bought a TiVo HD, I'd be in even better shape since not only would the initial purchase price be cheaper, but it only requires one CableCARD which would make the card rental free instead of the $1.50 a month I'm paying now.

Joe Sixpack buys TVs. Joe Sixpack buys Wiis, PS3s and XBoxes. The only reason Joe Sixpack doesn't buy a 3rd party DVR is that the cable companies have brainwashed Joe into thinking their DVR is better than what's out there. I've actually had a cable support person call TiVo inferior to their own product.

Also this isn't just about TiVo. Say Joe SixPack could plug in his brand new "gateway" TV and simply get TV service no matter what the provider? Or say Joe Sixpack could buy a PS3 or XBox that also worked as a DVR. Are you telling me Joe wouldn't want something like that? Joe SixPack was one of the reasons (analog) cable ready TVs came into being.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

samo said:


> Joe Sixpack doesn't have an account here, but he asked me to tell you that he laughs at elitists who pay $200 upfront for extra TiVo HD and $10/month for extra program guide that costs TiVo nothing.


How would he feel about paying $200 upfront to "lease" an extra DTV DVR and $6 a month lease fee for a box that he effectively already paid for?

And where does he think TiVo gets their listings for from for free?


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

Adam1115 said:


> Third party STB's will *NEVER* be used by the majority of users. People will simply opt for the cheaper box. That's not because TiVo isn't better, it just isn't at the top of everyones priority list. Some people don't care about TV as much as the TiVo forum users do.


If everyone had equal access to provide equipment that can access cable services most people would just buy a TV, plug it into the cable and be rid of their cable box - just like they did before they were forced to start leasing cable boxes.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

samo said:


> Just because *you* don't think that I have enough information to speak for Joe, doesn't give you any right to butcher my post and put different meaning into it. Joe is my neighbor, my friend and my client. I know exactly what he thinks and does because I talk with him all the time.


When you only listen to people who agree with you it's only natural to think that everyone does.

Of course it all depends on how you pose the question. If you ask most people if they would like to be able to buy a TV off the shelf, plug it into their cable, and have everything work without having to lease a cable box they would tell you, yes.

The people who actually do speak for Joe Sixpack - the U.S. Congress - have decreed that there _will_ be a competitive market for pay television services and equipment. Period. Whether you agree that's needed or fair or whatever else is irrelevant.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

nrc said:


> If everyone had equal access to provide equipment that can access cable services most people would just buy a TV, plug it into the cable and be rid of their cable box - just like they did before they were forced to start leasing cable boxes.


Forced? When could you plug in a TV and get ALL cable services, including premium channels, the 70's?

People want services like premium channels, on-demand, etc. As soon as their TV supports it, new services will be out that doesn't work without a STB.

The STB is not going away.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

nrc said:


> How would he feel about paying $200 upfront to "lease" an extra DTV DVR and $6 a month lease fee for a box that he effectively already paid for?


It is $5 /month and it is a fee that re-names a mirror fee (additional outlet fee in cable companies lingo), but it is not relevant. I bet Joe doesn't like it either. This is why he leases cable company boxes.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

nrc said:


> When you only listen to people who agree with you it's only natural to think that everyone does.
> 
> Of course it all depends on how you pose the question.


Couldn't agree more. What do you think the answer would be if you asked them if they would like to pay more money for TV and/or buy their own DVR to be be able to connect to the cable without a cable box?


> The people who actually do speak for Joe Sixpack - the U.S. Congress - have decreed that there _will_ be a competitive market for pay television services and equipment. Period. Whether you agree that's needed or fair or whatever else is irrelevant.


And you are right again. These people already decided that DBS is exempt and whether you agree that it is fair is irrelevant.
Of course the same people who suppose to speak for Joe decided that it will be good for him to ship his job to China, so I'm not so sure how smart these people are and how well their decisions represent what Joe really wants.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

samo said:


> ...Of course the same people who suppose to speak for Joe decided that it will be good for him to ship his job to China, so I'm not so sure how smart these people are and how well their decisions represent what Joe really wants.


Was it not Joe that put those people there to speak for him?


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

Adam1115 said:


> Forced? When could you plug in a TV and get ALL cable services, including premium channels, the 70's?
> 
> People want services like premium channels, on-demand, etc. As soon as their TV supports it, new services will be out that doesn't work without a STB.
> 
> The STB is not going away.


I don't want all premium channels or ondemand. I want "expanded basic" and HD channels. As long as I can get the local channels, Fox News, CNN, Discovery, Animal Planet, NatGeo, Science Channel, Comedy Central, HGTV, local weather and local news (News 12) I'm fine.

I haven't had movie channels since around 2002 and I don't miss them.

I don't think everyone wants ALL features to work. A decent set of channels would be nice. Two way services such as ondemand would be nice, and there's little reason technically why they can't happen, other than a tug of war over who wants to control the end user experience. But most people would be happy with "expanded basic" (comcast terminology).


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

Adam1115 said:


> Really? The majority of cable implementations don't even have DVR's, so I don't think you're talking to 'joe sixpacks'.
> 
> Joe sixpack is an 'average cable user'. The average cable user has a SD STB. No HD. No DVR. Those are higher end users.


With the $399/$699 HDTV at Walmart, that is rapidly changing. The local cableco ran out of HD boxes and had to hire additional installers because the demand for HD installs surged after black friday and during the holiday season.

SDTV is pretty much going to be history in a few years. Even some of the more frugal people I know are getting Blu-ray Disc players and HDTVs.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

Adam1115 said:


> Who pays to run cable in your yard or in your house is not relevant. I never said they should have to open up the lines on the pole. Another provider should be able to plop another pedestal to serve a subdivision.


I don't think there is anything preventing that from happening at the current time, other than companies simply not wanting to spend the money build out a whole new network from scratch. In some markets there are overbuilders (RCN and others) and telcos providing TV service via fiber or VDSL (Verizon, AT&T, Embarq etc).

The dropline is actually a pretty trivial component of the overall network, and may not even be usable across providers (fiber optic vs cable vs vdsl).


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

Adam1115 said:


> Fios is fiber, so that's a little different.
> 
> Yea, it's expensive, not because running wire is all that expensive. It's because negotiating franchise agreements with umpteen communities is a PITA. That's exactly the problem FIOS has had, and if it were made easier their could be a lot of competition.
> 
> Also we don't necessarily need to run cable to each house. Make the law that I own the cable from my house to the pedestal. If another company sets up a new pedistal, they just move my line to them. There's not much sense in 2 or 3 cable lines running to EACH HOUSE when each person is only going to subscribe to one provider.


Cable companies are already halfway fiber (hybrid fiber coax). The coax component is just "last mile" in many places. FiOS is expensive for sure, but cable isn't cheap either. For the cable plant itself, apart from the coax you have nodes (fiber to coax) amps, splitters, taps. All of those cost money. The cable alone can run over $3/foot. There's no way around this due to signal attenuation.

Then you have the cost of the headend, programming costs, staff etc.

Cable is a pretty capital intensive business which is why many don't get into it.

The drop to your house is a pretty small part of the whole equation.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

nrc said:


> How would he feel about paying $200 upfront to "lease" an extra DTV DVR and $6 a month lease fee for a box that he effectively already paid for?


I just signed up for DirecTV, I didn't pay a penny for my HD-DVR.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Raj said:


> I don't want all premium channels or ondemand. I want "expanded basic" and HD channels. As long as I can get the local channels, Fox News, CNN, Discovery, Animal Planet, NatGeo, Science Channel, Comedy Central, HGTV, local weather and local news (News 12) I'm fine.
> 
> I haven't had movie channels since around 2002 and I don't miss them.
> 
> I don't think everyone wants ALL features to work. A decent set of channels would be nice. Two way services such as ondemand would be nice, and there's little reason technically why they can't happen, other than a tug of war over who wants to control the end user experience. But most people would be happy with "expanded basic" (comcast terminology).


Good for you! But were going to redesign the way cable and satellite works but only deliver basic cable?? 

If we're spending all this money and legislating changes to get rid of the STB, let's get rid of it! Oh, but we can't. Because these companies add competing features every year and there's no way to standardize it.



Raj said:


> I don't think there is anything preventing that from happening at the current time, other than companies simply not wanting to spend the money build out a whole new network from scratch. In some markets there are overbuilders (RCN and others) and telcos providing TV service via fiber or VDSL (Verizon, AT&T, Embarq etc).


My original point was that it is VERY difficult to obtain franchise agreements in each town or village you want to sell cable to. That process needs to be simplified to make way for new cable companies. It's something productive the FCC could be working on vs. mandating what kind of set top boxes we use.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Getting franchise agreements is often a problem because AT&T et al just want to cherry-pick the best customers and bypass everyone else, and local gov'ts don't like that.

But it doesn't change the fact that even if they agree to serve all customers, it costs a bunch of money for them to do so. So while you may want more competition (as do we all), it's basically a pipe dream right now no matter how easy you make it for someone else to come in.

It would be FAR cheaper and easier to simply mandate that all providers should provide open access, just like they do today (badly) with Cablecard. No exemptions.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

samo said:


> Couldn't agree more. What do you think the answer would be if you asked them if they would like to pay more money for TV and/or buy their own DVR to be be able to connect to the cable without a cable box?


Why would millions of people pay for mobile phones when they can get one for free from their cable company? People will pay extra for features, functionality, or even just a brand name. The only thing preventing that in the set-top box market is the ability to conveniently plug a box in and have confidence that it will work.



> And you are right again. These people already decided that DBS is exempt and whether you agree that it is fair is irrelevant.


The telecom act exempted new technology and at the time the FCC reasonably placed DBS in that category. DBS is now mature technology and shouldn't be exempted from any new or updated regulations intended to implement the Act.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

Adam1115 said:


> I just signed up for DirecTV, I didn't pay a penny for my HD-DVR.


Post was in reference to adding an extra HD DVR. Standard upfront lease cost for an extra HD DVR is $199.


----------



## mntvjunkie (May 13, 2009)

Adam1115 said:


> No it's not.
> 
> The FCC should be working to bring more competition by encouraging more competitors, not mandating what types of STB they use. Having a STB free TV or a TiVo does not represent the needs of the majority of Cable / Satellite customers who are perfectly happy with their setup. I've had to have a STB even with cable since the mid 90's to receive certain programming. All of these mandates are a failure, they need to focus on what they should be regulating, not micromanaging how I interface it to my TV.


How you cannot see the benefit to the consumer is beyond me. If cable companies had it their way, then you would have NO choice AT ALL as to how you get to recieve your content. If you're happy paying $20 per month for a cable box (thats what our CC charges for a DVR) that's fine, but I'd rather see something where I am allowed to purchase a box to do the same thing for myself. Because, guess what? Life expectancy on these boxes is probably at least 4 years. In that 4 years time, I would either have "leased" the box at a cost of $960, or I would have bought the box at a cost of $200.

If cable wasn't regulated, or mandated, to do things like CableCards, they wouldn't. Or if they did, they would charge alot more than they are already doing now. Cable cards can usually be had for less than $5 a month per card. Take away the mandates, and they could charge $20 or more. Or, they could just say "hey, too bad, we aren't offering that you use our box or you don't get cable".

And, I know the argument is that they have to absorb or pass on those costs. Fine, I'm already paying you for the content and privelage to recieve the content, if you want my business then you should absorb the cost of making the technology available for me.


----------



## mntvjunkie (May 13, 2009)

lrhorer said:


> Of course they will! They have to. The cost of all funding for anything is ultimately borne by the consumer. It's totally trivial compared to the hundreds of billions of dollars a year in revenue every year from CATV subscriptions and purchases of TV receivers and related devices, though.


Exactly. They pass on ALL costs to the consumer. I have zero interest in Pay Per View or On Demand, because I can't use it with my Tivo, yet the cost to develop those technologies, maintain those technologies, etc is passed on to me.

Same is true of programming costs. I'm PAYING for all the channels I get, regardless of whether I have an interest in watching them. I'm paying for the development of VOIP and Cable Internet whether I like it or not. And I'm funding public access and CSPAN whether I want to or not. At least in funding an open standard, it might one day help me to get away from leasing something at 4X or more market cost and instead allow me to buy it and take on the burden of maintaining it myself.

Going the other way, if we didn't have cable cards (cost passed on to consumer) I would have no choice but to use the cable company's DVR at a monthly cost of nearly $20, and it would only work half the time. Or, if the modem standard were locked down the way video is, I would not be able to purchase a modem, instead I would have to pay $5 a month for one.

Where else are you forced into leasing? I can buy my TV, imagine if I had to lease it at, say $100 a month. After 4 years, I've paid for it twice (assuming it retails at $2400). A cable modem retails for around $90, yet the cable company charges me $5 a month for one. I've had it now for two years, so now I am PURE profit to the cable company.


----------



## mntvjunkie (May 13, 2009)

Adam1115 said:


> The discussion was 'why should the majority of customers have to pay for a gateway that a minority will use', since the cost will be passed to customers.
> 
> Am I saying there won't be more DVR's? Of course there will. And most of them will come from the provider as they will be cheaper.
> 
> Third party STB's will *NEVER* be used by the majority of users. People will simply opt for the cheaper box. That's not because TiVo isn't better, it just isn't at the top of everyones priority list. Some people don't care about TV as much as the TiVo forum users do.


Yes, they will always opt for the cheapest box. But, with an open standard, that would allow competition in such a way that manufacturers would want to make different level boxes for different users. So, it helps us Tivo users in that we get to pay more for a premium, but it also helps people who JUST want to watch TV, and don't need all the extra bells and whistles. Say you could add the reception part of the technology into the actual TV itself. Now, instead of needing an extra remote, and having to power on an extra component, you can go back to the cable ready days of just hooking up your TV and hitting scan.

Today, if you have 5 TV's in your house (because you have a family, for example) you pay a monthly fee for each box. But if you only needed one box that could interface with all TV's and you could buy the boxes for a one time charge, it would save families tons of money, and also allow for more revenue from the cable company (since ALL TV's will be able to access pay per view and on-demand).


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

mntvjunkie said:


> How you cannot see the benefit to the consumer is beyond me. If cable companies had it their way, then you would have NO choice AT ALL as to how you get to recieve your content. If you're happy paying $20 per month for a cable box (thats what our CC charges for a DVR) that's fine, but I'd rather see something where I am allowed to purchase a box to do the same thing for myself. Because, guess what? Life expectancy on these boxes is probably at least 4 years. In that 4 years time, I would either have "leased" the box at a cost of $960, or I would have bought the box at a cost of $200.


Sure it will benefit some consumers. It will not benefit others who don't wish to buy their own box.

More importantly, it won't work, and it doesn't need to be mandated. The way to give consumers more choice is to have MORE COMPETITION. Don't like the cable DVR? Switch to DirecTV or Dish. Enough people do? They improve their offerings.



Bai Shen said:


> If cable wasn't regulated, or mandated, to do things like CableCards, they wouldn't.


I know. And our cable bills would be less if they didn't. Sure, you have TiVo now. How many years and how much money was spent to develop cablecards. It wasn't done for TiVo, it was done for STB free TV's. How many cablecard TV's do you see on the market??

This would also be a failure. You'll never get all cable and satellite to agree on one standard that will be flexible enough to support any future offerings. You'll end up with the same thing as cablecards. A technology that works for a very small amount of consumers who don't want all of the features available on the proprietary STB.



Bai Shen said:


> And, I know the argument is that they have to absorb or pass on those costs. Fine, I'm already paying you for the content and privelage to recieve the content, if you want my business then you should absorb the cost of making the technology available for me.


But they don't. You already said, without government FORCING them to, they wouldn't. So the majority of users that don't have TiVo or CableCard TV's have had rate hikes so you can have your TiVo.


----------



## mntvjunkie (May 13, 2009)

Adam1115 said:


> Sure it will benefit some consumers. It will not benefit others who don't wish to buy their own box.
> 
> More importantly, it won't work, and it doesn't need to be mandated. The way to give consumers more choice is to have MORE COMPETITION. Don't like the cable DVR? Switch to DirecTV or Dish. Enough people do? They improve their offerings.
> 
> ...


First off, if you mandate one standard, then they all agree. Look at cable cards. That's one standard that everyone is agreeing on. I don't know why TV Manufacturers are not on board with this standard, but my guess is that they really did screw it up. Remember, it was CableLabs who designed the standard, who funds cablelabs?

And your arguement that everyone got a rate increase so I could have my Tivo isn't accurate. As a matter of fact, I am actually SAVING the cable company money by having a Tivo. How could that be possible you ask?

1.  The cable companies did not have to develop the hardware behind the Tivo, they just had to invest in the actual cable cards that were manufactured by Motorola or Cisco/SA, whom they already buy other equipment from.

2. On the subject of cable cards. They aren't free, but they are less expensive than giving me a DVR they had to purchase. Even still, because they are not free, I get charged for them. Under current cable plans, they already build the cost of 1 box rental into the price of the cable packages, so they either subsidize the box or the card and the card is cheaper.

3. When the box fails, instead of the cable company having to replace said box, I have to replace it. If they have to re-pair the cable card with the new device, they will charge me a truck roll to do it. That means, when the box fails, the cable company is out NOTHING, and actually makes money off me.

Aside from that, at least last time I actually sat down to do the math, cable VIDEO prices were a direct result of what they paid for programming, with a slight markup for profit. Each cable channel charges per subscriber for carriage. You want to be mad at someone causing your rates to go up? Go talk to ESPN which likely gets more than $5 of your cable bill whether you watch it or not. Or talk to Fox, Viacom, Discovery Networks, Time Warner, NBCU, etc. etc. etc.

Most of the cable company money that is made is made so by selling ad time on most of the cable networks (not all), service fees for tech visits, equipment rental, wire maintenance plans, and brokered programming such as QVC, HSN, and religious channels.

An open standard could also help the cable industry. Instead of having to buy all motorola or cisco equipment, they could choose to deploy gateways, and then they too could buy cheaper boxes.


----------



## johnm4 (Jun 23, 2008)

The cable companies have a huge motivation for maintaining the status quo. They did everything they could to delay and make cablecards a hassle. 

I'd like to avoid the need to "rent" any of their stupid boxes of any kind. The internet works just fine with open standards, I don't see why video transmission (cable, satellite, etc) needs to have any proprietary technology whatsoever.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

mntvjunkie said:


> 2. On the subject of cable cards. They aren't free, but they are less expensive than giving me a DVR they had to purchase. Even still, because they are not free, I get charged for them. Under current cable plans, they already build the cost of 1 box rental into the price of the cable packages, so they either subsidize the box or the card and the card is cheaper.


When the cable company "gives" you a DVR, they do so in exchange for a monthly fee. If that didn't more than cover the cost of the box, they wouldn't do it.

On the same note:


mntvjunkie said:


> 3. When the box fails, instead of the cable company having to replace said box, I have to replace it. If they have to re-pair the cable card with the new device, they will charge me a truck roll to do it. That means, when the box fails, the cable company is out NOTHING, and actually makes money off me.


If that's how they thought, they'd have a completely different attitude towards support of third party CableCARD devices like TiVos than they've actually had. The fact that they treat CableCARD TiVo devices like red-headed step children signals, to my eye, that they'd rather you rent one of their DVRs.

They must think CableCARD makes them lose money. Do you think they're wrong, or you think they don't think that?

To further your point (and weaken mine), however, the fact that I have a TiVoHD that I own (especially one with lifetime service) makes it _more_ likely that I will continue being a Comcast customer, rather than less, because a) I paid for the TiVoHD, and b) it doesn't work with any other service. If I was using Comcast's DVRs, I could drop them tomorrow for DirecTV without having non-functioning equipment for which I paid upfront. If I wanted to drop Comcast now, I'd have to sell my TiVoHDs (I have 3) on eBay or something like that.

Either they're stupid and don't see that, or there's more money in their own DVRs anyway. I'm inclined to go with option B.


----------



## mntvjunkie (May 13, 2009)

aindik said:


> When the cable company "gives" you a DVR, they do so in exchange for a monthly fee. If that didn't more than cover the cost of the box, they wouldn't do it.
> 
> On the same note:
> 
> ...


You sort of answered your own question there. They aren't losing money on cablecards, but they aren't making money on the DVR's.

In other words, they are betting that their own DVR will last quite a while. For sake of arguement, lets say they average a 3 year lifespan. Now, lets say that the cable company charged me the full price they quote, which is $3, vs the DVR rental of $16. Not to mention that by using their DVR, I get access to the big money maker of on-demand. They would make $574.20 over 36 months (if the box only lasted that long). I'd be willing to bet that the box costs significantly less than that, say in the neighborhood of $300 (seems high still, but we'll go with it). The cable company would make $274.20 on that box, plus $36 for a remote rental fee if they charged that to me.

Now, the cable card would make them $108 over the same time period, and probably costs less than $30 to make. Either way, they make significantly more. And of course the hope is that either of these devices lasts longer than 3 years. And in that three years, the prices they charge will go up. That was the biggest reason I came back to Tivo. Tivo is better than the cable company DVR, but the DVR was $12.95 and easy to set up (since they had to do it and I didn't have to worry about it). Then, after less than a year, they jumped up the DVR fee up to $15.95 (and to make matters worse, that ALSO counted as my one "free" box). Had it not been for the feds stepping in, I would be paying $15.95 for a FAR inferior product (20 hrs HD recording??? I can do that in one day!). It crashed on me several times, didn't record several programs, and froze once a month.

So, its not that the cable cards are losing them money. They are just making less. This is why it is so important to try to come up with an open standard, so people at least have a choice.

An open standard could be a win-win for everybody. Rates will go up regardless, and they would likely charge for these gateways anyways, its just that they won't be getting these huge returns on equipment that they would love to continue getting.

Comcast isn't pro consumer, they are pro stock holder. Don't let them con you into thinking anything else. Same holds for every cable company out there.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

mntvjunkie said:


> You sort of answered your own question there. They aren't losing money on cablecards, but they aren't making money on the DVR's.
> 
> In other words, they are betting that their own DVR will last quite a while. For sake of arguement, lets say they average a 3 year lifespan. Now, lets say that the cable company charged me the full price they quote, which is $3, vs the DVR rental of $16. Not to mention that by using their DVR, I get access to the big money maker of on-demand. They would make $574.20 over 36 months (if the box only lasted that long). I'd be willing to bet that the box costs significantly less than that, say in the neighborhood of $300 (seems high still, but we'll go with it). The cable company would make $274.20 on that box, plus $36 for a remote rental fee if they charged that to me.
> 
> Now, the cable card would make them $108 over the same time period, and probably costs less than $30 to make. Either way, they make significantly more.


That's precisely my point. The cable company makes more money renting you a DVR than they make renting you a CableCARD. They make $274.20 renting you a DVR, but they only make $78 renting you a CableCARD. So why would you say that renting you a DVR costs them money, or that you save them money by using a TiVoHD instead?


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

mntvjunkie said:


> First off, if you mandate one standard, then they all agree. Look at cable cards. That's one standard that everyone is agreeing on.


Nope. They don't. Cable companies are using On Demand and SDV, neither of which work anymore with cablecards. The whole point of this thread is that cablecards don't support all of the services coming out and people are losing channels. Nobody can agree on how to fix that.



mntvjunkie said:


> I don't know why TV Manufacturers are not on board with this standard


More likely lack of demand.



mntvjunkie said:


> And your arguement that everyone got a rate increase so I could have my Tivo isn't accurate. As a matter of fact, I am actually SAVING the cable company money by having a Tivo.


Really? I can pick up a cable DVR from my local comcast office and plug it in myself. When I had cablecards they rolled trucks three times to get it working.

But that's not really the point. The money spent is redesigning EVERY STB they make to support 'separable security' You don't think that cost them money?



mntvjunkie said:


> The cable companies did not have to develop the hardware behind the Tivo, they just had to invest in the actual cable cards that were manufactured by Motorola or Cisco/SA, whom they already buy other equipment from.


They had to throw out all of their old STB to comply with a mandatory deadline that their boxes use cablecards. They had to redesign their internal systems to support them. They had to train their employees. They had to roll trucks to install cablecards in random boxes that they weren't familiar with and try to figure out why it didn't work.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

nrc said:


> The people who actually do speak for Joe Sixpack - the U.S. Congress - have decreed that there _will_ be a competitive market for pay television services and equipment. Period. Whether you agree that's needed or fair or whatever else is irrelevant.


Unless Joe Sixpack has his own lobby group (Joe the plumber doesn't count), Joe doesn't have much of a voice in Congress. The only time Joe has a voice is during an election year and "minor" things like opening up the TV provider market aren't even discussed then.



Adam1115 said:


> I know. And our cable bills would be less if they didn't. Sure, you have TiVo now. How many years and how much money was spent to develop cablecards. It wasn't done for TiVo, it was done for STB free TV's. How many cablecard TV's do you see on the market??


My cable rates started shooting up way before the cableCARD standard was even conceived of. The cost to develop the cableCARD standard is minuscule compared to programming costs and that is much smaller than the cost it took to completely rewire all the country's cable systems to support digital cable, Internet, phone, etc. If you think that you'd be paying less if cableCARD were never developed, you're deluding yourself.



aindik said:


> If that's how they thought, they'd have a completely different attitude towards support of third party CableCARD devices like TiVos than they've actually had. The fact that they treat CableCARD TiVo devices like red-headed step children signals, to my eye, that they'd rather you rent one of their DVRs.


The reason the cable industry does not like CableCARDs is because there are so few devices out there that support them that it's an "unnecessary" expense to have to buy them and train employees on how they work. If there were more CableCARD users then the cable companies wouldn't feel it was a waste of money to train their employees on how they work nor would they be as annoyed at being forced to use them in their own boxes.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> Nope. They don't. Cable companies are using On Demand and SDV, neither of which work anymore with cablecards. The whole point of this thread is that cablecards don't support all of the services coming out and people are losing channels. Nobody can agree on how to fix that.


Just because the cableCARD standard was half-assed doesn't mean that future standards have to be. There's plenty of mandated standards that work well. The cableCARD standard would have worked well, if CableLabs had bothered to come up with a unified 2-way communication standard to go with it. If they had On Demand and SDV wouldn't have cause any problems.


----------



## mntvjunkie (May 13, 2009)

Adam1115 said:


> Nope. They don't. Cable companies are using On Demand and SDV, neither of which work anymore with cablecards. The whole point of this thread is that cablecards don't support all of the services coming out and people are losing channels. Nobody can agree on how to fix that.
> 
> ---snip----
> 
> ...


The current cable card technology DOES work with ON DEMAND. The problem is that these boxes are only one-way boxes. The technology changed, and now they are working on Tru2Way. That happens. And when Tru2Way is a reality, then we will all have to get new boxes to support it.

They didn't have to "throw out" any boxes, they just had to comply with a mandate that stated that all NEW boxes made would be made with Cable Card technology, to put them on equal footing. This was to motivate the cable companies to play nice with cable cards. They chose to make technology that was proprietary and didn't comply with a standard for the sole practice of keeping out third party devices, so they could charge whatever they want for them. The device charges are not regulated like cable rates, and do not need the approval of local government to be changed.

They were forced to redesign the boxes because again, they chose to muscle out competition, and because of the people WE voted into office they are now being forced to allow competition again. Had they been interested in open standards from the beginning, this would not be a problem, but they don't want that. They want you to use THEIR boxes at THEIR prices.

And I'm willing to bet that most of the reasons for these cable cards not working the first time is due to error on the cable companies part. Again, they want to make this process as hard as possible (legally) so that most people will get tired of hassling with it and give into the demands of the cable companies.

A long time ago, you rented your phones from the phone companies, and we stopped that. We don't rent our cell phones, TV's, computers, stereo systems, we can buy cars, coffee makers, and the list goes on and on. Why can we not buy cable boxes?

As to lack of demand for cable-card TV's, that could be true, but I'd like to see actual research to back this up. Also, if the solution was easier to implement and get working (again, probably the fault of the cable company, since it seems they can get them working in their own boxes, mysteriously), the demand might exist.

And, it could also be a marketing problem.


----------



## mntvjunkie (May 13, 2009)

aindik said:


> That's precisely my point. The cable company makes more money renting you a DVR than they make renting you a CableCARD. They make $274.20 renting you a DVR, but they only make $78 renting you a CableCARD. So why would you say that renting you a DVR costs them money, or that you save them money by using a TiVoHD instead?


Renting a DVR doesn't cost them money. But by buying my own device, versus taking them up on the offer to get one free STB, I would be costing them money. What I'm trying to get accross here though is this. I'm not really costing them money either way, they just might make less. That was my response to someone actually stating that their rates go up because I have Tivo. I don't believe that to be the case.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

morac said:


> Unless Joe Sixpack has his own lobby group (Joe the plumber doesn't count), Joe doesn't have much of a voice in Congress. The only time Joe has a voice is during an election year and "minor" things like opening up the TV provider market aren't even discussed then.


Unfortunate, but true...



morac said:


> Just because the cableCARD standard was half-assed doesn't mean that future standards have to be. There's plenty of mandated standards that work well. The cableCARD standard would have worked well, if CableLabs had bothered to come up with a unified 2-way communication standard to go with it. If they had On Demand and SDV wouldn't have cause any problems.


True! But my bet is that anything the FCC mandates will be just as half-assed.



mntvjunkie said:


> The current cable card technology DOES work with ON DEMAND. The problem is that these boxes are only one-way boxes. The technology changed, and now they are working on Tru2Way. That happens. And when Tru2Way is a reality, then we will all have to get new boxes to support it.


Great!! Then we don't need to scrap cablecards for 'gwateways'! It's all set!


----------



## cwerdna (Feb 22, 2001)

slowbiscuit said:


> But I agree that Cablecards are usually a big pain in the ass.


Count me in as another person where they weren't a pain in the ass for me.

I have Verizon FiOS and the CableCARD portion only took <15 minutes. The process went very smoothly w/my TiVo HD.

I was told the install would take 4 hours which is about right. It took about 3.5 hours because he had to run/get fiber out of a panel in a closet, move a chest of drawers, mount an ONT on the wall, run conduit, run wires, drill holes, hook into existing cable wiring, disconnect the Comcast feed, etc.

The only problem w/the CableCARD portion was the 1st card the tech activated somehow wasn't in his inventory. So, he grabbed another and we activated it. IIRC, both times were over the phone. The CableCARD rental fee is less than getting their HD STB or HD PVR.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Well, that's why I said 'usually'. I know for some they are easy installs, but for many here (including myself) they are not, 'usually' because the cableCo did not setup the card(s) properly and/or doesn't have trained personnel that give a damn about them.


----------



## dbenrosen (Sep 20, 2003)

mntvjunkie said:


> As to lack of demand for cable-card TV's, that could be true, but I'd like to see actual research to back this up.


This is not research, just my thoughts on why CableCard TVs failed.

Before CC TVs, if you had premium channels, you already had an STB in the house. People were used to them, knew how they worked, etc. When they wanted to get a new TV, they already had the STB, didn't understand what the CableCard was for or how it would work and didn't want to pay a premium for the TV since CC TVs were only at the very high-end of the market. IF anyone bothered to ask the cable company about CableCard TVs before purchasing one (and you can be sure the number of people doing that was miniscule) the cable co would try to talk them out of it as they do now with everyone who has a TiVo and wants to get a CableCard.

Then as the cable co moved to digital and people needed to get STBs to get even non-premium channels, they didn't go out to get a new TV, they just got the STB from the cable co.


----------



## mntvjunkie (May 13, 2009)

dbenrosen said:


> This is not research, just my thoughts on why CableCard TVs failed.
> 
> Before CC TVs, if you had premium channels, you already had an STB in the house. People were used to them, knew how they worked, etc. When they wanted to get a new TV, they already had the STB, didn't understand what the CableCard was for or how it would work and didn't want to pay a premium for the TV since CC TVs were only at the very high-end of the market. IF anyone bothered to ask the cable company about CableCard TVs before purchasing one (and you can be sure the number of people doing that was miniscule) the cable co would try to talk them out of it as they do now with everyone who has a TiVo and wants to get a CableCard.
> 
> Then as the cable co moved to digital and people needed to get STBs to get even non-premium channels, they didn't go out to get a new TV, they just got the STB from the cable co.


I suspected it was a marketing problem, personally. Before I got my new Tivo HD last May, I had never even HEARD of cable cards. Nobody told me about them, and there was no cable card capability on my $2200 TV. Had I known that such thing was a possibility, I very well might have bought such a device to avoid having to have another box.

Then again, I have an "old school" set up. Nothing mounted to the wall, etc. Had I been concerned about no clutter and a fully wall mountable device, I DEFINITELY would have considered a cable card TV.

But you are right, we ARE used to having set top boxes. And that's kind of a shame really, because most set top boxes I have seen have a constant power draw of 40 watts whether they are on or "off" (turning them off only mutes the video and audio, its still on!). Some boxes are more. That's 1kwh per day of electric use, or $3 per month, or $36 per year. And that doesn't need to be so. (This of course using rates in my area). Seems like alot of wasted power, and if these gateways can be more power friendly, I'd put money on them being mandated eventually.

Now, I fully realize that Tivo uses the same power draw, but at least with Tivo, it's understandable. After all, it NEEDS to be on all the time, its recording shows, etc. But a cable box that uses that much power 24/7 is just not needed. You can keep something bare bones on 24/7 to get updates and guide data, and probably save 30 watts of power in the process.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Yea I'm sure it's marketing, not that nobody wants it.

Let's mandate that people have to use third party cablecard devices instead of the cable STB? These people are too stupid to decide what they want, they need to government to tell them.


----------



## mntvjunkie (May 13, 2009)

Adam1115 said:


> Yea I'm sure it's marketing, not that nobody wants it.
> 
> Let's mandate that people have to use third party cablecard devices instead of the cable STB? These people are too stupid to decide what they want, they need to government to tell them.


Do you think 90% of the people could even tell you whether or not they are using a cable card device? Doubtful.

But, do you not think that a significant amount of people would dump their cable boxes if a good alternative existed and they knew about it? OF COURSE THEY WOULD!

Thats like coming out with a new TV that costs $10,000, putting it in the back of the store, not telling anyone that it even exists, and then calling it a failure. Cable cards failed because they wanted them to fail. Tell me that if Sony, one of the largest TV manufacturers, pitched their TV's as a way to get rid of a cable box, that people wouldn't flock towards it.

Sony isn't stupid, they know the demand exists, otherwise they wouldn't be persuing this.


----------



## tivogurl (Dec 16, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Yeah, I have 45 HD channels on Comcast, although I could use a couple more (FX, BBCA!).


Does anybody get BBCA HD? With the misleading BBCA HD ads most people probably think they already get BBCA HD. I wonder why Comcast seems uninterested in rolling it out, it's been 6 months since its "premiere". Surely enough time to hammer out an agreement.

Anyway, my Comcast experience was pretty good. Pick up the hardware at the Comcast office then self install. They still charged me $10 for install, which is quite aggravating. The only glitch was the CSR at the office told me to call Comcast and instruct them to "hit" the cablecard to get it to work, when they should have told me to instruct them to "pair" the cablecard. That was a waste of a couple of hours. I suppose the CSR's total disinterest in talking to me about the install, other than to get my address and set up billing, should have been a clue to their ignorance.


----------



## tivogurl (Dec 16, 2004)

Adam1115 said:


> Yea, it's expensive, not because running wire is all that expensive. It's because negotiating franchise agreements with umpteen communities is a PITA. That's exactly the problem FIOS has had, and if it were made easier their could be a lot of competition.


The problem I have with that analysis is that even in states that have franchise reform (Texas, Florida) Verizon is not installing FIOS in areas where it doesn't already have existing lines. That's why FIOS is in Tampa but not Miami/Ft Lauderdale, Orlando, or Jacksonville, and why FIOS is in Dallas but not Houston, Austin or San Antonio. More to the point, the analysis I've seen suggests that FIOS won't ever be in those unserved areas, franchise reform notwithstanding. I'm an advocate of franchise reform, but it seems to have accomplished very little because the franchisees don't _have to_ expand their service areas just because they _can_.


----------



## mntvjunkie (May 13, 2009)

tivogurl said:


> The problem I have with that analysis is that even in states that have franchise reform (Texas, Florida) Verizon is not installing FIOS in areas where it doesn't already have existing lines. That's why FIOS is in Tampa but not Miami/Ft Lauderdale, Orlando, or Jacksonville, and why FIOS is in Dallas but not Houston, Austin or San Antonio. More to the point, the analysis I've seen suggests that FIOS won't ever be in those unserved areas, franchise reform notwithstanding. I'm an advocate of franchise reform, but it seems to have accomplished very little because the franchisees don't _have to_ expand their service areas just because they _can_.


Saying that the cost of developing the network doesn't hold up deployment is just plain silly. Fiber optic cable isn't cheap, and every company needs to show a Return on Investment. Even in bulk, the cable is about $1 a foot. Now think about the number of miles of cable that need to be run. Most cities will say that you need to serve the WHOLE city, so think of how many feet of cable needs to be ordered.

Now, think of the cost of building a plant to recieve and transmit the signals over that cable, the cost to install amplifiers, repeaters, and other equipment, the cost to get a block of phone numbers for use, etc. Not to mention the labor needed to DO all these installs, and the money paid to keep these networks up. They would need to show that they would get a certain number of customers in order to turn this into a profit generating endevour.

So, even assuming that approvals are easy (I know our local government would have no problems with it), thats a pretty small cost compared to actually rolling out the network.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

tivogurl said:


> Does anybody get BBCA HD? With the misleading BBCA HD ads most people probably think they already get BBCA HD. I wonder why Comcast seems uninterested in rolling it out, it's been 6 months since its "premiere". Surely enough time to hammer out an agreement.


BBCA HD availability is very limited. Most providers don't offer it anyway. The only providers that offer it as TW, Cox and Brighthouse and then only in a few areas.

Check out this thread over at the AVS Forums for a list of all HD channels are what providers offer them.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

mntvjunkie said:


> Saying that the cost of developing the network doesn't hold up deployment is just plain silly. Fiber optic cable isn't cheap, and every company needs to show a Return on Investment. Even in bulk, the cable is about $1 a foot. Now think about the number of miles of cable that need to be run. Most cities will say that you need to serve the WHOLE city, so think of how many feet of cable needs to be ordered.


Back in 2005 it cost Verizon about $2600 for every house they hooked up to FIOS (including installing the Fiber cable). Verizon has sinced lowered costs to about $1605 per house, but that's still a significant cost considering how many houses are in a town and especially since customers are only paying $99 a month initially (some getting free TVs or what not).

Verizon was literally going broke by deploying FIOS which is why it is raising rates and slowing down deployment so it has a chance to recover its losses.


----------



## tivogurl (Dec 16, 2004)

morac said:


> BBCA HD availability is very limited. Most providers don't offer it anyway. The only providers that offer it as TW, Cox and Brighthouse and then only in a few areas.


I understand why nobody carries CSPAN HD. I thought BBCA was a fairly popular channel, which is why I don't understand the disinterest in distributing BBCA HD.


----------



## mntvjunkie (May 13, 2009)

morac said:


> Back in 2005 it cost Verizon about $2600 for every house they hooked up to FIOS (including installing the Fiber cable). Verizon has sinced lowered costs to about $1605 per house, but that's still a significant cost considering how many houses are in a town and especially since customers are only paying $99 a month initially (some getting free TVs or what not).
> 
> Verizon was literally going broke by deploying FIOS which is why it is raising rates and slowing down deployment so it has a chance to recover its losses.


Which is pretty typical of how cable in general operates. Roll it out to a few people, then recoup costs, then a few more people, then recoup costs again, and so on. Obviously, once the initial investment is made, they recoup the costs over time, but thats the idea.

Thanks for finding the exact number for me.

When I was younger, I lived out in a fairly rural area, with about 20 houses located spread out over a half mile. Because of this, it took them a long time to get even cable rolled out to us. Not far away is a fairly densely populated area, and even still, they ran the cable down the highway by our neighborhood, but not by our house. Eventually, they sent out surveys to everyone asking if they were interested in cable TV services, and once the penetration got to 50%, they brought it down our street. It probably took them about 5 years to recoup the costs of doing so, but now I'm sure they are making a decent amount of money from our street. I believe they ran the cable in 1996. For the record, we lived 2 miles outside of a town of about 10,000 people, so it wasn't THAT far out.

I have a friend that lives out in an even more rural area, and the closest place that has cable TV, or even broadband access, is 5 miles north of him. So just because we all might live where it is available, we still can't assume it's available everywhere!


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

tivogurl said:


> I understand why nobody carries CSPAN HD. I thought BBCA was a fairly popular channel, which is why I don't understand the disinterest in distributing BBCA HD.


BBCA HD is a fairly new HD channel. Also while it may be popular, other channels are more popular. With limited bandwith providers have to pick and choose. I only got Comedy Central HD, Cartoon Network HD and Spike TV HD about a 2 months ago and those probably have better ratings then BBCA-HD.


----------



## tivogurl (Dec 16, 2004)

mntvjunkie said:


> Which is pretty typical of how cable in general operates. Roll it out to a few people, then recoup costs, then a few more people, then recoup costs again, and so on.


That's why the insistence by municipalities that cablecos roll out service everywhere equally is self-defeating. Cablecos naturally want to roll out service first to the most profitable customers, then later to less profitable customers once the infrastructure is there and ready to be amortized over a larger customer base. When you say "can't do that", the most likely result is not cable service as the municipality wants, but no service whatsoever. For examples, see FIOS. I'd bet that more cities would get FIOS, even ones that have no existing infrastructure, if Verizon could poach high-revenue customers first.


----------



## mntvjunkie (May 13, 2009)

tivogurl said:


> That's why the insistence by municipalities that cablecos roll out service everywhere equally is self-defeating. Cablecos naturally want to roll out service first to the most profitable customers, then later to less profitable customers once the infrastructure is there and ready to be amortized over a larger customer base. When you say "can't do that", the most likely result is not cable service as the municipality wants, but no service whatsoever. For examples, see FIOS. I'd bet that more cities would get FIOS, even ones that have no existing infrastructure, if Verizon could poach high-revenue customers first.


Your absolutely right, but I can see the municipality's concern as well. I think a good compromise would be to say "You can START rolling out services now, but have to have the whole city covered by 2013." Then, they cherry pick for the first year or two, and roll it out everywhere in the last two years. (or 5, or 10, or whatever they can agree on).


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 8, 2008)

One issue preventing cable card TV acceptance is that cable cards are not be pre-installed. Nor are they, generally speaking, consumer installable. So there is a hassle factor. 

Also, there may also be doubt in the back of the consumer's mind about if the hybrid device will actually do what it is suppose to. And about who he calls if it doesn't. With an STB, the cable company is clearly responsible. With a cable card, the cable company support - which the consumer may already know and dread - can easily blame the TV manufacturer. (No consumer I know of actually believes TV manufacturers have such a thing as real customer support.) So there is an additional FUD factor. 

These are also reasons that 3rd party DVRs (such as TiVo) are loosing market share as SD is being replaced by HD. (Even though TiVo does have the advantage of having real customer support. And, in my personal experience, TiVo is a better and more reliable product than cable companys' DVRs.) 

The hassle and FUD factors may be the real reasons there are so few TVs supporting cable cards.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> One issue preventing cable card TV acceptance is that cable cards are not be pre-installed. Nor are they, generally speaking, consumer installable. So there is a hassle factor.


Calling it a hassle is being nice. IMO the cable companies do this on purpose to stifle innovation and avoid the extra support requirements.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

steve614 said:


> Calling it a hassle is being nice. IMO the cable companies do this on purpose to stifle innovation and avoid the extra support requirements.


What they have done on purpose is implement a technology that breaks cable card. Behold Switched Digital Video!


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> What they have done on purpose is implement a technology that breaks cable card. Behold Switched Digital Video!


Technically that's not true since the cable company boxes that use cableCARDs work fine with SDV. The main problem is that the cable companies never bothered to develop a universal communication standard so that SDV could work on 3rd party boxes without the need of a tuning adapter.

"Gateways" solve this problem since the 3rd party hardware doesn't need to have specific transmitter hardware to work on Motorola and Cisco (and FIOS and Dish/DirectTV) systems.

You'd think the cable companies would want a universal standard. The whole Cisco/Motorola thing where only Cisco boxes work in a Cisco system and only Motorola boxes work in Motorola systems is more complicated than it has to be. Comcast gets hit by this a lot since they bought up most of the "Comcast" systems and inherited whatever standard was being used there at the time. This is leading to major problems in there quest to upgrade their systems to all digital since the Cisco (Scientific Atlanta) systems aren't as easy to upgrade as the Motorola ones and switching to Motorola would require too much time and money.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

morac said:


> Technically that's not true since the cable company boxes that use cableCARDs work fine with SDV. The main problem is that the cable companies never bothered to develop a universal communication standard so that SDV could work on 3rd party boxes without the need of a tuning adapter.
> 
> "Gateways" solve this problem since the 3rd party hardware doesn't need to have specific transmitter hardware to work on Motorola and Cisco (and FIOS and Dish/DirectTV) systems.
> 
> You'd think the cable companies would want a universal standard. The whole Cisco/Motorola thing where only Cisco boxes work in a Cisco system and only Motorola boxes work in Motorola systems is more complicated than it has to be. Comcast gets hit by this a lot since they bought up most of the "Comcast" systems and inherited whatever standard was being used there at the time. This is leading to major problems in there quest to upgrade their systems to all digital since the Cisco (Scientific Atlanta) systems aren't as easy to upgrade as the Motorola ones and switching to Motorola would require too much time and money.


I was referring mostly to cable card TV's which was the original intent of cable card to do away with the stb. SDV breaks those devices and any other device that cannot use a tuning adapter.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> I was referring mostly to cable card TV's which was the original intent of cable card to do away with the stb. SDV breaks those devices and any other device that cannot use a tuning adapter.


Cable card TVs were already a dying breed before SDV ever came out. No one wanted to spend the extra money on them since manufacturers only added card slots to their high end TVs.


----------

