# Good news: FCC considering whether use of SDV violates the law



## skylab (Jul 26, 2007)

The FCC recently fined TWC in relation to its implementation of SDV in Hawaii. See http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=403304

What has not been picked up on is that the FCC is considering the underlying legality of moving channels to SDV. Buried in a footnote in its decision, the FCC stated the folllowing:

"Also, though we do not address here whether Oceanics *movement of channels to a SDV platform is consistent with the Commissions plug and play policies, we note that this movement might further discourage consumers from the use of CableCARDs as an alternative to TWC-supplied set top boxes.* See Implementation of Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices, Report and
Order, 13 FCC Rcd 14775, 14786-7, ¶¶ 28-32 (1998) (Manufacturers will have substantial incentive to develop and distribute new products in response to consumer demands for equipment and features, provided that the MVPD system for which the equipment is designed is accessible.). See also 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.1201, 1202, 1204(c). *We will consider those concerns and complaints separately.*

Apparently our complaints are not going unnoticed. If you have not written to the FCC yet about the movement of channels to SDV now is the time to do so. Other cable companies are likely watching the FCC closely to see whether the FCC allows TWC to use SDV in the way it has been using it. The other cable companies don't want to waste millions upgrading their systems only to have the FCC rule against TWC on this issue and then be precluded from using SDV. So, even if you are not a Time Warner customer, and you care about this issue, now is the time to write the FCC.


----------



## Millionaire2K (Jun 16, 2008)

SDV Should only be allowed when they create an option for cc people to get the ch's.


----------



## Kablemodem (May 26, 2001)

SDV is a great way to get more HD to cable subscribers, but they need to make sure all of their customers can get those channels first.


----------



## ADent (Jan 7, 2000)

I still think SDV (w/o the tuning resolver) definitely violates the spirits of FCC rules.

Even the tuning resolver IMHO violates the rules and they should ban SDV until two-way "plug and play" TVs and STBs are actually available for consumers.

From 2003 ( http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238850A1.doc )



> FCC EASES DIGITAL TV TRANSITION FOR CONSUMERS
> Competition, Convenience, and Simplicity Cited as Key Goals of Plug and Play Rules
> 
> Washington, D.C. - The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) today took another step forward in the transition to digital television. The FCC adopted rules for digital plug and play cable compatibility, which is a key piece of the digital television puzzle. In a plug and play world, consumers can plug their cable directly into their digital TV set without the need of a set-top box. The FCC said the new rules will ease the transition to digital TV by promoting competition, convenience and simplicity for consumers.





> Consumers will still need a set-top box to receive two-way services such as video on demand, impulse pay-per-view and cable operator-enhanced electronic programming guides. The FCC noted that the cable and consumer electronics industries continue to work on the development of an agreement for two-way plug and play receivers that would eliminate the need for a set-top box to receive these advanced cable services. The FCC encouraged the cable and consumer electronics industries to consult with interested parties and affected industries as the two-way negotiations progress.


----------



## cableguy763 (Oct 29, 2006)

But what happens five months from now?


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

cableguy763 said:


> But what happens five months from now?


What does Switched Digital Video have to do with five months from now? If you are talking about the mandatory digital OTA cutover, the two have nothing to do with each other.


----------



## cableguy763 (Oct 29, 2006)

I'm talking about the new president and the new chairman of the fcc, whoever that may be.


----------



## acvthree (Jan 17, 2004)

A new President does not automatically mean a change to the FCC.


----------



## Combat Medic (Sep 6, 2001)

I find it very interesting that the FCC is now saying that this is a problem when they sent me a letter months ago saying that they didn't see a problem.

Interesting.


----------



## cableguy763 (Oct 29, 2006)

acvthree said:


> A new President does not automatically mean a change to the FCC.


Take a look at this list of chairmen. Seems like the acting president has a little say, since he appoints the fcc chairman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chairmen_of_the_Federal_Communications_Commission


----------



## Burrens (Oct 2, 2006)

Kablemodem said:


> SDV is a great way to get more HD to cable subscribers, but they need to make sure all of their customers can get those channels first.


They should not be allowed to implement SDV unless the tuning resolver is available to their customers.


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

cableguy763 said:


> I'm talking about the new president and the new chairman of the fcc, whoever that may be.


The Telecommunications Act that is mentioned by the OP goes back to 1996, when the political landscape was far different than it is today. It has managed to withstand a dozen years, two Presidents, and control of Congress going from one side of the aisle to the other, so at least in the short term I see nothing changing.


----------



## cableguy763 (Oct 29, 2006)

RonDawg said:


> The Telecommunications Act that is mentioned by the OP goes back to 1996, when the political landscape was far different than it is today. It has managed to withstand a dozen years, two Presidents, and control of Congress going from one side of the aisle to the other, so at least in the short term I see nothing changing.


I am just curious if things will change.


----------



## RoundBoy (Feb 10, 2005)

how is this going to be a good thing? I see it as it holds up SDV deployment and acceptance, leaving everyone needing 2 way communication for on demand or even watching tv in the lurch.. since nobody will certify 3rd party cable card or other solution that offers true 2 way functionality that the home grown cable boxes provide.


----------



## blacknoi (Jan 23, 2006)

RoundBoy said:


> how is this going to be a good thing? I see it as it holds up SDV deployment and acceptance, leaving everyone needing 2 way communication for on demand or even watching tv in the lurch.. since nobody will certify 3rd party cable card or other solution that offers true 2 way functionality that the home grown cable boxes provide.


As someone who doesnt want to EVER rent a STB, I would rather NOT get new HD channels and continue to receive the HD channels I get TODAY.

I already lost 15 to SDV that I haven't gotten back yet.

I see this inquiry as a GREAT THING.


----------



## RoundBoy (Feb 10, 2005)

I see it as it might hold up SDV _solution_ deployment. So those waiting for the Tivo solution rather then using a crappy cable company box are left waiting.

If the FCC does rule SDV as invalid, then we have a waiting game to get them to revert, and we loose hd channels and quality as they struggle to find the bandwidth.

Sending ONLY the channel down the line is not a bad thing.. it only became this way since cable companies refuse to certify 3rd party boxes and 2 way communications, forcing us to use sub-par equipment and/or high rental rates.

SDV is fine, as long as we can have a big push into open communications, much like the ruling years ago that anybody could use their own cable box.


----------



## acvthree (Jan 17, 2004)

cableguy763 said:


> Take a look at this list of chairmen. Seems like the acting president has a little say, since he appoints the fcc chairman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chairmen_of_the_Federal_Communications_Commission


What has that got to do with what I said?

The President can replace FCC chairs. The President can also leave the chair in place. A change in President does not automatically mean a change at the FCC. Any change is up to the President.


----------



## cableguy763 (Oct 29, 2006)

acvthree said:


> What has that got to do with what I said?
> 
> The President can replace FCC chairs. The President can also leave the chair in place. A change in President does not automatically mean a change at the FCC. Any change is up to the President.


I am just curious. Hoping things will change.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

The fact that the present standard was released was incredibly stupid, they should have required manufactures to make CC systems upgradable. But just like everything cable does, its a mess.


----------



## routerman (Sep 16, 2006)

Videodrome said:


> The fact that the present standard was released was incredibly stupid, they should have required manufactures to make CC systems upgradable. But just like everything cable does, its a mess.


Once manufacturers produce a product, they are essentially through with it. I don't believe any TV manufacturer has any incentive to upgrade the installed base of CC TVs purchased in the past. Their idea of an upgrade is for the customer to purchase this years model of TV.

The only exception is TiVo. They receive revenue from monthly subscriptions. They have an incentive to get the tuning adapters working. They need to protect the revenue from their installed base of subscribers.

TV manufacturers are already touting tru2way on their websites and trade shows. Cablecard TVs were never intended to be upgraded beyond some basic TV firmware upgrades. Interactivity requires additional hardware and TV manufacturers would be eroding their future purchases by concentrating on upgrading 3-4 year old sets.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

RoundBoy said:


> I see it as it might hold up SDV _solution_ deployment. So those waiting for the Tivo solution rather then using a crappy cable company box are left waiting.
> 
> If the FCC does rule SDV as invalid, then we have a waiting game to get them to revert, and we loose hd channels and quality as they struggle to find the bandwidth.
> 
> ...


that's an interesting half empty way to look at the glass.

FCC sees cable implenting sdv might scare off cablecard use so somehow that is going to stop cable from implementing a solution that allows SDV with cablecard use?

In my head it might make them actually deploy the stupid adapters which have been ready to go for 3 months or so at this point.

TWC vice moron in charge talking to the head TWC moron in charge-
"he HM looks like the fcc is angry that we dont have a solutiuon for cablecard users to get sdv channels"

now does the head moron reply:
"gee lets be sure to slow down the solution that is 99.9 percent done"
or does he say:
"gee vice moron why dont you call and get the idiot at the warehouse to mail out those dongle thingies that have been collecting dust"

granted TWC is ran by morons but i think the later reply is obvious even to the chimps running the place.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Millionaire2K said:


> SDV Should only be allowed when they create an option for cc people to get the ch's.





MichaelK said:


> In my head it might make them actually deploy the stupid adapters which have been ready to go for 3 months or so at this point.


The tuning resolver is only a 'solution' for TiVo subscribers.

Cablecard TV's have been out much longer than TiVo's and the tuning resolver doesn't do anything to help them get SDV....


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Burrens said:


> They should not be allowed to implement SDV unless the tuning resolver is available to their customers.


Why? I can guarantee you that attitude is only going to lose. Bribes and personal agenda aside, in all government, the rule of thumb is "The greatest good of the greatest number". That leaves TiVo owners out in the cold completely and the 98% of CATV subscribers who do not own TiVos no less happy for it. I suggest instead of being greedy and self centered, TiVo owners realize anything which negatively impacts the vast majority of consumers is simply a bad idea, no matter how appealing it is to those of us who are impacted negatively by other options. Face it, the choice is something of a delay in getting what you want, and maybe not quite getting everything you want, versus nothing at all.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> The tuning resolver is only a 'solution' for TiVo subscribers.
> 
> Cablecard TV's have been out much longer than TiVo's and the tuning resolver doesn't do anything to help them get SDV....


Exactly. What's more, while the current situation is far from ideal, the choice is SDV or nothing. It's true from some perspectives the current situation is not completely inline with the intent of CableCards and separable security, but it is entirely the FCC's fault for not ratifying a set of bidirectional standards in the first place.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Videodrome said:


> The fact that the present standard was released was incredibly stupid, they should have required manufactures to make CC systems upgradable.


It has nothing to do with upgradability. It has everything to do with the lack of a standard for bidirectional hosts.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

RoundBoy said:


> If the FCC does rule SDV as invalid, then we have a waiting game to get them to revert, and we loose hd channels and quality as they struggle to find the bandwidth.


It's not a struggle. It simply does not exist. A switched solution is the only answer, and no matter what, a switched solution requires a bidirectional host.



RoundBoy said:


> Sending ONLY the channel down the line is not a bad thing.. it only became this way since cable companies refuse to certify 3rd party boxes and 2 way communications


1. Cable companies do not certify equipment, Cable Labs does.

2. Since there is no standard, there is no way to certify anything.

3. There is nothing to prevent a 3rd party manufacturer from developing an uncertified device for use in a particular CATV system, but then they could only sell the device in CATV systems which use the specific protocols particular to that system, and in 4 or 6 months when the CATV company upgrades its protocols, the device will stop working. Oh, yeah, that would be a real moneymaker, all right.



RoundBoy said:


> SDV is fine, as long as we can have a big push into open communications, much like the ruling years ago that anybody could use their own cable box.


It would be more than fine, if the FCC would get off their arse and mandate a bidirectional standard, hopefully not one with the serious flaws of OCAP. I don't see it happening.


----------



## DCIFRTHS (Jan 6, 2000)

RoundBoy said:


> ... Sending ONLY the channel down the line is not a bad thing.. it only became this way since cable companies refuse to certify 3rd party boxes and 2 way communications, forcing us to use sub-par equipment and/or high rental rates. ...


This is exactly the issue at hand, and that is why the FCC is looking into it. If they find that it is wrong, what should they do? Let them continue to deploy SDV or forge ahead with some new technology that will benefit all.


----------



## DCIFRTHS (Jan 6, 2000)

lrhorer said:


> It's not a struggle. It simply does not exist. A switched solution is the only answer, and no matter what, a switched solution requires a bidirectional host.


A switched solution without bricking older devices is the solution.



lrhorer said:


> 1. Cable companies do not certify equipment, Cable Labs does.


Different day jobs, but they sleep in the same bed every night...



lrhorer said:


> 2. Since there is no standard, there is no way to certify anything.


Then the way I see it is that the CCs need to get cracking, and introduce a standard that everyone can benefit from. The only reason there is n;t a standard yet is because they have done everything in their power to get an open standard implemented. Very shortsighted thinking - IMO. It reminds me of a union I used to work for.



lrhorer said:


> 3. There is nothing to prevent a 3rd party manufacturer from developing an uncertified device for use in a particular CATV system, but then they could only sell the device in CATV systems which use the specific protocols particular to that system, and in 4 or 6 months when the CATV company upgrades its protocols, the device will stop working. Oh, yeah, that would be a real moneymaker, all right.


Suicide to the company that makes one without a standard in place.



lrhorer said:


> It would be more than fine, if the FCC would get off their arse and mandate a bidirectional standard, hopefully not one with the serious flaws of OCAP. I don't see it happening.


It's my feeling that the industry should have been able to work this out themselves. Why get government involved if you don't have to. If everyone had played nice, we would be much farther along than we are. One big problem is that Cable Labs is not the place to ratify standards. A truly independent body should be in charge. This is where I can see the government stepping in.


----------



## DCIFRTHS (Jan 6, 2000)

lrhorer said:


> Exactly. What's more, while the current situation is far from ideal, the choice is SDV or nothing. It's true from some perspectives the current situation is not completely inline with the intent of CableCards and separable security, but it is entirely the FCC's fault for not ratifying a set of bidirectional standards in the first place.


Was there a standard presented to them that truly served the consumer's needs while still allowing all the CE companies, and CCs to make money?


----------



## vstone (May 11, 2002)

Assuming McCain wins, soes anybody here think that he will have a clue about the technical points of this issue?


----------



## dpratt (Dec 19, 2006)

vstone said:


> Assuming McCain wins, soes anybody here think that he will have a clue about the technical points of this issue?


You're assuming any politician alive from any legislative or executive area of government has any clue at all about technology.

I think that McCain has as much chance of having a clue as Obama does. Try and picture what your dog looks like when it's trying to watch TV.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

acvthree said:


> A new President does not automatically mean a change to the FCC.


depends on who the new president is


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Adam1115 said:


> The tuning resolver is only a 'solution' for TiVo subscribers.
> 
> Cablecard TV's have been out much longer than TiVo's and the tuning resolver doesn't do anything to help them get SDV....


actually Microsoft is looking at tuning resolver for Vista Media Center. Currently they are figuring out if USB on PC will be ok or do they need cable card tuning box with USB port on it.

Older TVs with CC slots would have no way to hook up the tuning adpater and get an "OS" upgrade - so yes they are out of luck but due to TV design. Tru2way is of no help either.

I can concede the importance of SDV to the cable companies providing me better service and am thus all for it. Currently I am debating getting a TiVo HDXL when I see it for 450$ or waiting for a tru2way TiVo.
I am definitely waiting for a tru2way HD Television though before I go and get a 50 inch or more screen.

If I can get a TV like that then with a TiVo HD with SDV or tru2way TiVo I am back to the old school of cable with splitter gets me the same on TiVo as on TV directly*. 
However it will be the new tech way of HD resolution on a nice big screen :up:

*No ondemand on the TiVo is no biggie as it is ondemand I simply watch it on the TV when I demand it.

so bottom line - bring on the SDV and the tuning adapter and get tru2way standardized so CE companies can make a product that works across multiple cable companies and is thus marketable. I am tired of the dithering around


----------



## Austin Bike (Feb 9, 2003)

vstone said:


> Assuming McCain wins, soes anybody here think that he will have a clue about the technical points of this issue?


Um, its just a series of tubes....

Don't forget we are dealing with the same FCC that fought the sirius/xm merger for 18 months. Exxon mobil was done in about 90 days.

Our government is bought and paid for by special interests. The only reason the FCC takes notice of anything is that a competitor of TWC paid their lobbyists to get the FCC to "look into things."

Let's not kid ourselves that consumer complaints make any difference.


----------



## 1003 (Jul 14, 2000)

Adam1115 said:


> The tuning resolver is only a 'solution' for TiVo subscribers.


*Potentially*
Vista Media Centres could also use a 'tuning resolver', but that may be an even smaller market...


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> I am tired of the dithering around


I've been tired of the dithering around for nearly 20 years. I have no great expectations it's going to stop.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Austin Bike said:


> Our government is bought and paid for by special interests.


'No kidding. What little isn't is managed by people who realize they can most easily continue to collect their pay and avoid the most problems for themselves if they do nothing.



Austin Bike said:


> Let's not kid ourselves that consumer complaints make any difference.


Well, that's an overstatement, but it's true outside an election year little notice is paid to consumer complaints. What's worse is the fact the electorate are generally too stupid to have any real grasp of the issues, and apart from corruption they are as likely to listen to the *wrong* complaints.

I fear very much this is what has happened in this case.


----------



## skylab (Jul 26, 2007)

For those of you who think SDV is the only option for expanding programming options, TWC has got you going.

Just this past week, TWC added the Big Ten Network on its expanded basic tier in some parts of the country. This addition could have been used for two or three HD programming options or upwards of 10-15 SD digital programming options (dpending upon rate shaping/compression).

Some cable companies have opted to move the entire expanded basic tier to digital, freeing up room for 100-150 additional HD programming options or 500-1000 SD programming options. All of this is without SDV.

The issue the FCC is considering is whether TWC and others who move programming to SDV are violating the law as passed by congress and FCC rules. THe FCC could also adopt additional rules to further implement its congressional mandate to create a market for third-party cable devices like the Tivo HD.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

JJ said:


> *Potentially*
> Vista Media Centres could also use a 'tuning resolver', but that may be an even smaller market...


Wonderful, I'm sure there's TONS of those out there.

But I was more referring to CableCard TV customers...


----------



## slude (Feb 9, 2008)

lrhorer said:


> It has nothing to do with upgradability. It has everything to do with the lack of a standard for bidirectional hosts.


Watching a TV show during its scheduled timeslot was never supposed to require a bidirectional host.


----------



## JonHB (Aug 28, 2007)

There is absolutely no reason that a new cablecard couldn't be 2 way and all existing cablecard compatible devices (hosts/TV's) would work with it. The resolver should be incorporated into the cablecard or external as a dongle that attaches to the cablecard.

Currently, existing CC hosts tell the CC to tune to and decode a specific channel. If you are authorized for that channel, then the CC performs it's job and you get the programming. If they simply add logic to that process where the CC and/or dongle process the upstream SDV request at the same time as doing the authorization, then the host doesn't even need to know that the video is actually SDV.

The current crutch/fix with resolvers is putting part of the burden on Tivo, Microsoft or whomever else to actually write software to work with the resolver. This is leaving all legacy CC hosts (mostly TV's with CC slots) in the dark. You don't hear the TV companies complaining though because they would rather sell a new TV.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

JonHB said:


> There is absolutely no reason that a new cablecard couldn't be 2 way and all existing cablecard compatible devices (hosts/TV's) would work with it. The resolver should be incorporated into the cablecard or external as a dongle that attaches to the cablecard.


Well actually there are reasons why current cablecard devices couldn't be 2 way.

But there isn't really a reason that cable companies need to move channels to SDV, especially when they still have 80+ channels of analog...


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Adam1115 said:


> Well actually there are reasons why current cablecard devices couldn't be 2 way.
> 
> But there isn't really a reason that cable companies need to move channels to SDV, especially when they still have 80+ channels of analog...


the big reason is that I still use analog extensively while they get seperable security and 2 way worked out. MANY customer are still on analog.

PS - the big thing in 2 way 3rd party devices is the cable companies business need to display their VOD/PPV in the way they want to. They need some screen interaction adn I think that is legitimate, myself. So just a bidirectional card in itself will not fix it all up.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

JonHB said:


> There is absolutely no reason that a new cablecard couldn't be 2 way and all existing cablecard compatible devices (hosts/TV's) would work with it. The resolver should be incorporated into the cablecard or external as a dongle that attaches to the cablecard.


It may burden the host software or hardware, plus they would have to write a number of different versions, plus have the user or installer configure it. Not to mention exactly why cable wants Tru2way anyways; to impose their UI on the customer.


> Currently, existing CC hosts tell the CC to tune to and decode a specific channel. If you are authorized for that channel, then the CC performs it's job and you get the programming. If they simply add logic to that process where the CC and/or dongle process the upstream SDV request at the same time as doing the authorization, then the host doesn't even need to know that the video is actually SDV.
> 
> 
> > The CC doesn't tune though, the host does.
> ...


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> PS - the big thing in 2 way 3rd party devices is the cable companies business need to display their VOD/PPV in the way they want to. They need some screen interaction adn I think that is legitimate, myself. So just a bidirectional card in itself will not fix it all up.


Its not that they need their UI for interactive services, it is just that they want it, and as they evolve, it is probably better that it be done as an applet on a virtual machine running on the host.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> the big reason is that I still use analog extensively while they get seperable security and 2 way worked out. MANY customer are still on analog.
> 
> PS - the big thing in 2 way 3rd party devices is the cable companies business need to display their VOD/PPV in the way they want to. They need some screen interaction adn I think that is legitimate, myself. So just a bidirectional card in itself will not fix it all up.


Sure, but if they dropped SDV AND analog, then you could simply get cablecards and have a hundred HD channels.... There wouldn't be any seperable security to work out.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

classicsat said:


> Its not that they need their UI for interactive services, it is just that they want it, and as they evolve, it is probably better that it be done as an applet on a virtual machine running on the host.


correct, I in no way mean that cable company gets the whole UI. JUst that they get to present their own VOD/PPV interface when the user chooses to look at what is avaialble. That prensetation needs some standardized mechanism and what you descibe is basically what TiVo and Comcast/cablelabs are working out for tru2way


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Adam1115 said:


> Sure, but if they dropped SDV AND analog, then you could simply get cablecards and have a hundred HD channels.... There wouldn't be any seperable security to work out.


or cable boxes for all my analog DVRs and TVs, plus drive upgrades for the secondary DVRs so they can handle the extra space per show 
No thanks - I like the SDV approach


----------



## routerman (Sep 16, 2006)

skylab said:


> Some cable companies have opted to move the entire expanded basic tier to digital, freeing up room for 100-150 additional HD programming options or 500-1000 SD programming options. All of this is without SDV.


So my cable company (TWC- Austin) decides to completely shut down SDV. They remove all of the basic analog channels and now have 115 channel slots. If I remove 6 channels for cable modems (DOCSIS 3.0 high speed), 2 for data (guide, box control, software for boxes), 4 for VOD, 25 for the 250 SD channels currently on the lineup, 7 for the digital versions of existing analog services that will move to digital, 3 for the 30 sports PPV channels, and 20 for the 40 HD channels we currently have, my math shows 48 unused channels.

Using 2 HDs per channel, that is 96 HD channel spaces available. I can think of at least 50 HD channels (HBO, Showtime, Starz, Voom) that are available now but not on in Austin. I am sure there are quite a few networks making plans today for HD transmission. So what happens when all of the channels are used up? I guess we then drop the SD versions of HD channels. That will allow us to have another 50 or so HD channels. at some point, the channel space is all used up and no more channels can be added.

While I don't think SDV is the end-all solution for adding new channels, it is at least a part of a solution the cable companies are trying to use to compete with satellite and the phone companies. Competition is almost always a good thing. It gives us more choice and new technologies. I, for one, enjoy the additional channels I receive. For now, I use a cable box on my series 2. After the tuning adapter is available, I will finally splurge for a new HD TiVo.

The company I work for has a long list of competitors and if some government regulator decided to restrict some of our solutions that allow us to compete, we would quickly be put out of business. I am not sure that the FCC deciding that SDV violates the law would be a good thing for consumers. Cable companies would have to drop existing channels and the other providers would be less likely to expand services. While we might not like SDV because of the limitations it gives us with TiVo, overall, it has been a good thing for most of the cable subscribers.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

JonHB said:


> There is absolutely no reason that a new cablecard couldn't be 2 way and all existing cablecard compatible devices (hosts/TV's) would work with it.


There's no reason anything can't be done when one has no idea how something works. All CableCards are 2 way. Every single one.



JonHB said:


> The resolver should be incorporated into the cablecard or external as a dongle that attaches to the cablecard.


While this could have been done, it could not have been done with the off-the-shelf and welll proven technology used in the CableCards. They're having enough problems with CableCards, as it is. The CableCards would also have to have been very large and expensive, yet devices like a TiVo or television would not have been any cheaper. It would have been very clumsy and expensive. The proper solution would have been to develop a set of 2-way standards from the outset. There was no reason to hold off on a 2-way standard.



JonHB said:


> Currently, existing CC hosts tell the CC to tune to and decode a specific channel.


This is completely backwards. CableCards don't tune anything. The host does the tuning. If it is an analog channel, the output from the tuner is sent to video processing - in the case of a DVR an A/D converter. If it is a digital carrier, the baseband bitstream is routed to the CableCard. If no CableCard is there, the stream just passes on. If the CableCard is there, it inspects the bitstream. If the bitstream is unencrypted, it is just passed on to the host. If the bitstream is encrypted, and the encryption key is present in the CableCard's memory, it de-encrypts the stream and forwards it. An M-card can accept and decrypt up to 6 digital video streams. It can't tune any whatsoever.



JonHB said:


> If you are authorized for that channel, then the CC performs it's job and you get the programming. If they simply add logic to that process where the CC and/or dongle process the upstream SDV request at the same time as doing the authorization, then the host doesn't even need to know that the video is actually SDV.


One could "simply add logic" until doomsday and it wouldn't do anything. The system must have or have access to an RF modulator. All bidirectional hosts have a modulator built in. By definition, no UDCP does, so no UDCP can participate in the dialogue required for a switched protocol.



JonHB said:


> The current crutch/fix with resolvers is putting part of the burden on Tivo, Microsoft or whomever else to actually write software to work with the resolver.


The software is trivial and well defined. The issue is not software limitations. It is hardware limitations.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Adam1115 said:


> ...
> Cablecard TV's have been out much longer than TiVo's and the tuning resolver doesn't do anything to help them get SDV....


thats A very good point.

positive side- Cable can say- "look we have a fair compromise"

negative side- fcc says " yeah but only for a small franction of deployed devices..."

but i do expect it to get deployed quicker now so at least cable can make it's arguement.

that's a whole lot better than "well, um, er.... we got nothin"


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

lrhorer said:


> Why? I can guarantee you that attitude is only going to lose. Bribes and personal agenda aside, in all government, the rule of thumb is "The greatest good of the greatest number". That leaves TiVo owners out in the cold completely and the 98% of CATV subscribers who do not own TiVos no less happy for it. I suggest instead of being greedy and self centered, TiVo owners realize anything which negatively impacts the vast majority of consumers is simply a bad idea, no matter how appealing it is to those of us who are impacted negatively by other options. Face it, the choice is something of a delay in getting what you want, and maybe not quite getting everything you want, versus nothing at all.


not always- particularly with all the early adopter digital transition messes.

the FCC for example has said that downrezzing analog outputs is not allowed for OTA specifically so that early adopters prior to hdmi dont get hosed. ALso currently I think that althought there is a cci flag to downrez the regs dont allow it?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

lrhorer said:


> ... but it is entirely the FCC's fault for not ratifying a set of bidirectional standards in the first place.


I basically agree- but when the FCC refused to be a standards agency they specifially anointed cablelabs to do it with the 'hope' that cable would do the right thing. We all see how that worked out.... 10 years later and still not a single deployed 3rd party device....

cable argued they were the only ones who could 'quickly' come up with standards.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

lrhorer said:


> It's not a struggle. It simply does not exist. A switched solution is the only answer, and no matter what, a switched solution requires a bidirectional host.
> 
> ...


analog shut down?



lrhorer said:


> ...
> 1. Cable companies do not certify equipment, Cable Labs does.
> 
> 2. Since there is no standard, there is no way to certify anything.
> ...


1- cablelabs is RUN by cable.

2- there is no agreed upon deployed standard because cable and the cea couldn't make nice

3- except there is nothing that says any cable plant is obligated to enable suych a device on their system. Built suchg a think all you want- sell it all you want. Cable laughs and points and says "it's not cablelabs certified we wont enable it and see 1 and 2 above- nanny nanny boo boo"


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

DCIFRTHS said:


> ...It's my feeling that the industry should have been able to work this out themselves. Why get government involved if you don't have to. If everyone had played nice, we would be much farther along than we are. One big problem is that Cable Labs is not the place to ratify standards. A truly independent body should be in charge. This is where I can see the government stepping in.


very well said-

unfortunatley when the fcc was picking "the offical standards body" plenty of people complained that a 3rd party body like ansi would be the proper standard bearer, cable argued only they were in a position to move quickly and the fcc agreed. The fcc also said at the time they didn't think they were the right people to decide any such things. So here we are and I dont see the FCC fixing it anytime soon honestly. At best they will order cablelabs to compormise with CE better but since CE seems to have jumped on the true2way bandwago it's too late now. So we're left till the next generation when cablelabs acts in cables best interests and again screws everything up.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

lrhorer said:


> I've been tired of the dithering around for nearly 20 years. I have no great expectations it's going to stop.


sadly agree...


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

lrhorer said:


> There's no reason anything can't be done when one has no idea how something works. All CableCards are 2 way. Every single one.
> 
> While this could have been done, it could not have been done with the off-the-shelf and welll proven technology used in the CableCards. They're having enough problems with CableCards, as it is. The CableCards would also have to have been very large and expensive, yet devices like a TiVo or television would not have been any cheaper. It would have been very clumsy and expensive. The proper solution would have been to develop a set of 2-way standards from the outset. There was no reason to hold off on a 2-way standard.
> 
> ...


no expert (like i believe you are?) and dont want to speak on his behalf- but i think JohnHb's point was they could have perhaps made a 2G cablecard that say had a dongle off it's rear like the old pcmcia modems of yesteryear. And that dongle thing could have had the transmitter parts built in. Since the cable card provides the channel map then the cable card could update the device as to the correct place to look for an sdv channel.

question there- does the host notify the cablecard "i want channel x" and then the cablecard replies "that's on 22-1". If so the host is asking for the channel, and so the card would know that it should transmit upstream to request the channel and get its current location and then tell the tv where to tune.

But if the cabelcard just downloads a whole channel map and hands that off to the tv so now the tv tunes on it's own then such a plan wouldn't work.

are there any provisions at all that the interaction between a host and a cablecard can be changed or is basically written in stone at this point?


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> or cable boxes for all my analog DVRs and TVs, plus drive upgrades for the secondary DVRs so they can handle the extra space per show
> No thanks - I like the SDV approach


I have news for you, they are going to switch to digital regardless of SDV.

The cable box thing may be a reality, they have very inexpensive low end analog to digital boxes that they are testing right now.

And they could give a crap about your DVR's....


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> the big reason is that I still use analog extensively while they get seperable security and 2 way worked out. MANY customer are still on analog.


The even bigger reason is that a pure digital CATV system is still limited to about 230 HD channels plus 120 or so SD channels. An SDV system can offer an unlimited number of channels - tens of thousands or more. It also can deliver those channels very economically, so expect it to become quite practical for your bowling league, church, or social club to have its own channel. Note also features like VOD absolutely require switched protocols. The differentiation between SDV and VOD is only in the minds of the subscribers - and of course the marketing of the CATV company. From the standpoint of the equipment, SDV is just a subset of VOD.



ZeoTiVo said:


> PS - the big thing in 2 way 3rd party devices is the cable companies business need to display their VOD/PPV in the way they want to. They need some screen interaction adn I think that is legitimate, myself. So just a bidirectional card in itself will not fix it all up.


'Not just display it, but make it work, period. Other 2-way services, such as online banking, videoconferencing, etc., all are quite practical with SDV, but it requires additional protocols be available to the host. Those facilities must be proviced by the CATV company based upon their billing system, interactive protocols, etc.

In the late 1970s, CATV companies began to expand their lineups, requiring STBs for televisions and VCRs to be able to receive the extra channels. Subscribers disliked having the extra box. In addition, previous to that time, most CATV systems had one or at most two premium channels. If the customer did not purchase some channels, a channel trap was inserted in the line at the pole, one for each channel not purchased, and the channels would thus not reach the subscriber. It worked (sort of), but it was clumsy, very insecure, and caused a number of technical and economic issues.

In response to the customers' preferences for not having an extra box on top of the set, TV manufacturers started producing "Cable-Ready" televisions which could tune the CATV channels in addition to the regular VHF and UHF OTA channels. People liked this solution.

In the mean time, however, the CATV companies were experimenting with other means of security which would allow them to deliver more premium channels without the pitfalls of channel traps. All of these, however, once again required an additional box (or several) inside the consumer's house. In the early 1980s, CATV systems began to deliver digitally encrypted signals to the house along with 2-way services. Logically, there was no reason these facilities could not be incorporated into a TV, getting back to the "Cable-Ready" idea. The problem was, there were a lot of different schemes used by different CATV companies, and of course the CATV companies all wanted the ability to upgrade or replace their security systems as new technology was developed, or if someone cracked their encryption schemes. The obvious answer was a small box which plugged into a universal slot in any receiver, allowing the CATV company to install their particular brand of encryption and yet still presenting the customer with only the one (TV) remote control, no extra wires, etc. In short: separable security.

That's all the CableCard is. Fundamentally it has nothing to do with SDV. SDV is entirely about the host, and technically speaking could be implemented without even having CableCards at all. CableCards are a requirement of separable security, not SDV. (That's a bit of an oversimplification, since in fact all the current implementations of SDV do make use of the OOB carrier whose information is taken up by the CableCard and forwarded to the host, and the CableCard does send some information to the host which is then relayed to the CATV headend.)


----------



## Rodhawaii (Dec 31, 2007)

Aloha from Kona Hawaii, on the Big Island. I just found out the Time Warner Cable company here gives LOGO (channel 542) to box users for free, but my cable card won't be allowed to recieve it. TWC's response: watch it on your other box (the one from us!).
When all they have to do, is program CC to allow this channel.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> no expert (like i believe you are?) and dont want to speak on his behalf- but i think JohnHb's point was they could have perhaps made a 2G cablecard that say had a dongle off it's rear like the old pcmcia modems of yesteryear.


The CableCard is a PCMCIA card, and yes, this would have been possible, but mechanically clumsy (in fact rather frail) and once again more expensive.



MichaelK said:


> And that dongle thing could have had the transmitter parts built in. Since the cable card provides the channel map then the cable card could update the device as to the correct place to look for an sdv channel.


No matter what, the tuners need to be in the host. For one thing, no TV manufacturer is going to want to make TVs (not low end ones, anyway) which cannot receive OTA signals, and once again consumers aren't thrilled with having to buy an external box for a monitor without tuners. For another, the number, type, and capability of tuners is something which needs to be implemented in the consumer device, not the separable security device. While admittedly incorporating a modulator in with the separable security device is possible and indeed would be more convenient in the short term, merging separable security with 2-way services is not the best solution.



MichaelK said:


> question there- does the host notify the cablecard "i want channel x" and then the cablecard replies "that's on 22-1".


No, because at that point in the conversation, it isn't established where the stream will be. The host sends a tuning request to the headend, which figures out where it can put the stream. It then replies to the host, telling it to select carrier xx-yy.



MichaelK said:


> If so the host is asking for the channel, and so the card would know that it should transmit upstream to request the channel and get its current location and then tell the tv where to tune.


The host asks for the channel, but the card doesn't know anything about it. Of course, if the modulator were part of the CableCard or attached to it, the host would then send the data packet to the card's electronics, but the handshaking has nothing to do with the CableCard per se at that point.



MichaelK said:


> But if the cabelcard just downloads a whole channel map and hands that off to the tv so now the tv tunes on it's own then such a plan wouldn't work.


I haven't looked at the details of the messages, but certainly the host can request the channel map from the CableCard, whether it gets it channel by channel or in one big map.



MichaelK said:


> are there any provisions at all that the interaction between a host and a cablecard can be changed or is basically written in stone at this point?


No, it's very flexible, but you have to be careful. If one changes the subscriber-side interface inappropriately, then the features of existing hosts will be broken, with no simple way to fix it. Tivo is an exception. Of course, it is "written in stone" in that a standard exists and has been ratified. Changing that is a matter of legislation, however, not hardware modifications. OTOH, part of the whole idea of separable security is the CATV company can make whatever changes it wants to the network-side protocols without disturbing the subscriber-side protocols, which it is intended won't change too much with time.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

thaks for the info


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

slude said:


> Watching a TV show during its scheduled timeslot was never supposed to require a bidirectional host.


True, and indeed that's a big part of the problem. It's still no excuse for not having developed a standard for bidirectional hosts. I'm not sure who first realized switched protocols could deliver vastly more throughput on the same hardware, but it's certainly not a new idea. Neither are interactive services such as VOD and IPPV. I can't exactly fault the standards committees for not realizing the CATV companies would want to put regularly scheduled content on switched carriers, but the decision to therefore ignore the technology was inexcusable. So in my opinion is the extent to which the CATV comanies' Big Brother mindset have impacted the proposed standards. They need to be able to protect themselves, but they should not have the level of control of the network-side protocols they are requiring.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

lrhorer said:


> The problem was, there were a lot of different schemes used by different CATV companies, and of course the CATV companies all wanted the ability to upgrade or replace their security systems as new technology was developed, or if someone cracked their encryption schemes. The obvious answer was a small box which plugged into a universal slot in any receiver, allowing the CATV company to install their particular brand of encryption and yet still presenting the customer with only the one (TV) remote control, no extra wires, etc. In short: separable security.


Which never happened for analog cable (in North America), that I know of. And there wasn't 2-way until late in analog cable's history.

A standard would have been easy though. It was for analog C-band satellite, in which the VideocipherII decoder board fit into the slot in a receiver or an enclosure to hook up with older receivers. Mind you, there were few competing consumer standards for VideocipherII, let alone those that fit a VCII slot.


----------



## CharlesH (Aug 29, 2002)

lrhorer said:


> I haven't looked at the details of the messages, but certainly the host can request the channel map from the CableCard, whether it gets it channel by channel or in one big map.


 From reading the tuning adapter spec, it seems that the host is to ignore the channel map from the cablecard, and take the one provided by the tuning adapter instead. Thus, the cable company can provide a map to the cable cards which does not include the SDV channels, but can include them in the one the tuning adapter reads off the cable and sends on to the host.


----------



## kd6icz (Jul 17, 2003)

I hate to ask this "dumb" question but what the hell is SDV? (in technical terms, not what the letters stand for)

I understand the basic QAM system. 135 channels @ 38 Mbps per channel. Ranging from 54 MHz to 864 MHz (6 MHz per channel).

So does this SDV change this scheme?


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

No. SDV allows better use of that spectrum, by placing some channels on the spectrum as called for, instead of all the time.
Why SDV is a problem is that Cablecard devices such as TiVo cannot tune those channels, as it has no means built in to call for them.


----------



## jefny (Feb 13, 2008)

Some months ago I had received a written notice from my cable company (Cablevision) that I should turn in my cablecards for their HD box because HD channels were going to be unavailable to me because of bandwith problems.

I filed a complaint to the FCC that Cablevision was reducing my service (less high def channels) because I was using cablecards with my TIVO HD. About 2 weeks ago I got a response from the FCC that they were investigating my complaint. Two days ago Cablevision called me in response to the FCC investigation into my complaint. They were attempting to explain their action which was to implement SDV because of their bandwith problem-which was considered a technological advance.

I told the CV rep that as far as I could see, they were threatening me with reduction in service without a reduction in their fees. They were tring to force me to switch from the cheaper cable cards to their more expensive HD box.

So far I have not lost any HD channels but when I do I will switch to Verizon FIOS.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

classicsat said:


> No. SDV allows better use of that spectrum, by placing some channels on the spectrum as called for, instead of all the time.
> Why SDV is a problem is that Cablecard devices such as TiVo cannot tune those channels, as it has no means built in to call for them.


Just to clarify, *unidirectional* CableCard devices like the TiVo cannot receive SDV. Any bidirectional CableCard device, such as the STBs and DVRs used by the CATV companies can of course tune SDV channels. It is the bidirectional capabilities of the host or lack thereof that makes a difference, not the CableCards or any type of CableCard.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

jefny said:


> Some months ago I had received a written notice from my cable company (Cablevision) that I should turn in my cablecards for their HD box because HD channels were going to be unavailable to me because of bandwith problems.


I wouldn't quite call it "problems".



jefny said:


> They were attempting to explain their action which was to implement SDV because of their bandwith problem-which was considered a technological advance.


You are missing the larger picture, as well as mis-characterizing the technology. In any network of any sort, switching allows for much greater bandwidth with the same underlying hardware. SDV will allow for tens of thousands of channels. No unswitched protocols ever can match that. SDV is uncategorically a huge technological advance. Like all progress, however, it doesn't come without some problems. You and others like you would do not only the rest of us but in fact yourselves a favor if you didn't go of half-cocked to regulatory authorities and complain about something which in the long run will benefit everyone. Instead, I would much better have appreciated it if you woud have taken the time to understand the situation and complain about the real culprit here, which is the FCC's refusal to step up and define a proper 2-way standard to be imposed on every system which can implement 2-way protocols, and one which did not unilaterally pander to the CATV companies' paranoia.



jefny said:


> So far I have not lost any HD channels but when I do I will switch to Verizon FIOS.


Who also will eventually have to switch to SDV or a similar switched protocol, or fail to compete with CATV systems with thousands or tens of thousands of channels. Right now FIOS enjoys an analog carrier free spectrum and the ability to switch some services at the customer premise, but long term it won't be enough, and with quality MPEG-2 compression FIOS is limited to about 260 HD channels.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

kd6icz said:


> I understand the basic QAM system. 135 channels @ 38 Mbps per channel. Ranging from 54 MHz to 864 MHz (6 MHz per channel).


Um, not quite. It's 135 or so QAM carriers, not channels. Each QAM carries some multiple number of channels. Most digital providers rate shape their SD streams to about 3.1 Mbps and their HD streams to 17.4 Mbps, allowing up to 12 SD streams, one HD stream and 6 SD streams, or two HD streams and one SD stream per QAM. If the QAM is not SDV, that's between 3 and 12 channels per QAM, or between 400 and 1600 channels for a fully digital 800MHz spectrum. Some CATV systems are reportedly "cheating" by rate shaping their HD signals to 11.6 Mbps in order to alow 3 HD channels per QAM. The results have reportedly been poor picture quality.


----------



## gastrof (Oct 31, 2003)

kd6icz said:


> I hate to ask this "dumb" question but what the hell is SDV? (in technical terms, not what the letters stand for)
> 
> I understand the basic QAM system. 135 channels @ 38 Mbps per channel. Ranging from 54 MHz to 864 MHz (6 MHz per channel).
> 
> So does this SDV change this scheme?


I'm no tech, but what it involves is the desire of cable companies to feed more channels than their lines have the capacity for.

They allocate a certain amount of "space" on the lines to certain channels they feel aren't as likely to be in constant demand. They then set things up so that these channels aren't fed into every neighborhood like the other channels are. They're only sent into a certain neighborhood if someone's cable box is tuned to one of those channels.

With only a second or two delay, the cable company's equipment senses there's a call for that channel, and it "switches" that channel into that neighborhood, and thus to the cable box of the person who tuned to that channel.

In the meantime, the next neighborhood over isn't having that channel sent to them at all, because nobody's "asked" for it.

As a result, they can offer more channels than their lines can carry, because not all the channels are being requested in any one neighborhood at any one time.

I'd love to see a bunch of neighbors get together, find out what channels fall into the "switched" catagory, and assign one channel each to a number of local families. At a set time, each family requests a different one of the "switched" channels. Be interesting to see how many of them can't get the channel they're trying to tune because the allocated space for the switched channels can't carry all of them at once.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

gastrof said:


> I'm no tech, but what it involves is the desire of cable companies to feed more channels than their lines have the capacity for.


As well as the capability to deliver services like Video On Demand, Video Rewind, and eventually hundreds of other interactive services such as video conferencing, election polling and voting, video banking, and unlimited other 2-way services.



gastrof said:


> They allocate a certain amount of "space" on the lines to certain channels they feel aren't as likely to be in constant demand.


It isn't a "feeling". Neilsen takes very careful measurements of the market share of every major channel, and the SDV equipment itself delivers utilization information to the cable operators. They *know* what viewer share every channel enjoys and can thus predict very well which channels will be delivered continuously to every node and which ones would not. Any which are not are good candidates for SDV. Any which are represent a waste of money to deliver via SDV, unless all the linear channel slots are already taken.



gastrof said:


> With only a second or two delay, the cable company's equipment senses there's a call for that channel, and it "switches" that channel into that neighborhood, and thus to the cable box of the person who tuned to that channel.


There's no need for quotes around the term, the video stream is switched using a digital video switcher, essentially identical in concept and operation - but not in protocols - to the switch most of the people in this forum have embedded in their broadband or DSL internet router.



gastrof said:


> I'd love to see a bunch of neighbors get together, find out what channels fall into the "switched" catagory, and assign one channel each to a number of local families. At a set time, each family requests a different one of the "switched" channels. Be interesting to see how many of them can't get the channel they're trying to tune because the allocated space for the switched channels can't carry all of them at once.


Unless you can gather together a large number of residents - probably 200 or 300, the answer is, "very few, if any". There aren't enough SDV HD channels offered on most systems to swamp the SDV pool at a node, and a significant fraction of the channels will already be requested by other residents. SD videos take very little bandwidth, and swamping the SDV pool with SD channels is a challenge, as well, in any properly designed CATV system. To be sure, it is possible to exceed the capability of any SDV system with requests, but it is more likely at the headend, where there may be tens of thousands of requests, rather than at a single node, where there can never be more than about 1000 - 1500 requests and a more realistic number is about 400 or so.


----------



## DeathRider (Dec 30, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> I wouldn't quite call it "problems".
> In any network of any sort, switching allows for much greater bandwidth with the same underlying hardware.


No. It allows better implementation/allocation of limited bandwidth. The bandwidth hasn't changed. Use of bandwidth has changed, by removing unnecessary use of it.



> SDV will allow for tens of thousands of channels. No unswitched protocols ever can match that. SDV is uncategorically a huge technological advance. Like all progress, however, it doesn't come without some problems. You and others like you would do not only the rest of us but in fact yourselves a favor if you didn't go of half-cocked to regulatory authorities and complain about something which in the long run will benefit everyone. Instead, I would much better have appreciated it if you would have taken the time to understand the situation and complain about the real culprit here, which is the FCC's refusal to step up and define a proper 2-way standard to be imposed on every system which can implement 2-way protocols, and one which did not unilaterally pander to the CATV companies' paranoia.


Yes, in the long run, SDV will allow better use of bandwidth allowing "tens of thousands" of channels. But why would I want "tens of thousands" of crap channels isstead of only a "few hundred" of decent channels I might actually may want to watch.

I myself will never watch any of those PPV channels available.

Maybe they should only have E85 available starting tomorrow. That may benefit us greatly in the long run (except maybe the higher cost of corn, feed, ect). I've been driving an E85 vehicle since 1998...

But don't we first need the infrastructure? Like more than just a handful of vehicles that are available - or should we all be forced to purchase an E85 vehicle?



> Who also will eventually have to switch to SDV or a similar switched protocol, or fail to compete with CATV systems with thousands or tens of thousands of channels. Right now FIOS enjoys an analog carrier free spectrum and the ability to switch some services at the customer premise, but long term it won't be enough, and with quality MPEG-2 compression FIOS is limited to about 260 HD channels.


By the time FIOS reaches it's cap, it will probably already have MPEG4 implemented - as well as TiVo) or whatever compression scheme is available by then...

How many good channels do you think there are in the world (including SD)?

Cable wants the bandwidth for other stuff, not just TV...


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

DeathRider said:


> No. It allows better implementation/allocation of limited bandwidth. The bandwidth hasn't changed. Use of bandwidth has changed, by removing unnecessary use of it.


Nope, sorry, but thanks for trying. The available bandwidth on a classically delivered CATV system is typically 700 - 950 MHz. If the entire CATV spectrum were dedicated to digital QAMs, an average CATV system might be able to deliver 4500 or so Mbps of digital programming, about 1400 SD channels, 116 HD and 700 SD channels, or 230 HD and 116 SD channels. Using SDV, a moderately large CATV company with 200 nodes can hypothetically deliver a total bandwidth of 900,000 Mbps and more than 23,000 HD channels plus 140,000 SD channels.

Although quite different in actual details, the classical CATV system is analogous to an Ethernet hub, while SDV is analogous to an Ethernet switch.

A 24 port 100Mbps Ethernet hub can deliver an absolute maximum total of 100Mbps. Ignoring the fact switches can support full duplex lines, which double the potential throughput, a quality 24 port Ethernet switch can support a maximum throughput of 2.4 Gbps. It's true each node in the CATV system is still limited to 4500 Mbps, just like each line on the Ethernet switch is limited to 100Mbps, but 4500 Mbps is plenty of bandwidth to support the viewing habits of 400 or so homes. It's true the bandwidth at the house doesn't change, but the total available bandwidth does most certainly go up by orders of magnitude.



DeathRider said:


> Yes, in the long run, SDV will allow better use of bandwidth allowing "tens of thousands" of channels. But why would I want "tens of thousands" of crap channels isstead of only a "few hundred" of decent channels I might actually may want to watch.


Oh, OK. Definitely the crappiest channels are CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, and ESPN and all the other sports channels. So you agree we can dump those to make way for decent programming?

The fact you think a channel is crap does not mean your neighbor does, and while I would be perfectly happy to see those channels dumped, I suspect others might disagree. What you, I, or anyone else considers worthwhile or not is not the point, however. Implementing SDV in no way means eliminating any channels, so it's not a choice of a few great channels versus a lot of bad channels, its a choice of a small number of great channels plus some lousy ones versus all the same great channels plus a lot more along with all the same lousy channels plus a lot more.

Secondly, it's not only about the number of broadcast channels. It's about a great deal more. Services such as VOD and Video Rewind require a separate video stream for each and every viewer. So 1000 of the channels may all be Survivor, and another 1000 may be NCIS, etc., each separated by a few seconds or so in time.



DeathRider said:


> I myself will never watch any of those PPV channels available.


Neither will I. I won't be watching CBS, NBC, ABC, or ESPN, either, but that doesn't mean a neighbor won't watch all of them.



DeathRider said:


> Maybe they should only have E85 available starting tomorrow. That may benefit us greatly in the long run (except maybe the higher cost of corn, feed, ect). I've been driving an E85 vehicle since 1998...
> 
> But don't we first need the infrastructure? Like more than just a handful of vehicles that are available - or should we all be forced to purchase an E85 vehicle?


You've lost me, completely. As far as infrastructure is concerned, they have it. They've implemented numbers of QAM moduators all over the country, and the CATV companies (and FIOS) have plenty of STBs and DVRs for the customers who desire them.



DeathRider said:


> By the time FIOS reaches it's cap, it will probably already have MPEG4 implemented - as well as TiVo) or whatever compression scheme is available by then...


Which is still nowhere what SDV can deliver, especially if the CATV companies convert to all digital carriers.



DeathRider said:


> How many good channels do you think there are in the world (including SD)?


At any one time in a largish metropolitan CATV system? Maybe 10,000 - 20,000, tops, give or take. Over the period of a day? Maybe a million or two.



DeathRider said:


> Cable wants the bandwidth for other stuff, not just TV...


Well, yes, but the bandwidth of the "other stuff" is trivial. Nothing, and I mean nothing, eats bandwidth like HD video. Mostly they want to deliver video, and with SDV, they can economically sell video hosting to small businesses, clubs, even individuals, and that content can be available to interested viewers any time, day or night. Your bowling league or dance club will easily be able to purchase their own channel. Each and every school will be able to deliver interactive tutoring over dedicated channels - one for History, one for Math, etc. High resolution video conferencing becomes possible and economical. As the number of channels soars into the tens of thousands, the cost of delivering each channel drops from thousands of dollars per hour, to perhaps dollars per hour.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

lrhorer said:


> I wouldn't quite call it "problems".
> 
> You are missing the larger picture, as well as mis-characterizing the technology. In any network of any sort, switching allows for much greater bandwidth with the same underlying hardware. SDV will allow for tens of thousands of channels. No unswitched protocols ever can match that. SDV is uncategorically a huge technological advance. Like all progress, however, it doesn't come without some problems. You and others like you would do not only the rest of us but in fact yourselves a favor if you didn't go of half-cocked to regulatory authorities and complain about something which in the long run will benefit everyone. Instead, I would much better have appreciated it if you woud have taken the time to understand the situation and complain about the real culprit here, which is the FCC's refusal to step up and define a proper 2-way standard to be imposed on every system which can implement 2-way protocols, and one which did not unilaterally pander to the CATV companies' paranoia.....


and how does one get the fcc to realize they need to act to create a 2-way standard if one doesn't complain to the fcc that there isn't a 2-way standard and its hurting actual people?

it's all differnet sides of the same problem. John Q public doesn't (in my humble opinion) need to be a nut like us and read through the 1996 telecom act, the current regulations, 3,000 pages of web posts to understand the history and all to know that the big picture is currently a problem. John Q buys a tivo for several hundred bucks. Pays an extra 13 a month to tivo becasue he wants to use it. And then cable says you can't use it as much as he used to be able to before becasue they are taking away channels he used to get.

Granted it's more complex- but again do you really expect everyone to read up and learn like those of us here have? That's not realistic. People buy a box for money, expect it to work, and want to watch something from the box with a beer in their hand at night after a long day's work.

No matter how you describe it (the fcc's lack of action- of cable "breaking" things)- it's really the same problem.

People complaining to the FCC about Cable being the culprit at least might prompt the FCC to mandate a standard. It also might get them to enforce some reasonable protections for the tiny percentatage of cable customers that are in fact damaged by this. Something like prorating for channels you can't recieve or giving free cable company boxes until it's resolved without additonal outlet fees for anyone with a unidirectional device that is effected. it's shamefull to me that TWC and Cablevision dont at least credit these poor folks the prorated amounts for the channels they can't get- what would that cost them- 35 cents a customer that has the issue- times what 10,000 subs maybe effected? It's chicken feed to at least try to be fair.

So I commend the OP for taking the time to file a complaint. Thank you.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

lrhorer said:


> Neither will I. I won't be watching CBS, NBC, ABC, or ESPN, either, but that doesn't mean a neighbor won't watch all of them.


simply though - there is the downfall of SDV - it only helps if there are channels that are not being asked for. So putting ABC on SDV would be pointless since it is a sure bet someone is most likely watching it most of the hours of the day. I might help PPV or VOD or the hundreds of music channels but if people here are complaining about channels they would wtach but can not - then how would SDV help on regular cable equipment since they would be watching and the channel would have to going down the pipeline anyway.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> simply though - there is the downfall of SDV - it only helps if there are channels that are not being asked for.


Oh, there are always plenty of those. If we have a system with 100 channels, then it is not possible for every channel in the lineup to have more than a 1% utilization. Indeed, since ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox all have greater than 10% market share, the remaining 96 channels are sharing at most a 60% utilization, and since channels like ESPN, HBO, Showtime, etc enjoy greater than a 1% market share, the pool is narrowed even more. Something over 90% of viewers will always be watching a pool of fewer than 50 channels, leaving the remaining 10% to watch watever else they like. Even with only 50 channels, a small enough node dictribution will still pretty much guarantee every person on the node can watch what they like. In the ral world, the channel pool is over 200, even for systems with close to 100 analog channels, and with no more than 400 subscribers per node, a system can still easily serve several hundred channels. Once most of the channels have been converted to digital, then adding more channels merely means reducing the number of subs covered by a single node.



ZeoTiVo said:


> So putting ABC on SDV would be pointless since it is a sure bet someone is most likely watching it most of the hours of the day.


'Not quite. In San Antonio, for example, any subscriber can pause and rewind any "live" video whether they have a DVR or not. The main feed may be on a linear channel, but as soon as the customer presses the <Pause> or <Rewind> button on their STB remote, the system spawns a new "channel" just for that person so they can rewind and fast-forward to their heart's content. Of course if the person has a DVR, then this is handled by the DVR, but the CTV company offers this for all subscribers with STBs, as well.



ZeoTiVo said:


> I might help PPV or VOD or the hundreds of music channels but if people here are complaining about channels they would wtach but can not - then how would SDV help on regular cable equipment since they would be watching and the channel would have to going down the pipeline anyway.


The top perhaps 24 or 30 channels are in the near term anyway going to be carried on linear QAMs, it's true. I wasn't suggesting they should put ABC, CBS, NBC, or Fox on SDV channels. I was just making a point.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> and how does one get the fcc to realize they need to act to create a 2-way standard if one doesn't complain to the fcc that there isn't a 2-way standard and its hurting actual people?


They should. It's a very different thing, however, to say, "Fix the issues that are presenting us from getting 2-way services on 3rd party equipment", than to say, "Make the CATV companies stop deployment of SDV".



MichaelK said:


> it's all differnet sides of the same problem. John Q public doesn't (in my humble opinion) need to be a nut like us and read through the 1996 telecom act, the current regulations, 3,000 pages of web posts to understand the history and all to know that the big picture is currently a problem.


No, of course not, but they do need to realize taht SDV has huge benefits both for the CATV companies and for most other subscribers and seek to get the authorities to resolve the issue, rather than attempt to get them to negatively impact everyone's services.



MichaelK said:


> John Q buys a tivo for several hundred bucks. Pays an extra 13 a month to tivo becasue he wants to use it. And then cable says you can't use it as much as he used to be able to before becasue they are taking away channels he used to get.


Yes, but Joe, Bill, Ted, Al, Tom, Fred, Scott, Mike, Carl, Ben, George, and Richard don't have TiVos, and aren't missing anything.



MichaelK said:


> Granted it's more complex


It's not just the complexity. It's the fact that asking the FCC to take the wrong steps isn't going to help.



MichaelK said:


> People complaining to the FCC about Cable being the culprit at least might prompt the FCC to mandate a standard.


Unlikley, especially since ity supplies the FCC with a ready-made scapegoat.



MichaelK said:


> So I commend the OP for taking the time to file a complaint. Thank you.


I commend them for taking the time, but I am despairing of the fact they filed the wrong complaint.


----------



## skylab (Jul 26, 2007)

MichaelK said:


> So I commend the OP for taking the time to file a complaint. Thank you.


Thanks MichaelK. I've been away from the boards for the past couple of months. I have, however, been following the actions that the FCC has taken recently regarding the use and deployment of SDV. I think it is safe to say that our complaints have made a difference.

There were many on this board who doubted us. Those individuals and I had fundamental disagreements on the application of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to the use of SDV and the ultimate legality of moving linear channels to SDV. At this point, the FCC has made abundently clear that moving linear programming to SDV is a violation of the law and its regulations. The rule of law is prevailing.

The good news for end users is that many cable companies who have considered moving to SDV have decided against because of the FCC's recent actions. Recently, TWC added a number of new HD channels in my area -- and those channels aren't on SDV even though they were originally announced as SDV channels.


----------



## spolebitski (Mar 30, 2006)

How do you make a complaint with the FCC. I went to the website but couldn't find a link to this issue. In addition I found a section to write a complaint but the categories did not seem to fit.

Do I need to write a snail mail letter (to whom and where)?


----------



## vstone (May 11, 2002)

There is an online form at the FCC's website. When I used it, it took them ten months to write back and tell me that my complaint was an FTC issue. Other folk may have had beeter luck, but the FCC will likely respond fater to a letter forwarded via your congressman.


----------



## milo99 (Oct 14, 2002)

spolebitski said:


> How do you make a complaint with the FCC. I went to the website but couldn't find a link to this issue. In addition I found a section to write a complaint but the categories did not seem to fit.
> 
> Do I need to write a snail mail letter (to whom and where)?


if you're in the Northern VA area, check out the other thread here: http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=408897

complaining to Fairfax County has apparently done some good for us. (see post #30 for where to complain to FFX Co.) Cox has promised a TA before 12/11 for us.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

I'd like know, and hold out the unlikely hope, that SDV stops the cableco from overcompressing the signal. I'm getting pixelation and skips once in a while that reboot apparently fixed, but I was at a restaurant showing Twister (in SD!) where even moderately fast scenes tore up on the screen.

There's not a whole of point of investing in HDTVs capable 1080p, 120Hz and 24FPS when the artifacts in the signal going in are obvious.


----------

